| Literature DB >> 31888679 |
Sandra Laner-Plamberger1,2, Michaela Oeller1,2, Cornelia Mrazek3, Arnulf Hartl4, Alina Sonderegger2,5, Eva Rohde1,2, Dirk Strunk2,5, Katharina Schallmoser6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Innovative human stromal cell therapeutics require xeno-free culture conditions. Various formulations of human platelet lysate (HPL) are efficient alternatives for fetal bovine serum (FBS). However, a consistent lack of standardized manufacturing protocols and quality criteria hampers comparability of HPL-products. Aim of this study was to compare the biochemical composition of three differential HPL-preparations with FBS and to investigate their impact on stromal cell biology.Entities:
Keywords: Fetal bovine serum (FBS); Fibrinogen; Mitotic bookmarking/transcription factors; Pooled human platelet lysate (pHPL); Stromal cells
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31888679 PMCID: PMC6936143 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-019-02183-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Fig. 1Preparation of different supplements and medium types. Scheme of the production steps of supplements (left) and composition of different pHPL- and FBS-based media (right)
Comparison of biochemical parameter concentrations tested in pHPL, pHPLS and FBS, standard human blood values (pHPL vs. pHPLS: ###p < 0.001; pHPL or pHPLS vs. FBS: *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001) as well as basic α-MEM and α-MEM supplemented with 10% pHPL, pHPLs and mcpHPL or 16.5% FBS (pHPL-media vs. FBS-medium: +p < 0.05, ++p < 0.01 and +++p < 0.001)
| Supplements | Standard blood values | Medium | Medium supplemented with | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pHPL | pHPLS | FBS | α-MEM | pHPL (10%) | pHPLS (10%) | mcpHPL (10%) | FBS (16.5%) | ||
| pH | 7.4 ± 0.1*** | 7.4 ± 0.1*** | 7.7 ± 0.1 | 7.4–7.5 | 7.6 | 7.8 ± 0.0 | 7.8 ± 0.0 | 7.8 ± 0.0 | 7.6 ± 0.0 |
| Osmolality (mosmol/kg) | 313 ± 4###,* | 337 ± 6*** | 307 ± 0 | 280–300 | 293 | 290 ± 8+ | 297 ± 4 | 294 ± 2 | 299 ± 6 |
| Total Protein [g/dL] | 6.2 ± 0.2*** | 6.0 ± 0.2*** | 3.8 ± 0.1 | 6.5–8.5 | n.d. | 0.7 ± 0.1+++ | 0.7 ± 0.0+++ | 0.7 ± 0.1+++ | 0.3 ± 0.1 |
| Albumin [g/dL] | 4.0 ± 0.2*** | 4.0 ± 0.2*** | 2.4 ± 0.1 | 3.5–5.5 | n.d. | 0.2 ± 0.2 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.1 |
| Glucose [mg/dL] | 298 ± 9*** | 290 ± 10*** | 129 ± 8 | 70–100 | 103 | 113 ± 3++ | 115 ± 2++ | 114 ± 3++ | 103 ± 4 |
| Fibrinogen [mg/dL] | 234 ± 58###,*** | < 30 | < 30 | 200–400 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| Triglyceride [mg/dL] | 80 ± 10 | 78 ± 7 | 75 ± 2 | 75–200 | n.d. | 7.4 ± 0.4 | 8.5 ± 0.5 | 9.3 ± 2.5 | 14 ± 6.0 |
| Cholesterol [mg/dL] | 161 ± 11*** | 159 ± 6*** | 37 ± 2 | 120–250 | 10.0 | 17 ± 4 | 19 ± 4 | 17 ± 4 | 9 ± 3.0 |
| Na+ [mmol/L] | 172 ± 2*** | 171 ± 2*** | 138 ± 2 | 135–148 | 148 | 142 ± 6 | 145 ± 3 | 143 ± 3 | 143 ± 0 |
| K+ [mmol/L] | 4.6 ± 0.1*** | 4.6 ± 0.1*** | 11.9 ± 0.4 | 3.6–5.0 | 5.5 | 5.2 ± 0.2+++ | 5.3 ± 0.1+++ | 5.2 ± 0.1+++ | 6.3 ± 0.3 |
| Cl− [mmol/L] | 71 ± 1###,*** | 93 ± 3 | 93 ± 1 | 97–108 | 126 | 113 ± 5 | 118 ± 3 | 115 ± 2 | 119 ± 1 |
| Ca2+ [mmol/L] | 2.1 ± 0.1###,* | 13.8 ± 1.7*** | 3.7 ± 0.1 | 2.1–2.6 | 2.0 | 1.8 ± 0.1+ | 2.9 ± 0.1+++ | 1.8 ± 0.1+ | 2.1 ± 0.1 |
| Mg2+ [mmol/L] | 0.8 ± 0.0###,*** | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.0 | 0.8–1.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 ± 0.0 | 0.8 ± 0.0 | 0.8 ± 0.0 | 0.9 ± 0.0 |
| Fe3+ [mmol/L] | 78 ± 9*** | 76 ± 8*** | 184 ± 2 | 60–150 | n.d. | 8.0 ± 0.0++ | 7.7 ± 1.2++ | 8.0 ± 1.0++ | 25 ± 8 |
Data are shown as mean ± SD
n.d. not detected
Fig. 2Comparison of growth factor and cytokine content in supplemented ‘medium only’ day 0 and day 5 and conditioned medium day 5. Concentration of PDGF-BB, RANTES, EGF, VEGF-A, HGF, IL6, bNGF, SDF-1α and BDNF in differentially supplemented ‘medium only’ day 0 and day 5, and conditioned medium day 5 after culturing BM-, UC- and WAT-derived stromal cells, analyzed by multiplex analysis. Data are shown as mean ± SD of three cell donors each, measured in duplicates. Two-way ANOVA was used to determine statistically significant differences (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 compared to ‘medium only’ day 5)
Fig. 3Proliferation capacity is enhanced for different stromal cells in pHPL-based media compared to FBS-supplemented medium. Proliferative capacity of stromal cells expanded in either pHPL- (red), pHPLS- (orange) or mcpHPL- (green) compared to FBS- (blue) medium of UC- and WAT-derived stromal cells. Data are shown as cumulative population doublings (cPD) of three independent stromal cell donations for each tissue source tested in duplicates ± SD (+p < 0.05 comparing pHPL/pHPLS to FBS-supplementation; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, all pHPL-media compared to FBS-supplementation)
Fig. 4Upregulation of mRNA expression of distinct transcription factors in pHPL-media. a Heat map depicting the fold change mRNA expression of NANOG, SOX2, KLF4, cMYC and OCT4 in stromal cells cultivated in pHPL-, pHPLS- and mcpHPL-based medium with red color indicating up- and blue color downregulation compared to FBS medium. b mRNA expression of selected transcription and mitotic bookmarking factors in BM-, WAT- and UC-derived stromal cells cultured in pHPL-based media (summarized as red/orange/green bar) compared to FBS (blue bar). Data shown are mean fold change values of three individual donors for each tissue source measured in duplicates (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01)