BACKGROUND: Optimal conditions of cord blood (CB) storage, processing, cryopreservation, and thawing are critical for banking and transplantation. Nevertheless, standardized procedures are still awaited. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated the impact of preprocessing storage and temperature on recovery, viability, and functional differentiation capacities of hematopoietic progenitor cells. We compared units stored at room temperature (RT) or at 4 °C for 72 hours before cryopreservation to units processed shortly after collection (<12 hr). RESULTS: Postthaw results showed similar in vitro characteristics between immediate processing and 4 °C storage for cell recovery and viability, both significantly higher than RT storage. Surprisingly, we demonstrated that storage of CB units at RT before processing and cryopreservation profoundly altered in vivo hematopoietic reconstitution in mice, although in vitro hematopoietic colony-forming unit potential was unaltered. CONCLUSION: Our findings challenge current CB storage practices and suggest standard in vitro quality assessments may not always be indicative of CB engraftment potential.
BACKGROUND: Optimal conditions of cord blood (CB) storage, processing, cryopreservation, and thawing are critical for banking and transplantation. Nevertheless, standardized procedures are still awaited. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated the impact of preprocessing storage and temperature on recovery, viability, and functional differentiation capacities of hematopoietic progenitor cells. We compared units stored at room temperature (RT) or at 4 °C for 72 hours before cryopreservation to units processed shortly after collection (<12 hr). RESULTS: Postthaw results showed similar in vitro characteristics between immediate processing and 4 °C storage for cell recovery and viability, both significantly higher than RT storage. Surprisingly, we demonstrated that storage of CB units at RT before processing and cryopreservation profoundly altered in vivo hematopoietic reconstitution in mice, although in vitro hematopoietic colony-forming unit potential was unaltered. CONCLUSION: Our findings challenge current CB storage practices and suggest standard in vitro quality assessments may not always be indicative of CB engraftment potential.
Authors: Karen K Ballen; Brent R Logan; Mary J Laughlin; Wensheng He; Daniel R Ambruso; Susan E Armitage; Rachel L Beddard; Deepika Bhatla; William Y K Hwang; Joseph E Kiss; Gesine Koegler; Joanne Kurtzberg; Arnon Nagler; David Oh; Lawrence D Petz; Thomas H Price; Ralph R Quinones; Voravit Ratanatharathorn; J Douglas Rizzo; Kathleen Sazama; Andromachi Scaradavou; Michael W Schuster; Leonard S Sender; Elizabeth J Shpall; Stephen R Spellman; Millicent Sutton; Lee Ann Weitekamp; John R Wingard; Mary Eapen Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Jack W Hsu; Nosha Farhadfar; Hemant Murthy; Brent R Logan; Stephanie Bo-Subait; Noelle Frey; Steven C Goldstein; Mary M Horowitz; Hillard Lazarus; Joshua D Schwanke; Nirali N Shah; Stephen R Spellman; Galen E Switzer; Steven M Devine; Bronwen E Shaw; John R Wingard Journal: Transplant Cell Ther Date: 2021-03-22