4.4 Review

Large-Scale Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal Cell Expansion: A Visualization Tool for Bioprocess Comparison

Journal

TISSUE ENGINEERING PART B-REVIEWS
Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages 485-498

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.teb.2016.0111

Keywords

bioreactor; scale up; cell therapy; bioprocess visualization; mesenchymal stem cells; comparability

Funding

  1. KU Leuven Concerted Research Actions [GOA/13/016]
  2. Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology [IWT/111457]
  3. Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO) [12O7916N]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Large-scale and cost-effective cell expansion processes are a prerequisite for the clinical and commercial translation of cell-based therapies. A large variety of cell expansion processes are described in literature, utilizing different cell types, culture vessels, and medium formulations. Consequently there are no straightforward means for the comparison or benchmarking of these processes in terms of efficiency, scale, or costs. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the available mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) expansion literature and develop an interactive visualization tool for comparing the expansion processes. By using this computational tool, process data could be concentrated, standardized, and analyzed to facilitate a more general understanding of the parameters that define a cell culture process, and in the future allow rational selection or design of these bioprocesses. Additionally, a set of bioprocess metrics were defined that assured the comparability between different processes. Currently, the literature-based data repository holds 73 individual cell expansion processes on seven different types of human MSCs in five different types of culture vessels. The visualization tool allowed benchmarking of these processes against each other, serving as a reference point for cell expansion process efficiency.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available