Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cytotechnology logoLink to Cytotechnology
. 2001 Sep;37(1):1–12. doi: 10.1023/A:1016196220750

Attachment characteristics of normal human cells and virus-infected cells on microcarriers

Bok-Hwan Chun 1, Soo-Il Chung 2,✉
PMCID: PMC3449971  PMID: 19002909

Abstract

The attachment kinetics of normal and virus-infected LuMA cells were studied to improve the production of live attenuated varicella viruses in human embryonic lung (LuMA) cells. Normal LuMA cells and LuMA cells infected by varicella virus at various cytopathic effects (CPE) were grown on microcarriers. Ninety-three percent of suspended LuMA cells attached to the solid surface microcarriers within fifteen minutes and cell viability was greater than 95% when the cell suspension was stirred. Low serum levels did not affect the attachment rate of virus-infected cells in the microcarrier culture system. Kinetic studies showed that varicella infected cells had a lower attachment rate than normal LuMA cells. Virus inoculum (= infected cells) at low CPE showed a relatively better attachment rate on cell-laden microcarriers than virus inoculum at a higher CPE. Maximum titers were obtained at 2 days post-infection. Based on cell densities, the use of viral inoculum showing a 40% CPE led to an approximately 2- and 1.2-fold increase in the cell associated and in cell free viruses, respectively, than a virus inoculum with a CPE of 10%.However, the ratio of cell-free to cell-associated virus in a microcarrier culture was very low, approximately0.04–0.06. These studies demonstrate that the virus inoculum resulting in a high CPE yielded a high production of cell-associated and cell-free virus in microcarrier cultures because of the high cellular affinity of the varicella virus.

Keywords: attachment rate, cytopathic effect, human embryonic lung cell, microcarrier culture, virus-infected cell

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (139.9 KB).

References

  1. Chun BH, Park SY, Moon HM. Production of live attenuated varicella-zoster virus in human embryonic lung cells using microcarrier. Biotechnol Techniques. 1996;10:151–157. doi: 10.1007/BF00158937. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Clark JM, Hirtenstein MD. Optimizing culture conditions for the production of animal cells in microcarrier culture. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1981;369:330–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb14175.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Clark JM, Hirtenstein MD, Gebb C. Critical parameters in the microcarrier culture of animal cells. Dev Biol Stand. 1980;46:117–124. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Forestell SP, Kalogerakis N, Behie LA. Low-serum medium development for human diploid fibroblast microcarrier culture. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 1992;38:165–172. doi: 10.1007/BF00174462. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Griffiths B, Thornton B. Use of microcarrier culture for the production of herpes simplex virus (type 2) in LUMA cells. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 1982;32:324–329. doi: 10.1002/jctb.5030320137. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Himes VB, Hu WS. Serial propagation of mammalian cells on gelatin-coated microcarriers. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1988;32:1037–1052. doi: 10.1002/bit.260320811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hu WS, Peshwa MV. Animal cell bioreactors - recent advances and challenges to scale-up. Can J Chem Eng. 1991;69:409–420. doi: 10.1002/cjce.5450690203. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Levine DW, Wang DIC, Thilly WG. Optimization of growth surface parameters in microcarrier culture. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1979;21:821–845. doi: 10.1002/bit.260210507. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lim HS, Han BK, Kim JH. Spartial distribution of mammalian cells grown on macroporous microcarriers with improved attachment kinetics. Biotechnol Prog. 1992;8:486–493. doi: 10.1021/bp00018a003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Morandi M, Valeri A. Continuous dialysis of cultures of human diploid cells (LUMA) grown on microcarriers. Biotechnol Lett. 1982;4:465–468. doi: 10.1007/BF01134596. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Nahapetian AT (1986) In: Thilly WG (ed) Mammalian Cell Technology, Butterworth, Stoneham (pp. 151–165).
  12. Nikolai TJ, Hu WS. Cultivation of mammalian cells on macroporous microcarriers. Enzyme Microb Technol. 1992;14:203–208. doi: 10.1016/0141-0229(92)90067-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Nilsson K. Microcarrier cell culture. Biotech Genet Eng Rev. 1989;6:403. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Pharmacia (1981) Microcarrier cell culture: Principles and methods. Uppsala.
  15. Pharmacia (1991) Microcarrier cell culture: Scale-up, methods. Uppsala.
  16. Suzuki M and Sakai Y (1992) Effect of protein adsorption on cell attachment on solid surfaces. In: Murakami H et al. (eds) Animal Cell Technology: Basic and Applied Aspects (pp. 71–76), Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  17. Van Wezel AL. Growth of cell strains and primary cells on microcarrier in homogeneous culture. Nature. 1967;216:64–65. doi: 10.1038/216064a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cytotechnology are provided here courtesy of Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

RESOURCES