Chemistry: molecular biology and microbiology – Animal cell – per se ; composition thereof; process of... – Method of culturing cells in suspension
Reexamination Certificate
1999-02-08
2002-05-21
Redding, David A. (Department: 1744)
Chemistry: molecular biology and microbiology
Animal cell, per se ; composition thereof; process of...
Method of culturing cells in suspension
C435S289100, C435S292100, C435S296100, C435S304100
Reexamination Certificate
active
06391638
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to devices for axenically culturing and harvesting cells and/or tissues, including bioreactors and fermentors. In particular this invention relates to such devices which are disposable but which nevertheless may be used continuously for a plurality of consecutive culturing/harvesting cycles prior to disposal of same. This invention also relates to batteries of such devices which may be used for large-scale production of cells and tissues.
BACKGROUND
Cell and tissue culture techniques have been available for many years and are well known in the art. The prospect of using such culturing techniques economically is for the extraction of secondary metabolites, such as pharmaceutically active compounds, various substances to be used in cosmetics, hormones, enzymes, proteins, antigens, food additives and natural pesticides, from a harvest of the cultured cells or tissues. While potentially lucrative, this prospect has nevertheless not effectively crystallised with industrial scale bioreactors which use slow growing plant and animal cultures because of the high capital costs involved.
Prior art technology for the production of cell and/or tissue culture at industrial scale, to be used for the production of such materials, is based on glass bioreactors and stainless steel bioreactors, which are expensive capital items. Furthermore, these types of industrial bioreactors comprise complicated and expensive mixing technologies such as impellers powered through expensive and complicated sterile seals; some expensive fermentors comprise an airlift multipart construction. Successful operation of these bioreactors often require the implementation of aeration technologies which constantly need to be improved. In addition, such bioreactors are sized according to the peak volume capacity that is required at the time. Thus, problems arise when scaling up from pilot plant fermentors to large scale fermentors, or when the need arises to increase production beyond the capacity of existing bioreactors. The alternative to a large-capacity bioreactor, namely to provide a number of smaller glass or stainless steel bioreactors whose total volume capacity matches requirements, while offering a degree of flexibility for increasing or reducing overall capacity, is nevertheless much more expensive than the provision of a single larger bioreactor. Furthermore, running costs associated with most glass and stainless steel bioreactors are also high, due to low yields coupled to the need for sterilising the bioreactors after every culturing cycle. Consequently, the products extracted from cells or tissues grown in such bioreactors are expensive, and cannot at present compete commercially with comparable products produced with alternative techniques. In fact, only one Japanese company is known to use the aforementioned cell/tissue culture technique commercially, using stainless steel bioreactors. This company produces Shikonin, a compound which is used almost exclusively in Japan. Industrial scale, and even large scale, bioreactor devices are traditionally permanent or semi-permanent components, and no disclosure nor suggestion of the concept of a disposable bioreactor device for solving the aforementioned problems regarding large scale cell/tissue culture production is known of. On the contrary, disposable fermentors and bioreactor devices are well known and exclusively directed to very small scale production volumes, such as in home brewing and for laboratory work. These bioreactor devices generally comprise a disposable bag which is typically cut open in order to harvest the cell/tissue yield, thus destroying any further usefulness of the bag. One such known disposable bioreactor is produced by Osmotec, Israel, (Agritech Israel, issue No. 11, Fall 1997, page 19) for small-scale use such as in laboratory research. This bioreactor comprises a conical bag having an inlet through which culture medium, air, inoculant and other optional additives may be introduced, and has a volume of only about 1.5 liters. Aeration is performed by introducing very small air bubbles which in many cases results in damage to cells, particularly in the case of plant cell cultures. In particular, these bags are specifically designed for a single culture/harvest cycle only, and the bag contents are removed by cutting off the bottom of the bag. These bags are therefore not directed towards an economical solution to the question of providing industrial quantities of the materials to be extracted from the culture, as discussed above.
The term “disposable” in the present application means that the devices (bags, bioreactors etc.) are designed to be thrown away after use with only negligible loss. Thus devices made from stainless steel, glass and even some types of rigid plastics are necessarily expensive devices and do not constitute a negligible loss for the operator of such devices. On the other hand, devices made from flexible cheap plastics, for example, are relatively inexpensive and may therefore be, and are, disposed of after use with negligible economic loss. Thus, the disposability of these bioreactor devices does not generally present an economic disadvantage to the user, since even the low capital costs of these items is offset against ease of use, storage and other practical considerations. In fact, at the low production levels that these devices are directed, such is the economy of the devices that there is no motivation to increase the complexity of the device or its operation for the sake of enabling such a device to be used continuously for more than one culturing/harvesting cycle.
Further, sterile conditions outside the disposable bioreactor devices are neither needed nor possible in many cases, and thus once opened to extract the harvestable yield, it is neither cost-effective, practical nor often possible to maintain the opening sterile, leading to contamination of the bag and whatever contents may remain inside. Thus, these disposable devices have no further use after one culturing cycle.
Disposable bioreactor devices are thus relatively inexpensive for the quantities and production volumes which are typically required by non-industrial-scale users, and are relatively easy to use by non-professional personnel. In fact it is this aspect of simplicity of use and low economic cost, which is related to the low production volumes of the disposable devices, that is a major attraction of disposable bioreactor devices. Thus, the prior art disposable bioreactor devices have very little in common with industrial scale bioreactors—structurally, operationally or in the economics of scale—and in fact teach away from providing a solution to the problems associated with industrial scale bioreactors, rather than in any way disclose or suggest such a solution.
The present invention therefore represents a revolutionary solution to the aforementioned problems, providing a disposable bioreactor device for the large scale production of cell/tissue cultures. The device of the present invention, while essentially disposable, is characterised in comprising a reusable harvesting outlet for enabling harvesting of at least a portion of the medium containing cells and/or tissue when desired, thereby enabling the device to be used continuously for one or more subsequent consecutive culturing/harvesting cycles. In an industrial environment, sterility of the harvesting outlet during and after harvesting may be assured to a significantly high degree at relatively low cost, by providing, for example, a sterile hood in which all the necessary connections and disconnections of services to and from the device may be performed. When eventually the device does become contaminated it may then be disposed of with relatively little economic loss. Such devices may be cheaply manufactured, even for production volumes of 50 liters or more of culture. Further, the ability to perform a number of culturing/harvesting cycles is economically lucrative, lowering even further the effective cost per device. A battery of s
Metabogal, Ltd.
Redding David A.
LandOfFree
Cell/tissue culturing device and method does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Cell/tissue culturing device and method, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Cell/tissue culturing device and method will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2841342