Configure and run your USP protocols in Seal: inoculation, feeding, sampling and harvest. Keep actual conditions and results with each execution. Use neil to help configure the workflow, compare cultures and investigate performance.
Configure your culture workflow
Configure reusable inoculation, feeding and sampling workflows. Record actual additions, observations and sample links as the study runs—not only in the final comparison.
Harvest recorded
Configure with neil. Test with your team. Reuse the protocol.
Each run keeps its own values, evidence and history.
Compare culture profiles alongside the feed strategy and harvest results.
Cell source CL-04 / bank WCB-02, starting working volume 2 L, basal medium M-06 v01 and feed formulation F-03 v02. Recipes UP-08 v02 and v03 differ in the planned feed schedule. Compare actual additions and control histories before treating this as a matched experiment.
| Day | USP-028 | USP-029 |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 2 | 2.2 | 2.3 |
| 4 | 6.5 | 6.8 |
| 6 | 12 | 12.5 |
| 8 | 17 | 17.5 |
| 10 | 18 | 19 |
| 12 | 16 | 18 |
| 14 | 12 | 16 |
Viable cell density and viability: CELL-02 v03. Glucose: MET-04 v02. Harvest titre: TTR-02 v03; USP-028 3.6 g/L, USP-029 4.1 g/L. One observation at each time, not replicate means. No complete product-quality panel is supplied.
USP-029 retains more viable cells after day 10. Compare the glucose and viability profiles before attributing the difference to the feed schedule.
Two runs suggest a question—not an optimum.
The split-feed run has a higher observed day-14 titre (4.1 versus 3.6 g/L) and viability (89% versus 78%). The sampled glucose profile also differs. These observations do not isolate a feed effect.
Draft based on fictional USP-028 and USP-029, recipe versions and sample results. No feed strategy or scale-up is approved.
Each study should inform the next—not become another disconnected spreadsheet.
Compare the process that actually ran: pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, gases and interventions.
Align setpoints, measured signals, alarms and manual changes with process age and sample times. Retain vessel and sensor context rather than treating an overlay as proof of comparable conditions.
See the formulation and actual additions behind the performance—not just the recipe name.
Retain material lots, formulation versions, feed timing and amounts, sample results and deviations. Separate intended changes from what happened in the run.
Follow the starting vial through expansion and into the bioreactor. Compare the run in context.
Keep inoculum age, viability, vessel, working volume, setpoints, actual signals and interventions with the samples they affect. Preserve time windows for fed-batch and perfusion analysis.
Carry the process rationale to the next scale, then hand downstream a traceable harvest.
Record geometry, mixing and transfer assumptions, operating ranges, confirmation studies and harvest conditions. Connect the resulting material to purification results without treating scale-up as a copy of setpoints.
Let downstream see which culture, conditions and samples produced its starting material. Bring purification findings back into the development decision.
Explore downstream process developmentWork from Ambr, bench-scale bioreactor and historian exports, analytical results and existing study records. Scope the connection around the question your team needs to answer.
Explore connections