Accuracy of spiked cell counting methods for designing a pre-clinical tumorigenicity study model.
Biochemistry
Biomedical engineering
Cell biology
Cell culture
Methodology
Pre-clinical safety tests
Regenerative medicine
Stem cell therapy
Stem cells research
Tissue engineering
Tumorigenicity
Journal
Heliyon
ISSN: 2405-8440
Titre abrégé: Heliyon
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672560
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
25
07
2019
revised:
28
01
2020
accepted:
08
07
2020
entrez:
21
7
2020
pubmed:
21
7
2020
medline:
21
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Evaluations for the tumorigenicity of transplantation of stem cell products is mandatory for clinical application. It is of importance to establish a system to accurately quantify contaminated tumorigenic cells regardless of the format of stem cell product. In the present report, we aimed to examine the accuracy of the quantification of tumorigenic cell numbers with commonly used 2 methods, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and flow cytometry (FCM) using experimental models of stem cell products spiked with tumorigenic cells. Human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) and melanoma Mewo-Luc cells constitutively expressing luciferase were used. We stained Mewo-Luc cells with a cell linker then spiked onto hMSC suspensions and hMSC sheets. We validated the accuracy of 10-fold serial dilution technique for Mewo-Luc cell suspension using a Coulter counter. The samples spiked with Mewo-Luc cells were subjected to qPCR and FCM analyses, respectively for the quantification of Mewo-Luc cells. Ten-fold serial dilutions of Mewo-Luc cells were performed accurately with small deviation. In samples spiked with or less than 100 cells in hMSC suspensions, and samples spiked with or less than 1,000 cells in hMSC sheets showed significantly higher cell numbers in calculations by FCM, respectively (suspensions; qPCR vs FCM: 100 cells: 59 ± 25 vs 232 ± 35 cells, p = 0.022/10 cells: 21 ± 7 vs 114 ± 27 cells, p = 0.030, sheets; qPCR vs FCM: 1,000 cells: 1723 ± 258 vs 5810 ± 878 cells, p = 0.012/100 cells: 110 ± 18 vs 973 ± 232 cells, p = 0.012/10 cells: 20 ± 6 vs 141 ± 36 cells, p = 0.030). Differences in accuracy between quantification methods should be considered in designing a tumorigenicity study model.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Evaluations for the tumorigenicity of transplantation of stem cell products is mandatory for clinical application. It is of importance to establish a system to accurately quantify contaminated tumorigenic cells regardless of the format of stem cell product. In the present report, we aimed to examine the accuracy of the quantification of tumorigenic cell numbers with commonly used 2 methods, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and flow cytometry (FCM) using experimental models of stem cell products spiked with tumorigenic cells.
METHODS
METHODS
Human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) and melanoma Mewo-Luc cells constitutively expressing luciferase were used. We stained Mewo-Luc cells with a cell linker then spiked onto hMSC suspensions and hMSC sheets. We validated the accuracy of 10-fold serial dilution technique for Mewo-Luc cell suspension using a Coulter counter. The samples spiked with Mewo-Luc cells were subjected to qPCR and FCM analyses, respectively for the quantification of Mewo-Luc cells.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ten-fold serial dilutions of Mewo-Luc cells were performed accurately with small deviation. In samples spiked with or less than 100 cells in hMSC suspensions, and samples spiked with or less than 1,000 cells in hMSC sheets showed significantly higher cell numbers in calculations by FCM, respectively (suspensions; qPCR vs FCM: 100 cells: 59 ± 25 vs 232 ± 35 cells, p = 0.022/10 cells: 21 ± 7 vs 114 ± 27 cells, p = 0.030, sheets; qPCR vs FCM: 1,000 cells: 1723 ± 258 vs 5810 ± 878 cells, p = 0.012/100 cells: 110 ± 18 vs 973 ± 232 cells, p = 0.012/10 cells: 20 ± 6 vs 141 ± 36 cells, p = 0.030).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Differences in accuracy between quantification methods should be considered in designing a tumorigenicity study model.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32685738
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04423
pii: S2405-8440(20)31267-6
pii: e04423
pmc: PMC7358391
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e04423Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s).
Références
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 13;9(1):1881
pubmed: 30760836
Sci Rep. 2015 Nov 20;5:16842
pubmed: 26585309
Stem Cell Res. 2009 May;2(3):198-210
pubmed: 19393593
J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Jun;17(6):782-91
pubmed: 23711115
J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Apr 5;6(4):
pubmed: 28381469
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 16;376(11):1038-1046
pubmed: 28296613
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 14;9(1):e85336
pubmed: 24454843
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37342
pubmed: 22615985
Eur J Heart Fail. 2017 Nov;19(11):1545-1550
pubmed: 28948706
Stem Cells. 2012 Jun;30(6):1196-205
pubmed: 22438013
Nat Med. 2013 Aug;19(8):998-1004
pubmed: 23921754
J Clin Med. 2015 Jan 14;4(1):159-71
pubmed: 26237025
Inflamm Regen. 2018 Oct 10;38:26
pubmed: 30338009
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jan 30;71(4):429-438
pubmed: 29389360
J Microbiol Methods. 2014 Dec;107:214-21
pubmed: 25205541
Stem Cells Transl Med. 2017 May;6(5):1366-1372
pubmed: 28252842
Analyst. 2017 Aug 7;142(16):2901-2911
pubmed: 28676870
Sci Rep. 2017 May 25;7(1):2409
pubmed: 28546538
Analyst. 2014 Jan 7;139(1):187-90
pubmed: 24231765
Regen Ther. 2015 Oct 27;2:17-23
pubmed: 31245455
Int J Food Microbiol. 2002 Jun 25;76(3):207-14
pubmed: 12051477
J Immunol Methods. 1999 Jan 1;222(1-2):13-29
pubmed: 10022369