Control of a bioprocess is a challenging task mainly due to the nonlinearity of the process, the complex nature of microorganisms, and variations in critical parameters such as temperature, pH, and agitator speed. Generally, the optimum values chosen for critical parameters during Escherichia coli (E.coli) K-12fed-batch fermentation are37 ᵒC for temperature, 7 for pH, and 35 % for Dissolved Oxygen (DO). The objective of this research is to enhance biomass concentration while minimizing energy consumption. To achieve this, an Event-Triggered Control (ETC) scheme based on feedback-feed forward control is proposed. The ETC system dynamically adjusts the substrate feed rate in response to variations in critical parameters. We compare the performance of classical Proportional Integral (PI) controllers and advanced Model Predictive Control (MPC) controllers in terms of bioprocess yield. Initially, the data are collected from a laboratory-scaled 3L bioreactor setup under fed-batch operating conditions, and data-driven models are developed using system identification techniques. Then, classical Proportional Integral (PI) and advanced Model Predictive Control (MPC) based feedback controllers are developed for controlling the yield of bioprocess by manipulating substrate flow rate, and their performances are compared. PI and MPC-based Event Triggered Feed Forward Controllers are designed to increase the yield and to suppress the effect of known disturbances due to critical parameters. Whenever there is a variation in the value of a critical parameter, it is considered an event, and ETC initiates a control action by manipulating the substrate feed rate. PI and MPC-based ETC controllers are developed in simulation, and their closed-loop performances are compared. It is observed that the Integral Square Error (ISE) is notably minimized to 4.668 for MPC with disturbance and 4.742 for MPC with Feed Forward Control. Similarly, the Integral Absolute Error (IAE) reduces to 2.453 for MPC with disturbance and 0.8124 for MPC with Feed Forward Control. The simulation results reveal that the MPC-based ETC control scheme enhances the biomass yield by 7 %, and this result is verified experimentally. This system dynamically adjusts the substrate feed rate in response to variations in critical parameters, which is a novel approach in the field of bioprocess control. Also, the proposed control schemes help reduce the frequency of communication between controller and actuator, which reduces power consumption.
In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.