How does the cost compare to FBS? If we are using 3% FBS for a Cell Therapy application. Would it be cost effective to switch to your product, just if you look at a straight switch of supplements not taking into account savings in regulatory resources, etc?
This question is part of the following Ask The Expert session:
How to Optimize Media and Improve Protein Production with Defined Supplements
Company: Bio-Ess Laboratories, LLC
Job Title: Chief Scientific Officer
The costs for FBS vary greatly. This question is difficult to answer as the type and source of FBS are key drivers for the cost of FBS. In the past year the price of FBS has been increasing. Cell-Ess currently costs less than many FBS choices that it can replace. The other side of the question is indirect costs. The use of FBS typically is preceded by multiple lot testing which has time and resource costs. In some cases groups will buy entire lots and then there are costs associated with tying up a large sum of money, carrying unused inventory for years and long term material storage in a freezer.
The second part of the question is the interesting, as the one of the primary reasons for switching away from FBS in therapeutics is to ensure consistency in the product. According to a few of the partners we are working with price of having an inconsistent product is more costly than any of the raw material costs. As far as doing pure dollar to dollar cost analysis it is difficult to deliver a meaningful number without knowing the many variables in play.