BACKGROUND AIMS: CD34(+) enrichment from cord blood units (CBU) is used increasingly in clinical applications involving ex vivo expansion. The CliniMACS instrument from Miltenyi Biotec is a current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) immunomagnetic selection system primarily designed for processing larger numbers of cells: a standard tubing set (TS) can process a maximum of 60 billion cells, while the larger capacity tubing set (LS) will handle 120 billion cells. In comparison, most CBU contain only 1-2 billion cells, raising a question regarding the optimal tubing set for CBU CD34(+) enrichment. We compared CD34(+) cell recovery and overall viability after CliniMACS processing of fresh CBU with either TS or LS. METHODS: Forty-six freshly collected CBU (≤ 36 h) were processed for CD34(+) enrichment; 22 consecutive units were selected using TS and a subsequent 24 processed with LS. Cell counts and immunophenotyping were performed pre- and post-selection to assess total nucleated cells (TNC), viability and CD34(+) cell content. RESULTS: Two-sample t-tests of mean CD34(+) recovery and viability revealed significant differences in favor of LS (CD34(+) recovery, LS = 56%, TS = 45%, P = 0.003; viability, LS = 74%, TS = 59%, P = 0.011). Stepwise linear regression, considering pre-processing unit age, viability, TNC and CD34(+) purity, demonstrated statistically significant correlations only with the tubing set used and age of unit. CONCLUSIONS: For CD34(+) enrichment from fresh CBU, LS provided higher post-selection viability and more efficient recovery. In this case, a lower maximum TNC specification of TS was not predictive of better performance. The same may hold for smaller scale enrichment of other cell types with the CliniMACS instrument.
BACKGROUND AIMS: CD34(+) enrichment from cord blood units (CBU) is used increasingly in clinical applications involving ex vivo expansion. The CliniMACS instrument from Miltenyi Biotec is a current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) immunomagnetic selection system primarily designed for processing larger numbers of cells: a standard tubing set (TS) can process a maximum of 60 billion cells, while the larger capacity tubing set (LS) will handle 120 billion cells. In comparison, most CBU contain only 1-2 billion cells, raising a question regarding the optimal tubing set for CBUCD34(+) enrichment. We compared CD34(+) cell recovery and overall viability after CliniMACS processing of fresh CBU with either TS or LS. METHODS: Forty-six freshly collected CBU (≤ 36 h) were processed for CD34(+) enrichment; 22 consecutive units were selected using TS and a subsequent 24 processed with LS. Cell counts and immunophenotyping were performed pre- and post-selection to assess total nucleated cells (TNC), viability and CD34(+) cell content. RESULTS: Two-sample t-tests of mean CD34(+) recovery and viability revealed significant differences in favor of LS (CD34(+) recovery, LS = 56%, TS = 45%, P = 0.003; viability, LS = 74%, TS = 59%, P = 0.011). Stepwise linear regression, considering pre-processing unit age, viability, TNC and CD34(+) purity, demonstrated statistically significant correlations only with the tubing set used and age of unit. CONCLUSIONS: For CD34(+) enrichment from fresh CBU, LS provided higher post-selection viability and more efficient recovery. In this case, a lower maximum TNC specification of TS was not predictive of better performance. The same may hold for smaller scale enrichment of other cell types with the CliniMACS instrument.
Authors: Claudio G Brunstein; Jonathan A Gutman; Daniel J Weisdorf; Ann E Woolfrey; Todd E Defor; Theodore A Gooley; Michael R Verneris; Frederick R Appelbaum; John E Wagner; Colleen Delaney Journal: Blood Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: S N Robinson; J Ng; T Niu; H Yang; J D McMannis; S Karandish; I Kaur; P Fu; M Del Angel; R Messinger; F Flagge; M de Lima; W Decker; D Xing; R Champlin; E J Shpall Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: G Kögler; W Nürnberger; J Fischer; T Niehues; T Somville; U Göbel; P Wernet Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Gerard J Madlambayan; Ian Rogers; Kelly A Purpura; Caryn Ito; Mei Yu; Daniel Kirouac; Robert F Casper; Peter W Zandstra Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Colleen Delaney; Shelly Heimfeld; Carolyn Brashem-Stein; Howard Voorhies; Ronald L Manger; Irwin D Bernstein Journal: Nat Med Date: 2010-01-17 Impact factor: 53.440