$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The introduced protocol was applied for maximizing the titer of secreted GFP. Specifically, the GFP titer after 17 h of cultivation was chosen as the optimization objective. Online fluorescence detection of GFP allowed simple product quantification. However, the normalization of GFP signal with data from a reference cultivation is indispensable to ensure reproducibility and comparability of results. A pre-selection of media components was performed on a rational basis as described in Section 1. Experiments were performed following the instructions of Section 1: the parameters of the wet lab procedures were defined for the whole study ensuring consistency and reproducibility of results.
As described in Section 2, an initial screening was performed for identifying relevant components showing a significant impact on the optimization objective for the further, more detailed study. The MTP-based MBR system allows 48 experiments to be performed in parallel. Taking into account the maximal possible number of parallel experiments on one MTP (48) and the total number of media components (11) makes the 2IV11-6 fractional design an appropriate choice. This experimental design comprises 32 experiments and allows the estimation of the main effect for each of the investigated media components. The remaining cultivation wells (16) were used for multiple replicates of experiments with the reference medium to assess reproducibility and positional effects. That is, each experiment is conducted once (no replicates), except of the reference experiment (five replicates).
Table 1 summarizes the results of the screening analysis. In the considered concentration range, varying the majority of the media components did not show a noticeable effect on the objective. Component NH4+ shows a strong negative effect, while Ca2+ and Mg2+ show the strongest positive tendency. The effect of Mg2+ is not significant for the current concentration range but might be for a broader concentration range. Consequently, it was decided to omit NH4+ from the medium and to investigate the effect of Ca2+ and Mg2+ in further experiments.
Section 3 describes the iterative optimization procedure that is used for maximizing the GFP fluorescence signal while varying the concentrations of Ca2+ and Mg2+. In iteration 1, the hypothesis that NH4+ can be omitted was tested. The concentration range for Ca2+ and Mg2+ was adopted from the screening analysis. The minimum concentration of NH4+ was set to zero and the maximum concentration was adopted from the screening experiment. In the following experiments, the component concentrations were distributed over a 3 x 3 x 3 grid inside the defined concentration range, resulting in 27 experiments. During all cultivations, five replicates of reference medium were included, which served as internal standard and to ensure that no positional effects over the MTP occurred. For the remaining 16 wells, the concentrations of NH4+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ were randomly distributed inside the given ranges.
Figure 5A visualizes the results of the first iterations. Axis labels refer to the component concentrations used in the original reference medium, indicated by x Ref. The blue surfaces represent the Kriging interpolations that were calculated using the KriKit software. Each surface is associated with a relative concentration level for NH4+ (dark blue: 0 x Ref, checkered: 1 x Ref, light blue: 2 x Ref). This visual representation reveals that it is favorable to omit NH4+. Interpolation surfaces also show the positive effects of both Mg2+ and Ca2+, as all planes rise with increasing concentrations.
Based on the results of iteration 1, it was decided to expand the concentration range of Ca2+ and Mg2+ by doubling the maximum concentrations and shifting the experimental design window to the upper right corner, see Figure 5B. Inside this range, the concentrations were distributed on a 6 x 6 grid. This ensures an even distribution over the full concentration range, leading to optimal Kriging interpolation results. Figure 5B shows the Kriging interpolation plot based on the combined data measured in both iterations (red dots and yellow squares). For both, Ca2+ and Mg2+, the positive effect of increasing their concentrations continues. Consequently, the procedure was repeated by doubling the maximum concentration and thus, the experimental design window was moved to explore the boundaries of the upper right corner.
Figure 6A gives an overview of the remaining optimization procedure. The analysis of the collected data set up to iteration 3 revealed a limitation of the positive effect of Mg2+, i.e., an optimal concentration range of Mg2+ was identified. It was therefore decided to further expand the concentration range only for Ca2+ (iteration 4). This procedure was repeated twice (iteration 5 and 6) until a saturation of the GFP signal was found. This saturation is explained by precipitation of Ca-salts for the applied concentrations of Ca2+, which are not available to the cells.
As experimental results are always perturbed by noise, the resulting Kriging interpolation appears irregular and visual inspection might lead to false conclusions. However, the optimal concentration range of media components for the saturated GFP signal can be reliably identified with the statistical z-test, which is also implemented in KriKit. The z-test uses directly the intrinsic statistical information provided by the Kriging method, i.e., prediction values and prediction uncertainties. Figure 6B shows the identified plateau, as determined and visualized using the KriKit toolbox. The KriKit toolbox is freely available36 and comes with a detailed tutorial that explains how to use its features.
If more than two relevant components are found, 3D-visualization reaches its limit. KriKit provides several other possible visual representation methods such as movies or "screening plot". If the potential optimum lies inside the defined concentration range, new experiments are automatically designed using the expected improvement40,46. The experimental design based on the expected improvement is integrated in the KriKit toolbox. More detailed information can be found in the software documentation.
After the iterative procedure, a verification of the results was conducted, as described in Part D. The validity of initial assumptions was checked by performing an additional sensitivity analysis using the optimal medium composition. That is, all initial media components of interest were varied, but Ca2+ and Mg2+ were set to their optimal concentration levels. In this study, the optimal concentrations
= 32 x Ref and
= 6.8 x Ref were chosen. Table 2 shows the results of the validation screening. Similar to the initial sensitivity screening (cf. Table 1), NH4+ still has a significant negative influence and remaining effects are still negligible.
Due to easy access, the GFP fluorescence signal from the cultivation suspension was used to quantify the extracellular GFP titer during all experiments. For verification reasons, GFP fluorescence was validated against other measurements. Because GFP is secreted via the Tat-pathway, the fluorescence signal cannot discriminate between intra- and extracellular GFP. Thus, cultivations were reproduced using the reference medium and the optimized medium. Besides the fluorescence measurement from cell-free cultivation supernatants, protein content was quantified by the Bradford assay and (semi)-qualitative GFP improvement visualized by SDS-Page15. All resulting measurement signals were approximately doubled for cultivations with optimized medium compared to reference medium and validated the approximately 100% improvement of secretion performance of optimized medium. Consequently, GFP specific fluorescence of cultivation suspension can be considered a suitable metric for the optimization objective, i.e., the extracellular GFP titer.

Figure 2: Screenshot from the volume pipetting list for sensitivity analysis. Entries in the first column assign a unique identifier to all volumes of a row; this identifier is the MTP well number of the target cultivation MTP on the liquid handler worktable, cf. Figure 4C. Remaining columns encode volumes for different solutions ("Sln-01" to "Sln-15") to be pipetted. The cumulative volume of one row corresponds to the final cultivation volume of the corresponding well. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Screenshot from the liquid handling control software "WinPREP". Left: Row-ordered commands, including a transfer command for each stock solution to be pipetted. Before the final command for inoculum addition, a user prompt is inserted to ensure the seed culture is placed at the table just in time. Right: Schematic of the worktable, including the source labware for Variation Stocks (two deep well plates with 12 column-like wells), the reagent trough for Rest Stock, water and inoculum, and the media preparation target cultivation MTP. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Compilation of detailed screenshots for setup of pipetting of a stock solution. (A) Unwrapped command for pipetting of Fe stock. Source labware and source well within are marked on the worktable by the read frame and red column of the corresponding deep well plate. Destination labware and destination wells within are marked by the blue frame around and blue wells of the target cultivation MTP. (B) Detailed example view on assignment of pipetting volumes for this step (Fe stock solution). Number of destinations is read from the pipetting list, which has 48 rows. The dispense volumes for all destination wells for Fe stock solution is found in column 4 in the pipetting list. Note that the first column in the pipetting list contains identifiers and not volumes to be transferred, see Figure 2. (C) Details on destination well numbering. Volumes written in the row #1 of the corresponding pipetting list will be pipetted into well marked as #1, and so on. Wells #01, #08, #41 and #48 correspond to wells A01, A08, F01 and F08 for the alpha-numeric coding, which is also printed into the cultivation MTP itself. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Detailed results from the first iteration. (A) Kriging interpolation based on experimental data of iteration 1. Red dots indicate the data set. For comparison, all three interpolation surfaces are overlayed in one plot (dark blue: 0 x Ref, checkered: 1 x Ref, light blue: 2 x Ref). An alternative representation of the results can be found elsewhere15. (B) Kriging interpolation based on the experiments performed in iteration 1 (red dots) and iteration 2 (yellow squares). Parts of the data presented in this figure have been previously published15. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Depiction of iteratively collected optimization results. (A) Final Kriging model prediction. (B) Statistical identification of optimal area (red) based on the statistical z-test, which is provided by KriKit. Boxes indicate successive steps of iterative design and execution of experiments. Parts of the data presented in this figure have been previously published15. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Component | Normalized Coefficient Mean Value |
| Fe2+ | -0.08 |
| Mn2+ | -0.05 |
| Zn2+ | -0.21 |
| Cu2+ | -0.21 |
| NH4+ | -2.04 |
| Ni2+ | -0.11 |
| Co2+ | -0.10 |
| MoO42- | 0.03 |
| BO33- | 0.06 |
| Ca2+ | 1.00 |
| Mg2+ | 0.45 |
Table 1: Results of the sensitivity analysis. Coefficient values representing the average effect when increasing the respective media component concentration from its center value to its maximum value. For optimal experimental designs, as found in the standard literature and used here, the standard deviation represents directly the experimental variation due to replication of the reference experiment. Coefficient values were normalized by the maxium value (0.0422 for component Ca2+). Normalized and absolute coefficient standard deviation is 0.54 and 0.0226, respectively.
| Component | Normalized Coefficient Mean Value |
| Fe2+ | -1.00 |
| Mn2+ | 1.00 |
| Zn2+ | -3.48 |
| Cu2+ | -0.52 |
| NH4+ | -15.95 |
| Ni2+ | 0.69 |
| Co2+ | -0.51 |
| MoO42- | -0.45 |
| BO33- | -1.11 |
Table 2: Results of the final sensitivity analysis. Coefficient values representing the average effect when increasing the respective media component concentration from its center value to its maximum value. As an optimal experimental design was used, the standard deviation only depends on the experimental variation using the optimized medium composition. Experimental variation increased slightly in comparison to the variation using the reference medium. Coefficient values were normalized by the maxium value (0.0106 for component Mn2+). Normalized and absolute coefficient standard deviation is 3.63 and 0.0385, respectively.