Hopkins T R
Phillips Petroleum Company, Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
Bioprocess Technol. 1991;12:57-83.
There are many ways to disrupt microorganisms and plant and animal tissue. Selecting the best cell disruption method depends on the factors listed in Table 6. The kind or type of cells is an important consideration. For example, some disruption methods which work well for animal tissue do not work at all for microorganisms. A guideline for the suitabiity of a given disruption method for some cell types is given in Table 7. The ratings in this table are not incontestable and, as mentioned earlier, combinations of methods can sometimes produce satisfactory results whereas one method alone fails. The disruptibility of cells can be influenced by their growth and storage history. For microorganisms, cells in log phase growth tend to produce thinner cell walls which are more easy to disrupt. This and other conditions which can influence microbial cell disruptiability are listed in Table 8. The cell disruption method selected will depend on its capability to process samples of a certain size or to be able to process multiple samples in a reasonable period of time. Other considerations are the availability, cost, and general utility of the disruption equipment. Thus, in a research environment the purchase of an expensive cell disrupter which processes a wide variety of cell types may be more easy to justify than a specialized disrupter. And if the long-term goal is to scale up, the choice of disruption methods narrow considerably. Indeed, several of the most successful laboratory cell disruption methods have no possibility of being scaled up. Despite possible scale-up difficulties, in the case of many bioactive recombinant products expressed at high levels in microorganisms, this concern may be irrelevant. Few of these products are likely to be manufactured in really large amounts and current laboratory scale or pilot plant scale production equipment may be entirely adequate. For instance, active human TNF (tissue necrosis factor) can be expressed in Pichia pastoris yeast at levels of 100 g/kg of yeast (dry weight). At this level of expression, only a few kilograms of r-DNA yeast needs be disrupted to meet the worldwide demand for this research material. Finally, the operating and energy requirements which affect the economics of the disruption process (batch versus continuous, disruption yield, cell fragment size, effect of added enzymes on downstream separation, etc.) are important considerations in the selection of production equipment.
破坏微生物以及动植物组织的方法有很多。选择最佳的细胞破碎方法取决于表6中列出的因素。细胞的种类是一个重要的考虑因素。例如,一些对动物组织有效的破碎方法对微生物完全不起作用。表7给出了特定破碎方法对某些细胞类型适用性的指导原则。该表中的评级并非无可争议,如前所述,方法的组合有时能产生令人满意的结果,而单独一种方法却可能失败。细胞的可破碎性会受到其生长和储存历史的影响。对于微生物而言,对数期生长的细胞往往会产生更薄的细胞壁,更容易被破坏。表8列出了这一点以及其他可能影响微生物细胞可破碎性的条件。所选择的细胞破碎方法将取决于其处理一定大小样品的能力,或者在合理时间内处理多个样品的能力。其他需要考虑的因素包括破碎设备的可用性、成本和通用性。因此,在研究环境中,购买一台能处理多种细胞类型的昂贵细胞破碎仪可能比购买一台专门的破碎仪更容易说得过去。而且,如果长期目标是扩大规模,破碎方法的选择范围就会大大缩小。实际上,一些最成功的实验室细胞破碎方法根本无法扩大规模。尽管可能存在扩大规模的困难,但对于许多在微生物中高水平表达的生物活性重组产品来说,这个问题可能并不相关。这些产品中很少有需要大量生产的,目前的实验室规模或中试规模生产设备可能就完全足够了。例如,活性人肿瘤坏死因子(TNF)可以在巴斯德毕赤酵母中以每千克酵母(干重)100克的水平表达。在这个表达水平下,只需破碎几千克的重组DNA酵母就能满足全球对这种研究材料的需求。最后,影响破碎过程经济性的操作和能量需求(分批与连续、破碎产率、细胞碎片大小、添加的酶对下游分离的影响等)是选择生产设备时的重要考虑因素。