| Literature DB >> 31988998 |
Yoshiyuki Kasai1,2, Ryo Takagi1, Shinichiro Kobayashi1,3, Toshiyuki Owaki1, Naoyuki Yamaguchi4, Hiroko Fukuda4, Yusuke Sakai3, Yoshinori Sumita5, Nobuo Kanai1, Hajime Isomoto4, Kengo Kanetaka3, Takeshi Ohki1, Izumi Asahina5, Kazuhiro Nagai6, Kazuhiko Nakao4, Naoya Takeda2, Teruo Okano1, Susumu Eguchi3, Masayuki Yamato1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cultured stratified epithelial cell sheets have been clinically utilized as transplantable grafts for the regeneration of epithelial tissues, such as the esophagus, cornea, skin, and intraoral cavity. These cell sheets are expected to gain widespread use as regenerative medicine products and save many patients. For this purpose, establishing and disseminating the stale protocol of fabricating the cell sheet is crucial. The fabrication of cultured stratified epithelial cell sheets consists of many important steps, and since the patients' epithelial cell conditions vary widely and are sometimes unstable, the qualities of the epithelial cell grafts are likewise potentially unstable. Therefore, in this paper, we report the stable protocol for fabrication of the transplantable cell sheet particularly from patient-derived oral mucosal tissues.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical application; DMEM with antibiotics, (DMEM-AB); Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium, (DMEM); Epithelial cell sheet; Minimum trypsinization; Primary cell culture; epithelial growth factor, (EGF); keratinocyte culture medium, (KCM); poly(N-isopropyl acrylamide), (PIPAAm); polymerase chain reaction, (PCR)
Year: 2020 PMID: 31988998 PMCID: PMC6970131 DOI: 10.1016/j.reth.2019.11.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Regen Ther ISSN: 2352-3204 Impact factor: 3.419
Fig. 1Schematic diagram of oral mucosal epithelial cell sheet fabrication. (a Primary culture procedure. (b) Media replacement procedure. (c) Quality check procedure.
Fig. 2Primary culture procedure. (a) Disinfection and washing of biopsied oral mucosal tissue. (b) Photograph of washed oral mucosal tissue in 35 mm dish. (c) Cutting of oral tissue into 5 mm cubes for dispase treatment. (d) Separation of epithelial layer from connective tissue. (e) Cutting of separated epithelial tissue into 1 mm cubes for trypsin–EDTA treatment. (f) 1000 μL micropipette tip with cutting down the tip at 0-mm long (Normal), 1-mm long, and 2-mm long. (g) Counting suspended cells. Seeding cells into thermo-responsive cell culture inserts at a density of 8 × 104 viable cells/cm2.
Fig. 3Harvesting an oral mucosal epithelial cell sheet and pre-treatment for quality check. (a) Scratching the edge of confluent cells using sharp tweezers. (b) Completely detaching confluent cells as a cell sheet using obtuse tweezers. (c) After trypsin treatment, separated cells were investigated for number, viability, and keratin positive ratio.
Preparation of serum from human blood.
| Withdrawn blood (mL) | Serum (mL) | |
|---|---|---|
| Case 1 | 100.0 | 43.3 |
| Case 2 | 100.0 | 45.0 |
| Case 3 | 120.0 | 43.5 |
| Case 4 | 120.0 | 42.5 |
| Case 5 | 120.0 | 37.0 |
| Case 6 | 120.0 | 41.2 |
| Case 7 | 100.0 | 37.8 |
| Case 8 | 200.0 | 92.3 |
| Case 9 | 120.0 | 50.0 |
| Case 10 | 120.0 | 46.0 |
Conditions of primary oral mucosal epithelial cells for cell sheet preparation.
| Viable cell count (cells) | Total cell count (cells) | Viability (%) | Number of cell sheets | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case 1 | 2.27 × 106 cells | 2.42 × 106 cells | 93.6% | 8 inserts |
| Case 2 | 3.04 × 106 cells | 3.15 × 106 cells | 96.3% | 9 inserts |
| Case 3 | 1.91 × 106 cells | 2.14 × 106 cells | 88.8% | 6 inserts |
| Case 4 | 2.95 × 106 cells | 3.00 × 106 cells | 98.1% | 9 inserts |
| Case 5 | 2.81 × 106 cells | 2.92 × 106 cells | 96.3% | 9 inserts |
| Case 6 | 4.99 × 106 cells | 5.54 × 106 cells | 90.1% | 13 inserts |
| Case 7 | 4.04 × 106 cells | 4.10 × 106 cells | 98.7% | 11 inserts |
| Case 8 | 6.90 × 106 cells | 7.56 × 106 cells | 91.2% | 17 inserts |
| Case 9 | 1.85 × 106 cells | 1.92 × 106 cells | 96.0% | 6 inserts |
| Case 10 | 3.24 × 106 cells | 3.56 × 106 cells | 92.0% | 10 inserts |
Fig. 4(a) Observation of cell morphology and proliferation using phase-contrast microscopy ( × 100). (b) A whole image of the oral mucosal epithelial cell sheet. (c) Flow cytometry analysis showing that a cell sheet was composed of 99% cytokeratin positive cells.