4.2 Article

Optimizing isolation culture and freezing methods to preserve Wharton's jelly's mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) properties: an MSC banking protocol validation for the Hellenic Cord Blood Bank

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 54, 期 12, 页码 3108-3120

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.12743

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundMesenchymal stem or stromal cells (MSCs) are a heterogeneous population that can be isolated from many tissues including umbilical cord Wharton's jelly (UC-WJ). Although initially limited in studies such as a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation adjuvant, an increasing number of clinical trials consider MSCs as a potential anti-inflammatory or a regenerative medicine agent. It has been proposed that creating a repository of MSCs would increase their availability for clinical applications. The aim of this study was to assess the optimal isolation and cryopreservation procedures to facilitate WJ MSC banking. Study Design and MethodsCells were isolated from UC-WJ using enzymatic digestion or plastic adhesion methods. Their isolation efficacy, growth kinetics, immunophenotype, and differentiation potential were studied, as well as the effects of freezing. Flow cytometry for common MSC markers was performed on all cases and differentiation was shown with histocytochemical staining. Finally, the isolation efficacy on cryopreserved WJ tissue fragments was tested. ResultsMSC isolation was successful using both isolation methods on fresh UC-WJ tissue. However, UC-WJ MSC isolation from frozen tissue fragments was impossible. Flow cytometry analysis revealed that only MSC markers were expressed on the surface of the isolated cells while differentiation assays showed that they were capable of trilinear differentiation. All the above characteristics were also preserved in isolated UC-WJ MSCs over the cryopreservation study period. ConclusionThese data showed that viable MSCs can only be isolated from fresh UC-WJ tissue, setting the foundation for clinical-grade banking.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据