Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Process-scale disruption of microorganisms.

A P Middelberg1

  • 1Co-operative Research Centre for Tissue Growth and Repair, Department of Chemical Engineering, The University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.

Biotechnology Advances
|January 1, 1995
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Control of fed-batch fermentations.

Biotechnology advances·2003
Same author

Selective precipitation of DNA by spermine during the chemical extraction of insoluble cytoplasmic protein.

Biotechnology progress·2001
Same author

Direct chemical extraction of a recombinant viral coat protein from Escherichia coli at high cell density.

Biotechnology and bioengineering·2001
Same author

Measuring the interaction forces between protein inclusion bodies and an air bubble using an atomic force microscope.

Biotechnology progress·2001
Same author

Physicochemical characteristics of LR3-IGF1 protein inclusion bodies: electrophoretic mobility studies.

Biotechnology progress·2001
Same author

Metabolic and kinetic analysis of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) production by recombinant Escherichia coli.

Biotechnology and bioengineering·2001
Same journal

Advancing synthetic biology with engineered chemically inducible gene regulatory systems.

Biotechnology advances·2026
Same journal

Technology-driven revolution in CO<sub>2</sub> fixation: From natural pathways to programmable Biosystems.

Biotechnology advances·2026
Same journal

Enzymes for CO<sub>2</sub> fixation: Discovery, engineering, and applications.

Biotechnology advances·2026
Same journal

Technological advances in extrachromosomal circular DNA detection.

Biotechnology advances·2026
Same journal

Codon compression and novel codon creation for multiplex non-canonical amino acid incorporation.

Biotechnology advances·2026
Same journal

Toward next-generation biosurfactants: Engineering rhamnolipid production from safe chassis design to scalable bioprocessing.

Biotechnology advances·2026
See all related articles

Effective cell disruption methods are crucial for large-scale biological product manufacturing using hosts like Escherichia coli. Mechanical methods are common, but gentler, combined techniques and integrated recovery offer promising alternatives.

Area of Science:

  • Biotechnology
  • Bioprocess Engineering
  • Cell Biology

Background:

  • Large-scale biological product manufacturing often utilizes microbial hosts such as Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
  • These host organisms typically do not secrete products extracellularly, necessitating efficient cell disruption for product recovery.
  • Effective cell disruption is a critical bottleneck in the bioprocess.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review and discuss various cell disruption techniques applicable to large-scale bioproduct manufacturing.
  • To highlight the advantages and considerations of different methods, including mechanical, chemical, and enzymatic approaches.
  • To emphasize the potential of gentler, combined methods and integrated product release and recovery strategies.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Overview of physical methods: bead milling, high-pressure homogenization, and microfluidization.
  • Discussion of chemical and enzymatic lysis techniques.
  • Exploration of synergistic combinations of different disruption methods.
  • Consideration of integrating cell disruption with downstream processing units.

    • Main Results:

    • Mechanical methods are currently preferred for large-scale cell disruption due to their efficiency.
    • Gentler, specific methods, especially when used in combination, are gaining attention for improved product yield and quality.
    • Integrating product release with recovery steps can enhance overall process efficiency.
    • Careful consideration of the interaction between disruption and downstream processes is essential for cost-effectiveness.

    Conclusions:

    • The choice of cell disruption method significantly impacts the efficiency and cost of biological product manufacturing.
    • A combination of gentler, specific techniques alongside optimized mechanical methods offers a promising avenue for future bioprocess development.
    • Integrating cell disruption with downstream processing and demonstrating cost benefits are critical for successful industrial application.