Alesia Kaplan1,2, Katie Sackett3, Darin Sumstad4, Dianne Kadidlo4, David H McKenna3,4. 1. Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. 2. Institute for Transfusion Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, , Transfusion Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 4. Clinical Cell Therapy Laboratory, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Molecular and Cellular Therapeutics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) continue to be investigated in multiple clinical trials as potential therapy for different disorders. There is ongoing controversy surrounding the clinical use of cryopreserved versus fresh MSCs. However, little is known about how cryopreservation affects marrow as starting material. The growth kinetics of MSC cultures derived from fresh versus cryopreserved marrow were compared. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were reviewed on the growth kinetics of MSCs derived from fresh versus cryopreserved marrow of nine donors. Marrow harvested from each donor was separated into four aliquots (one fresh and three cryopreserved for culture). Data on the date of mononuclear cell cryopreservation/thaw, MSC counts at Passages 1 and 2, MSC doubling, MSC fold expansion, viability (of mononuclear cells and final MSCs), and on flow cytometry markers of mononuclear cells and final MSCs were analyzed for the fresh and cryopreserved marrow groups. RESULTS: In total, 21 MSC lots (seven fresh and 14 cryopreserved) were obtained. The average age of cryopreserved mononuclear cell product was 295 days (range, 18-1241 days). There were no significant differences between MSC numbers at Passage 1 (p = 0.1), final MSC numbers (p = 0.5), MSC doubling (p = 0.7), or MSC fold expansion (p = 0.7). A significant difference was observed in viability by flow cytometry for both mononuclear cells (p = 0.002) and final MSCs (p = 0.009), with higher viability in the fresh marrow group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that MSCs derived from cryopreserved marrow have the same growth characteristics as fresh marrow-derived MSCs. Further studies are needed to explore potential differences in clinical efficacy.
BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) continue to be investigated in multiple clinical trials as potential therapy for different disorders. There is ongoing controversy surrounding the clinical use of cryopreserved versus fresh MSCs. However, little is known about how cryopreservation affects marrow as starting material. The growth kinetics of MSC cultures derived from fresh versus cryopreserved marrow were compared. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were reviewed on the growth kinetics of MSCs derived from fresh versus cryopreserved marrow of nine donors. Marrow harvested from each donor was separated into four aliquots (one fresh and three cryopreserved for culture). Data on the date of mononuclear cell cryopreservation/thaw, MSC counts at Passages 1 and 2, MSC doubling, MSC fold expansion, viability (of mononuclear cells and final MSCs), and on flow cytometry markers of mononuclear cells and final MSCs were analyzed for the fresh and cryopreserved marrow groups. RESULTS: In total, 21 MSC lots (seven fresh and 14 cryopreserved) were obtained. The average age of cryopreserved mononuclear cell product was 295 days (range, 18-1241 days). There were no significant differences between MSC numbers at Passage 1 (p = 0.1), final MSC numbers (p = 0.5), MSC doubling (p = 0.7), or MSC fold expansion (p = 0.7). A significant difference was observed in viability by flow cytometry for both mononuclear cells (p = 0.002) and final MSCs (p = 0.009), with higher viability in the fresh marrow group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that MSCs derived from cryopreserved marrow have the same growth characteristics as fresh marrow-derived MSCs. Further studies are needed to explore potential differences in clinical efficacy.
Authors: Maria Eugenia Fernández-Santos; Mariano Garcia-Arranz; Enrique J Andreu; Ana Maria García-Hernández; Miriam López-Parra; Eva Villarón; Pilar Sepúlveda; Francisco Fernández-Avilés; Damian García-Olmo; Felipe Prosper; Fermin Sánchez-Guijo; Jose M Moraleda; Agustin G Zapata Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 8.786
Authors: Michael A Matthay; Carolyn S Calfee; Hanjing Zhuo; B Taylor Thompson; Jennifer G Wilson; Joseph E Levitt; Angela J Rogers; Jeffrey E Gotts; Jeanine P Wiener-Kronish; Ednan K Bajwa; Michael P Donahoe; Bryan J McVerry; Luis A Ortiz; Matthew Exline; John W Christman; Jason Abbott; Kevin L Delucchi; Lizette Caballero; Melanie McMillan; David H McKenna; Kathleen D Liu Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Laarni Ibenana; Robert Anderson; Adrian Gee; Margaret Gilbert; Cheryl Cox; Joshua M Hare; Adriana Brooks; Linda Kelley; Aisha Khan; Natalia Lapteva; Aaron Orozco; David Styers; Darin Sumstad; Ibekwe Ugochi; David H McKenna Journal: Cytotherapy Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 6.196
Authors: Ben Antebi; Amber M Asher; Luis A Rodriguez; Robbie K Moore; Arezoo Mohammadipoor; Leopoldo C Cancio Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Christopher J Centeno; Dustin R Berger; Brandon T Money; Ehren Dodson; Christopher W Urbanek; Neven J Steinmetz Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2022-08-06 Impact factor: 3.479