More Human BM-MSC With Similar Subpopulation Composition and Functional Characteristics Can Be Produced With a GMP-Compatible Fabric Filter System Compared to Density Gradient Technique.
GMP
function
heterogeneity
mesenchymal stromal cell
production
subpopulation
Journal
Frontiers in cell and developmental biology
ISSN: 2296-634X
Titre abrégé: Front Cell Dev Biol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101630250
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
07
12
2020
accepted:
22
02
2021
entrez:
19
4
2021
pubmed:
20
4
2021
medline:
20
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), multipotent progenitors that can be isolated from a variety of different tissues, are becoming increasingly important as cell therapeutics targeting immunopathologies and tissue regeneration. Current protocols for MSC isolation from bone marrow (BM) rely on density gradient centrifugation (DGC), and the production of sufficient MSC doses is a critical factor for conducting clinical MSC trials. Previously, a Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)-compatible non-woven fabric filter device system to isolate MSCs was developed to increase the MSC yield from the BM. The aim of our study was to compare high-resolution phenotypic and functional characteristics of BM-MSCs isolated with this device and with standard DGC technology. Human BM samples from 5 donors were analyzed. Each sample was divided equally, processing by DGC, and with the filter device. Stem cell content was assessed by quantification of colony-forming units fibroblasts (CFU-F). Immunophenotype was analyzed by multicolor flow cytometry. The CFU-F yield was 15-fold higher in the MSC preparations isolated with the device compared to those isolated by DGC. Consequently, the MSC yield that could be manufactured at passage 3 per mL collected BM was more than 10 times higher in the device group compared to DGC (1.65 × 10 The isolation of MSCs using a GMP-compatible fabric filter system device resulted in higher yield of CFU-F, producing substantially more MSCs with similar subpopulation composition and functional characteristics as MSCs isolated by DGC.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), multipotent progenitors that can be isolated from a variety of different tissues, are becoming increasingly important as cell therapeutics targeting immunopathologies and tissue regeneration. Current protocols for MSC isolation from bone marrow (BM) rely on density gradient centrifugation (DGC), and the production of sufficient MSC doses is a critical factor for conducting clinical MSC trials. Previously, a Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)-compatible non-woven fabric filter device system to isolate MSCs was developed to increase the MSC yield from the BM. The aim of our study was to compare high-resolution phenotypic and functional characteristics of BM-MSCs isolated with this device and with standard DGC technology.
METHODS
METHODS
Human BM samples from 5 donors were analyzed. Each sample was divided equally, processing by DGC, and with the filter device. Stem cell content was assessed by quantification of colony-forming units fibroblasts (CFU-F). Immunophenotype was analyzed by multicolor flow cytometry.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The CFU-F yield was 15-fold higher in the MSC preparations isolated with the device compared to those isolated by DGC. Consequently, the MSC yield that could be manufactured at passage 3 per mL collected BM was more than 10 times higher in the device group compared to DGC (1.65 × 10
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The isolation of MSCs using a GMP-compatible fabric filter system device resulted in higher yield of CFU-F, producing substantially more MSCs with similar subpopulation composition and functional characteristics as MSCs isolated by DGC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33869188
doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.638798
pmc: PMC8044851
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
638798Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Spohn, Witte, Kretschmer, Seifried and Schäfer.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Stem Cells Int. 2018 May 20;2018:6901983
pubmed: 29887893
Transfus Med Hemother. 2016 Jul;43(4):256-267
pubmed: 27721701
Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020 Jun 16;8:458
pubmed: 32612991
Stem Cells. 2017 Apr;35(4):851-858
pubmed: 28294454
Transfus Med Rev. 2016 Jan;30(1):37-43
pubmed: 26689863
Cytotherapy. 2013 Feb;15(2):146-53
pubmed: 23321326
Front Immunol. 2018 Sep 11;9:2056
pubmed: 30254638
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 11;9(1):1774
pubmed: 30742027
Haematologica. 2010 Apr;95(4):651-9
pubmed: 20179086
Transfusion. 2019 Jun;59(6):2164-2173
pubmed: 30882925
Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016 Feb 03;7:23
pubmed: 26841872
Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Aug;64(8):2632-43
pubmed: 22378497
EBioMedicine. 2020 Oct;60:102989
pubmed: 32920368
Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2010 Feb;16(1):81-91
pubmed: 19364273
J Transl Med. 2015 Sep 25;13:315
pubmed: 26407865
Cytotherapy. 2013 Mar;15(3):292-306
pubmed: 23312449
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018 Jul;53(7):852-862
pubmed: 29379171
Stem Cells Transl Med. 2020 Jan;9(1):17-27
pubmed: 31804767
Stem Cells Int. 2012;2012:920581
pubmed: 23715383
Stem Cells. 2017 May;35(5):1431-1436
pubmed: 28142215
Stem Cells. 2019 Feb;37(2):240-246
pubmed: 30412645
Stem Cells Int. 2018 Apr 11;2018:4083921
pubmed: 30057622
Stem Cell Res Ther. 2015 Aug 18;6:143
pubmed: 26282627
EBioMedicine. 2020 Oct;60:102987
pubmed: 32942121
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Jul;87(7):1430-7
pubmed: 15995108
Front Neurol. 2016 Mar 22;7:41
pubmed: 27047447
Cytotherapy. 2006;8(4):315-7
pubmed: 16923606
Cytotherapy. 2019 Sep;21(9):911-924
pubmed: 31307904
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 Nov;24(11):2365-2370
pubmed: 30031938
BMC Med. 2013 Jun 11;11:146
pubmed: 23758701
Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016 Jul 13;7(1):93
pubmed: 27411942
Cell Stem Cell. 2015 Jul 2;17(1):11-22
pubmed: 26140604
Cytotherapy. 2012 Apr;14(4):431-40
pubmed: 22268519
Cytotherapy. 2012 May;14(5):570-83
pubmed: 22300364
Cytotherapy. 2013 Jan;15(1):2-8
pubmed: 23260081
Cytotherapy. 2008;10(7):676-85
pubmed: 18985474