Noninvasive white blood cell quantification in umbilical cord blood collection bags with quantitative oblique back-illumination microscopy.
Journal
Transfusion
ISSN: 1537-2995
Titre abrégé: Transfusion
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0417360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
25
10
2019
revised:
03
01
2020
accepted:
06
01
2020
pubmed:
15
2
2020
medline:
8
9
2020
entrez:
15
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Umbilical cord blood has become an important source of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells for therapeutic applications. However, cord blood banking (CBB) grapples with issues related to economic viability, partially due to high discard rates of cord blood units (CBUs) that lack sufficient total nucleated cells for storage or therapeutic use. Currently, there are no methods available to assess the likelihood of CBUs meeting storage criteria noninvasively at the collection site, which would improve CBB efficiency and economic viability. To overcome this limitation, we apply a novel label-free optical imaging method, called quantitative oblique back-illumination microscopy (qOBM), which yields tomographic phase and absorption contrast to image blood inside collection bags. An automated segmentation algorithm was developed to count white blood cells and red blood cells (RBCs) and assess hematocrit. Fifteen CBUs were measured. qOBM clearly differentiates between RBCs and nucleated cells. The cell-counting analysis shows an average error of 13% compared to hematology analysis, with a near-perfect, one-to-one relationship (slope = 0.94) and strong correlation coefficient (r = 0.86). Preliminary results to assess hematocrit also show excellent agreement with expected values. Acquisition times to image a statistically significant number of cells per CBU were approximately 1 minute. qOBM exhibits robust performance for quantifying blood inside collection bags. Because the approach is automated and fast, it can potentially quantify CBUs within minutes of collection, without breaching the CBUs' sterile environment. qOBM can reduce costs in CBB by avoiding processing expenses of CBUs that ultimately do not meet storage criteria.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Umbilical cord blood has become an important source of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells for therapeutic applications. However, cord blood banking (CBB) grapples with issues related to economic viability, partially due to high discard rates of cord blood units (CBUs) that lack sufficient total nucleated cells for storage or therapeutic use. Currently, there are no methods available to assess the likelihood of CBUs meeting storage criteria noninvasively at the collection site, which would improve CBB efficiency and economic viability.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To overcome this limitation, we apply a novel label-free optical imaging method, called quantitative oblique back-illumination microscopy (qOBM), which yields tomographic phase and absorption contrast to image blood inside collection bags. An automated segmentation algorithm was developed to count white blood cells and red blood cells (RBCs) and assess hematocrit. Fifteen CBUs were measured.
RESULTS
qOBM clearly differentiates between RBCs and nucleated cells. The cell-counting analysis shows an average error of 13% compared to hematology analysis, with a near-perfect, one-to-one relationship (slope = 0.94) and strong correlation coefficient (r = 0.86). Preliminary results to assess hematocrit also show excellent agreement with expected values. Acquisition times to image a statistically significant number of cells per CBU were approximately 1 minute.
CONCLUSION
qOBM exhibits robust performance for quantifying blood inside collection bags. Because the approach is automated and fast, it can potentially quantify CBUs within minutes of collection, without breaching the CBUs' sterile environment. qOBM can reduce costs in CBB by avoiding processing expenses of CBUs that ultimately do not meet storage criteria.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
588-597Subventions
Organisme : Burroughs Wellcome Fund
ID : 1014540
Pays : International
Organisme : Marcus Center for Therapeutic Cell Characterization and Manufacturing (MC3M)
Pays : International
Organisme : National Science Foundation (CBET CAREER)
ID : 1752011
Pays : International
Organisme : Georgia Institute of Technology
Pays : International
Organisme : National Science Foundation
Pays : International
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2020 AABB.
Références
Mayani H, Wagner JE, Broxmeyer HE. Cord blood research, banking, and transplantation: achievements, challenges, and perspectives. Bone Marrow Transplant 55:48-61 (2020). Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41409-019-0546-9.
Dessels C, Alessandrini M, Pepper MS. Factors influencing the umbilical cord blood stem cell industry: an evolving treatment landscape. Stem Cells Transl Med 2018;7:643-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.17-0244.
Panch SR, Szymanski J, Savani BN, et al. Sources of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells and methods to optimize yields for clinical cell therapy. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2017;23:1241-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.05.003.
Gluckman E, Ruggeri A, Volt F, et al. Milestones in umbilical cord blood transplantation. Br J Haematol 2011;154(4):441-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08598.x.
Kurtzberg J, Laughlin M, Graham ML, et al. Placental blood as a source of hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation into unrelated recipients. N Engl J Med 1996;335:157-66. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199607183350303.
Ballen K, Logan BR, Chitphakdithai P, et al. Excellent outcomes after umbilical cord blood transplantation using a centralized cord blood registry. Stem Cells Transl Med 2018;7:S1-S1. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.12353.
Ballen KK, Koreth J, Chen Y-B, et al. Selection of optimal alternative graft source: mismatched unrelated donor, umbilical cord blood, or haploidentical transplant. Blood 2012;119:1972-80. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22210876.
Spees LP, Martin PL, Kurtzberg J, et al. Reduction in mortality after umbilical cord blood transplantation in children over a 20-year period (1995-2014). Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2019;25(4):756-63. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1083879118307511?via%3Dihub.
Rich IN. Improving quality and potency testing for umbilical cord blood: a new perspective. Stem Cells Transl Med 2015;4:967-73. https://doi.org/10.5966/sctm.2015-0036.
Bart T, Boo M, Balabanova S, et al. Impact of selection of cord blood units from the United States and Swiss registries on the cost of banking operations. Transfus Med Hemother 2013;40:14-20. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23637645.
Murphy A, McKenna D, McCullough J. Cord blood banking and quality issues. Transfusion 2016;56:645-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.13388.
Meyer-Monard S, Tichelli A, Troeger C, et al. Initial cord blood unit volume affects mononuclear cell and CD34+ cell-processing efficiency in a non-linear fashion. Cytotherapy 2012;14:215-22. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1465324912706321?via%3Dihub.
Allan D, Petraszko T, Elmoazzen H, et al. A review of factors influencing the banking of collected umbilical cord blood units. Stem Cells Int 2013;2013:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/463031.
Santos SVF, Barros SMO, Santos MS, et al. Predictors of high-quality cord blood units. Transfusion 2016;56:2030-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.13653.
Saccardi R, Tucunduva L, Ruggeri A, et al. Impact of cord blood banking technologies on clinical outcome: a Eurocord/Cord Blood Committee (CTIWP), European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and NetCord retrospective analysis. Transfusion 2016;56(8):2021-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.13661.
Querol S, Gomez SG, Pagliuca A, et al. Quality rather than quantity: the cord blood bank dilemma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2010;45:970-8. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/bmt20107.
Laerum OD, Farsund T. Clinical application of flow cytometry: a review. Cytometry 1981;2:1-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.990020102.
Adan A, Alizada G, Kiraz Y, et al. Flow cytometry: basic principles and applications. Crit Rev Biotechnol 2017;37:163-76. https://doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2015.1128876.
Coulter WH. High speed automatic blood cell counter and cell size analyzer. Available from: http://whcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/1956-WHC-NEC-Paper.pdf
Saytashev I, Glenn R, Murashova GA, et al. Multiphoton excited hemoglobin fluorescence and third harmonic generation for non-invasive microscopy of stored blood. Biomed Opt Express 2016;7:3449. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27699111.
Ledwig P, Robles FE. Epi-mode tomographic quantitative phase imaging in thick scattering samples. Biomed Opt Express 2019;10:3605. Available from: https://www.osapublishing.org/abstract.cfm?URI=boe-10-7-3605.
Ledwig P, Sghayyer M, Kurtzberg J, et al. Dual-wavelength oblique back-illumination microscopy for the non-invasive imaging and quantification of blood in collection and storage bags. Biomed Opt Express 2018;9:2743-54. https://doi.org/10.1364/BOE.9.002743.
Park Y, Depeursinge C, Popescu G. Quantitative phase imaging in biomedicine. Nat Photonics 2018;12:578-89. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-018-0253-x.
Ford TN, Chu KK, Mertz J. Phase-gradient microscopy in thick tissue with oblique back-illumination. Nat Methods 2012;9:1195-7. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/nmeth.2219.
Tian L, Waller L. Quantitative differential phase contrast imaging in an LED array microscope. Opt Express 2015;23:11394. Available from: https://www.osapublishing.org/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-23-9-11394.
Mohyeddin Bonab MA, Alimoghaddam KA, Goliaei ZA, et al. Which factors can affect cord blood variables? Transfusion 2004;44:690-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2004.03227.x.
Sparrow RL, Cauchi JA, Ramadi LT, et al. Influence of mode of birth and collection on WBC yields of umbilical cord blood units. Transfusion 2002;42:210-5. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1537-2995.2002.00028.x.
Chang Y-H, Yang S-H, Wang T-F, et al. Complete blood count reference values of cord blood in Taiwan and the influence of gender and delivery route on them. Pediatr Neonatol 2011;52:155-60. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875957211000386?via%3Dihub.
Carpentras D, Laforest T, Künzi M, et al. Effect of backscattering in phase contrast imaging of the retina. Opt Express 2018;26:6785-95. Available from: https://www.osapublishing.org/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-26-6-6785.
Sheppard CJR. Defocused transfer function for a partially coherent microscope and application to phase retrieval. J Opt Soc Am A 2004;21:828. Available from: https://www.osapublishing.org/abstract.cfm?URI=josaa-21-5-828.
Sordillo LA, Pratavieira S, Pu Y, et al. Third therapeutic spectral window for deep tissue imaging. International Society for Optics and Photonics; Proc. SPIE 8940, Optical Biopsy XII, 89400V; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2040604.
Haidekker MA. The Hough transform. In: Advanced Biomedical Image Analysis. Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2010. p. 211-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470872093.ch7.
Wold S, Esbensen K, Geladi P. Principal component analysis. Chemom Intel Lab Syst 1987;2(1-3):37-52. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169743987800849.
Prahl S. Obtical absorption of hemoglobin 1999. Available from: https://omlc.org/spectra/hemoglobin/index.html.
Phelps JE, Vishwanath K, Chang VTC, et al. Rapid ratiometric determination of hemoglobin concentration using UV-VIS diffuse reflectance at isosbestic wavelengths. Opt Express 2010;18:18779. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.18.018779