BACKGROUND AIMS: This study was initiated to determine whether CD34(+) cell selection of small-volume bone marrow (BM) samples could be performed effectively on the Isolex(R) 300i Magnetic Cell Selection System device and whether the results obtained from these samples were comparable with results from large standard-volume samples. The impact on CD34(+) recovery using a full versus half vial of Isolex(R) CD34 reagent and the effects of shipping a post-selection product were evaluated. METHODS: A protocol to evaluate CD34(+) cell selection with two ranges of smaller volume BM samples (c. 50 mL and c. 100 mL) was developed and instituted at three Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies (PACT) facilities. The study was performed in two phases. RESULTS: In phase I, the mean post-selection CD34(+) recoveries from the two sizes of samples were 104.1% and 103.3% (smallest and largest volumes, respectively), and mean CD34(+) recoveries were 115.6% and 88.7%, with full and half vials of reagent, respectively. Mean CD34(+) recoveries for post-shipment smaller volume samples were 106.8% and for larger volume samples 116.4%; mean CD34(+) recoveries were 99.9% and 127.4% for post-shipment samples processed with full and half vials of reagent, respectively. In phase II, mean CD34(+) recovery was 76.8% for post-selection samples and 74.0% for post-shipment samples. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that smaller volume BM sample processing on the Isolex(R) system is as efficient or more efficient compared with standard-volume sample processing. Post-processing mean CD34(+) recovery results obtained using a full or half vial of CD34 reagent were not significantly different.
BACKGROUND AIMS: This study was initiated to determine whether CD34(+) cell selection of small-volume bone marrow (BM) samples could be performed effectively on the Isolex(R) 300i Magnetic Cell Selection System device and whether the results obtained from these samples were comparable with results from large standard-volume samples. The impact on CD34(+) recovery using a full versus half vial of Isolex(R) CD34 reagent and the effects of shipping a post-selection product were evaluated. METHODS: A protocol to evaluate CD34(+) cell selection with two ranges of smaller volume BM samples (c. 50 mL and c. 100 mL) was developed and instituted at three Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies (PACT) facilities. The study was performed in two phases. RESULTS: In phase I, the mean post-selection CD34(+) recoveries from the two sizes of samples were 104.1% and 103.3% (smallest and largest volumes, respectively), and mean CD34(+) recoveries were 115.6% and 88.7%, with full and half vials of reagent, respectively. Mean CD34(+) recoveries for post-shipment smaller volume samples were 106.8% and for larger volume samples 116.4%; mean CD34(+) recoveries were 99.9% and 127.4% for post-shipment samples processed with full and half vials of reagent, respectively. In phase II, mean CD34(+) recovery was 76.8% for post-selection samples and 74.0% for post-shipment samples. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that smaller volume BM sample processing on the Isolex(R) system is as efficient or more efficient compared with standard-volume sample processing. Post-processing mean CD34(+) recovery results obtained using a full or half vial of CD34 reagent were not significantly different.
Authors: Ana I Flores; David H McKenna; M Angeles Montalbán; Javier De la Cruz; John E Wagner; Rafael Bornstein Journal: Transfusion Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: J-C Capiod; C Tournois; F Vitry; M-A Sevestre; S Daliphard; T Reix; P Nguyen; J-J Lefrère; B Pignon Journal: Vox Sang Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 2.144
Authors: G A Moviglia; G Varela; J A Brizuela; M T Moviglia Brandolino; P Farina; G Etchegaray; S Piccone; J Hirsch; G Martinez; S Marino; S Deffain; N Coria; A Gonzáles; M Sztanko; P Salas-Zamora; I Previgliano; V Aingel; J Farias; C A Gaeta; J Saslavsky; N Blasseti Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Katarina Le Blanc; Francesco Frassoni; Lynne Ball; Franco Locatelli; Helene Roelofs; Ian Lewis; Edoardo Lanino; Berit Sundberg; Maria Ester Bernardo; Mats Remberger; Giorgio Dini; R Maarten Egeler; Andrea Bacigalupo; Willem Fibbe; Olle Ringdén Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-05-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Deborah Wood; Robin Wesselschmidt; Peiman Hematti; Adrian P Gee; Cliona Rooney; Leslie Silberstein; Myriam Armant; Larry Couture; John E Wagner; David H McKenna; Derek Hei; Traci Heath Mondoro; Lisbeth Welniak; Robert Lindblad Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Albert D Donnenberg; Vera S Donnenberg; Deborah L Griffin; Linda R Moore; Ferda Tekinturhan; Robert L Kormos Journal: Cytotherapy Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 5.414
Authors: Ashraf El Fiky; Laarni Ibenana; Robert Anderson; Joshua M Hare; Aisha Khan; Adrian P Gee; Cliona Rooney; David H McKenna; Joseph Gold; Linda Kelley; Martha S Lundberg; Lisbeth A Welniak; Robert Lindblad Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 4.689