Dataset Information

A combination of HPLC and automated data analysis for monitoring the efficiency of high-pressure homogenization.

ABSTRACT: Cell disruption is a key unit operation to make valuable, intracellular target products accessible for further downstream unit operations. Independent of the applied cell disruption method, each cell disruption process must be evaluated with respect to disruption efficiency and potential product loss. Current state-of-the-art methods, like measuring the total amount of released protein and plating-out assays, are usually time-delayed and involve manual intervention making them error-prone. An automated method to monitor cell disruption efficiency at-line is not available to date.In the current study we implemented a methodology, which we had originally developed to monitor E. coli cell integrity during bioreactor cultivations, to automatically monitor and evaluate cell disruption of a recombinant E. coli strain by high-pressure homogenization. We compared our tool with a library of state-of-the-art methods, analyzed the effect of freezing the biomass before high-pressure homogenization and finally investigated this unit operation in more detail by a multivariate approach.A combination of HPLC and automated data analysis describes a valuable, novel tool to monitor and evaluate cell disruption processes. Our methodology, which can be used both in upstream (USP) and downstream processing (DSP), describes a valuable tool to evaluate cell disruption processes as it can be implemented at-line, gives results within minutes after sampling and does not need manual intervention.

SUBMITTER: Eggenreich B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5540504 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHypertension is a leading cause of cardiovascular and kidney disease in the United States, yet blood pressure (BP) control at a population level is poor and worsening. Systematic home BP monitoring (HBPM) programs can lower BP, but programs supporting HBPM are not routinely used. The MyBP program deploys automated bidirectional text messaging for HBPM and disease self-management support.ObjectiveWe aim to produce a qualitative analysis of input from providers and staff regarding implementation of an innovative HBPM program in primary care practices.MethodsSemistructured interviews (average length 31 minutes) were conducted with physicians (n=11), nurses, and medical assistants (n=6) from primary care settings. The interview assessed multiple constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains of intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and characteristics of individuals. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using inductive coding to organize meaningful excerpts and identify salient themes, followed by mapping to the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs.ResultsHealth care providers reported that MyBP has good ease of use and was likely to engage patients in managing their high BP. They also felt that it would directly support systematic BP monitoring and habit formation in the convenience of the patient's home. This could increase health literacy and generate concrete feedback to raise the day-to-day salience of BP control. Providers expressed concern that the cost of BP devices remains an encumbrance. Some patients were felt to have overriding social or emotional barriers, or lack the needed technical skills to interact with the program, use good measurement technique, and input readings accurately. With respect to effects on their medical practice, providers felt MyBP would improve the accuracy and frequency of HBPM data, and thereby improve diagnosis and treatment management. The program may positively affect the patient-provider relationship by increasing rapport and bidirectional accountability. Providers appreciated receiving aggregated HBPM data to increase their own efficiency but also expressed concern about timely routing of incoming HBPM reports, lack of true integration with the electronic health record, and the need for a dedicated and trained staff member.ConclusionsIn this qualitative analysis, health care providers perceived strong relative advantages of using MyBP to support patients. The identified barriers suggest the need for corrective implementation strategies to support providers in adopting the program into routine primary care practice, such as integration into the workflow and provider education.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03650166; https://tinyurl.com/bduwn6r4.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the impact of olmesartan alone or combined with one to three antihypertensive drugs on 24-h blood pressure variability (BPV) and on distribution of BP reduction in a pooled individual data analysis of 10 double-blind, randomized, ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) studies. METHODS:ABPMs were performed before and after 6-12 weeks of treatment with placebo (n = 119), active control monotherapy [n = 1195, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DCCBs)] olmesartan monotherapy (n = 1410), active control dual combination [n = 79, DCCB + thiazide diuretic (TD)], olmesartan dual combination (n = 637, DCCB or TD), and triple combination therapy (n = 102, DCCB+TD). 24-h BPV was calculated as unweighted or weighted SD of the mean BP, and average real variability. BP control was assessed by smoothness index and treatment-on-variability index. RESULTS:The greatest effect on 24-h systolic BPV/diastolic BPV was observed under olmesartan triple [-2.6/-1.9; -1.9/-1.3; -1.4/-1.3 mmHg] and active control dual combination [-1.8/-1.4; -1.9/-1.5; -1.2/-1.1 mmHg]. Smoothness indexes and treatment-on-variability indexes were significantly (P = 0.0001) higher under olmesartan dual (1.53/1.22, 1.67/1.29, 2.05/1.59), olmesartan triple (2.47/1.85, 2.80/2.06, 3.64/2.67), or active control dual combination (1.70/1.26, 1.85/1.33, 2.29/1.65) than under monotherapies (control: 0.86/0.73, 0.80/0.65, 1.01/0.82; olmesartan: 1.02/0.86, 0.95/0.78, 1.23/1.00). They were also greater in patients receiving high-dose olmesartan monotherapy or high-dose olmesartan dual combination than in the corresponding low-dose group. CONCLUSION:Olmesartan plus a DCCB and/or a TD produces a larger, more sustained, and smoother BP reduction than placebo and monotherapies, a desirable feature for a more effective prevention of the cardiovascular consequences of uncontrolled hypertension.

Dataset Information

A combination of HPLC and automated data analysis for monitoring the efficiency of high-pressure homogenization.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets