Automated dry thawing of cryopreserved haematopoietic cells is not adversely influenced by cryostorage time, patient age or gender.

Cell therapies are becoming increasingly widely used, and their production and cryopreservation should take place under tightly controlled GMP conditions, with minimal batch-to-batch variation. One potential source of variation is in the thawing of cryopreserved samples, typically carried out in water baths. This study looks at an alternative, dry thawing, to minimise variability in the thawing of a cryopreserved cell therapy, and compares the cellular outcome on thaw. Factors such as storage time, patient age, and gender are considered in terms of cryopreservation and thawing outcomes. Cryopreserved leukapheresis samples from 41 donors, frozen by the same protocol and stored for up to 17 years, have been thawed using automated, water-free equipment and by conventional wet thawing using a water bath. Post-thaw viability, assessed by both trypan blue and flow cytometry, showed no significant differences between the techniques. Similarly, there was no negative effect of the duration of frozen storage, donor age at sample collection or donor gender on post-thaw viability using either thawing method. The implication of these results is that the cryopreservation protocol chosen initially remains robust and appropriate for use with a wide range of donors. The positive response of the samples to water-free thawing offers potential benefits for clinical situations by removing the subjective element inherent in water bath thawing and eliminating possible contamination issues.

Introduction

The use of cell therapies such as CAR T cells as an effective treatment for a range of conditions is growing rapidly, harnessing the power of the immune system to fight cancers [1]. Sourcing the initial biological sample to create the preparation used for treatment is the first, key element in this process. For blood-based therapies this is commonly taken from cord blood, or an apheresis sample, for autologous treatments or allografts [2]. The initial sample may be minimally manipulated e.g. by apheresis or may become the starting point of a more complex manufacturing process to provide the final therapeutic material, a common feature of CAR T treatments [3].

The processes for transforming an initial sample into completed cell materials, and inevitable uncertainties over the time and place of delivery to the patient, makes effective storage an essential, enabling element in effective treatment [4]. Cryopreservation offers stable, extended storage and samples can be cryopreserved immediately after extraction e.g. for cord blood and then stored in a cell bank until required [5]. Additional processing of an initial sample can also take place before cryopreservation e.g. leukapheresis of sample from patients in remission from myeloma or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, for use if the patient relapses.

Cryopreservation has three key phases, notably cooling, storage and thawing [4,6]. For clinical cell systems, beyond the research laboratory, the first two of these are precisely controlled and recorded using validated protocols and automated controlled-rate freezers. Automatic alarms and monitoring systems are essential for good storage practice in frozen tissue banks [7]. Efficient thawing, with minimal reduction in viability and performance is essential before further processing and is often the final manipulation of a completed product carried out at the point of delivery to the patient. Clearly, any errors in thawing that damage the product, however they are caused, could have damaging consequences for the effectiveness of the cell therapy.

Thawing of cryopreserved materials has developed, over time, as a relatively simple procedure with a strong, subjective element. Typically, this involves the immersion of the frozen sample in a water bath at 37°C with melting of the last ice visually determined (wet thawing). Different operators may choose a slightly different end-of-thaw indicator, with samples e.g. cryobags, held at different angles or agitated at different speeds (or not at all). This compounds the risk of user-to-user variability producing variable results. It is acknowledged that, in the hands of a specialist technician, the essentially subjective technique of wet thawing is successful and, largely, consistent. However, the end-user of a cryopreserved product can be separated by location and time from the specialists that processed and froze the initial material. Consequently, thawing is increasingly carried out, often at the bedside, by clinical staff who may have little, or no, training or experience in cryopreservation. This generates a real risk of mishandling that can reduce post-transplant performance, due to a reduction in viable cell number.

Whilst practicable in a research laboratory, thawing water baths can also create a contamination risk that is unacceptable in many clinical situations [8-10]. Additional time and facilities for sterilisation, rewarming, refilling and temperature stabilisation must also be available. Recently, however, variants of equipment that enable water-free thawing of larger samples, held in cryobags, are becoming available. These systems use mechanical heating, such as a warm metallic plate as used in this study and/or warmed but sealed liquids that do not come into direct contact with the sample being thawed [11-15]. These systems eliminate user-to-user variability and provide a consistent, programmable process that removes any subjective intervention on the part of the user. They also provide options for computerised control, monitoring and data recording. Previous studies have also indicated that dry thawing can be applied successfully to non-cellular therapeutic materials such as plasma samples [11-13,15], however as water is fluid and a very effective thermal conductor, these typically have slightly longer warming times than a water bath-based system.

Patients selected for apheresis, including leukapheresis, for myeloma therapy, will show innate, individual variation in responses to mobilization possibly due to age, health condition or gender [16,17]. To provide therapy, using cryopreserved material, at an optimal level it is essential to understand how this variation may influence the post-thaw performance of thawed cell preparations. Any further increase in variation that could be caused by poor control within the cryopreservation process has to be minimised. This is particularly relevant to thawing for the reasons outlined above.

The availability of cryopreserved leukapheresis samples destined for disposal (taken from donors who had been successfully treated for myeloma and were in remission), provided a unique opportunity to compare and review the post-thaw performance of samples that had been stored, using the same protocol, for as long as 17 years. The protocol used was able to cryopreserve the 2x106 viable cells kg-1 (measured pre-cryopreservation) of recipient body weight in most patients deemed necessary for effective therapy [16,17]. The study used paired samples for up to 41 patients and the influence on post-thaw viability of cryostorage time, patient gender and age at sample collection was investigated. Additionally, the study compared the effectiveness of water-free and wet thawing on these samples.

Materials and methods

Cell samples and cryopreservation

Paired leukapheresis samples from male and female patients in remission from myeloma or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, aged between 39 and 70 years old at collection were provided. The mobilized peripheral blood was prepared by mobilization techniques, which include five daily injections of filgrastim (G-CSF) and cyclophosphamide to stimulate stem cells out of bone marrow into the bloodstream.

Apheresis samples were obtained post-discard from the biobank which were no longer needed for clinical use. Patients previously gave informed consent for cell donations to the cell bank to be used for research and development if they were no longer required for clinical treatment.

There were between 60 and 140ml of the completed cell preparation in each cryobag (CryoStore, CS500NS or CS250NS, Origen Biomedical, Austin, USA). The samples were double bagged with an overwrap (Seaborn Laminate Polypropylene Pouch, Moore & Buckle, St Helens, UK).

The bags had been cooled in a Kryo-10 Planer controlled-rate freezer (Planer, Sudbury, UK) following a protocol using a classical set of cooling rates for the cryopreservation of haematopoietic stem cells: a 10-minute equilibration at 4°C in cryoprotectant consisting of 10% DMSO in 4.5% Human Albumin Serum, followed by a 2°C min-1 cooling rate down to -30°C, raised to 4°C min-1 [18-21]. Samples were cooled to -100°C before transfer to the vapour phase above liquid nitrogen for storage. The cooling profile was recorded for each cryopreservation run. Continuous temperature monitoring was in place to ensure that the samples did not experience any warming during storage. All sample pairs were cryopreserved from the same apheresis, during the same cryopreservation run with equal volumes per bag.

Thawing

Prior to thawing, cryobags were directly transferred from the storage vessel into a fully charged dry shipper (Chart MVE, Ball Ground, GA, USA) to facilitate transfer to the thawing laboratory. Continuous temperature monitoring was employed during transfer to ensure the integrity of the cryochain. A pair of bags from the same patient extraction were thawed concurrently, one in a standard laboratory water bath (wet thawing), and the other in a water-free system. The post-thaw tests on each pair of bags were also carried out concurrently.

To wet thaw, a 16-litre non-circulating water bath with thermostatic temperature control was freshly filled with water less than 1h before each event and was monitored as being within 1°C of 37°C before use. The temperature was monitored with type T thermocouples connected to a TC-08 temperature measuring unit (Picotechnology, St. Neots, UK). A cryobag was removed from the dry shipper and immediately fully submerged in the water bath, where it was gently agitated. As the last of the visible ice melted the cryobag was removed from the water bath and post-thaw analysis began immediately. The duration of the thawing episode was recorded.

For water-free thawing, a controlled-rate thawing station (VIA Thaw, Cytiva, Cambridge, UK) was programmed with the cryobag volume and warmed to 34°C before the thawing cycle was started. This system uses adaptable metal plates heated to a set temperature (34°C) to warm a cryobag from both sides. Upon removal from the dry shipper the cryobag was immediately placed into the machine and thawing initiated immediately. When completion of thawing was indicated, the cryobag was removed and post-thaw analysis started. The duration of the thawing episode was recorded.

Post-thaw analysis of cryopreserved leukapheresis samples

Trypan blue staining

Cell samples were diluted in trypan blue solution (0.4% trypan blue in 0.9% saline solution, Sigma, Gillingham, UK #T8154), gently agitated and left to stand for 1 minute. Thereafter, sample-blind live/dead cell counts were carried out using a haemocytometer with a minimum of at least 100 nucleated cells counted per sample. Where necessary the cell suspensions were further diluted in Hanks Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS, HyClone, Cytiva, Cramlington, UK #SH30031.03).

Cells that excluded the trypan blue dye were accepted as having an intact, outer membrane and defined as viable. Those cells with the intracellular volume stained blue were accepted as having a compromised membrane and were defined as non-viable. Trypan blue viability was calculated as the percentage of the cell population with an intact cell membrane.

Total nucleated cell count

Total nucleated cells in a 1ml sample of thawed cell preparation were counted immediately post-thaw using an automated H500 cell counter (Yumizen H1500, Horiba, Kyoto, Japan).

Colony forming units

A 0.2ml aliquot of cell suspension was placed into 6ml of Methocult gel (Stemcell Technologies, Vancouver, Canada,) and vortexed for 1 minute to allow for full mixing. Samples were allowed to stand for 5 minutes before 1.1ml was placed into each of 4 wells of a 6-well plate. The plate was incubated at 37°C in 5% CO2 for 14 days in a humidified incubator, at which point a colony count was carried out for each well. A colony was defined as a grouping of approximately 50 or more cells.

Flow cytometry

CD45+, CD34+, and CD34+/7-AAD positive cells were counted by flow cytometry as a measure of viable cells [22]. Following a total nucleated-cell count, outlined above, samples were diluted to 1-2x107 cells ml-1 and incubated with CD45 FITC/CD34 PE antibody (BD Bioscience, Wokingham, Berkshire, UK, #341071) and 7-AAD viability dye (BD Bioscience, #559925) in BD Trucount tubes (BD Bioscience, #555899) for 15 minutes at room temperature in the dark. Red cell lysis was performed using Pharmlyse (BD Bioscience, #555899) for 15 minutes. Flow cytometric analysis was performed on a minimum of 100,000 total CD45 positive events using a BD FACSCanto II flow cytometer (BD Bioscience). Absolute live/dead CD45/CD34 positive cell numbers were determined using a single platform technique with Trucount beads and an ISHAGE Boolean gating strategy selecting CD45/CD34 positive cells with 7-AAD live/dead cell determination [23].

Statistical analyses

The R software (versions 3.4.2 and 4.0.2) and R Commander 2.4–1 package were used for statistical analyses and displaying the data [24,25].

To compare both thawing methods on the measured CD45+ and CD34+ cell post-thaw recoveries, Bland-Altman analyses were performed, after ensuring the differences between both thawing methods for each cellular parameter were normally distributed (Shapiro-Wilk normality test, p-values = 0.3 and 0.2, respectively).

Linear regressions were used to test for a relationship between post-thaw cellular parameters and either cryogenic storage time or patient age compared with and Pearson correlation coefficient. To investigate the influence of gender and thawing method on post-thaw cellular parameters, box and whisker plots were drawn. Means were compared with the parametric T-test if the samples followed a normal distribution and had homogeneous variances (p-values > 0.05) or with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test if not (p-values < 0.05).

Results

Thawing method and post-thaw viability of cryopreserved leukapheresis samples

Analysis of post-thaw cell outcome showed no significant differences (p-values > 0.05) between water-free and wet thawing (Figs 1 and 2), whether measured as cell viability by the trypan blue dye exclusion method (Fig 1A), total viable CD34+ cells (Fig 1B) or as colony-forming units (Fig 1C). The comparison of water-free and wet thawing methods on CD45+ and CD34+ cell post-thaw viabilities is shown in Fig 2. For CD45+ post-thaw cell viability, the water-free thawing method gave on average lower results than the wet thawing method with a correlation coefficient of 0.961. On the contrary, for CD34+ post-thaw cell viability, the water-free thawing method gave on average higher results than the wet thawing method with a correlation coefficient of 0.834.

Fig 1

The comparative effect of water-free and wet thawing on the post-thaw outcome of haematopoietic cells from cryopreserved leukapheresis samples.

(A) Cell viability immediately post-thaw determined as trypan blue exclusion (B) Total CD34+ cell counts (through flow analysis). (C) Colony forming units counted after 14 days post-thaw incubation. The p-values obtained from comparing means between thawing methods are indicated.

Fig 2

Bland-Altman analysis of the two different thawing methods.

Plots of post-thaw viability, comparing wet and water free thawing methods with line of equality for (A) CD45+ and (B) CD34+ post-thaw viabilities, determined through flow analysis.

Large patient-to-patient variations were observed as is not uncommon in myeloma patients [16,17] e.g. trypan blue dye exclusion ranged from 38% to 100% and CD34+ viability from 8% to 87%. Average trypan blue viability was 69.4 ± 19.2%, which was significantly higher than the CD34+ viability at 49.2 ± 20.4%, (p-value < 0.05). Thawing time was measured as 405 ± 101s and 337 ± 121s for the water-free and wet thawing respectively (p-value < 0.05).

Storage time and post-thaw survival

Examination of a potential effect of cryogenic storage duration on cell viability, was determined both as trypan blue dye exclusion and by flow cytometry for CD34+ cells. Considering the combined data for water-free and wet thawed samples (Fig 3), there was no indication of a positive or negative linear relationship between viability and frozen storage time (p-values = 0.685 and 0.524 for trypan blue and flow cytometry assessed viabilities, respectively), with a poor representation of the data by the linear model (the adjusted square of the Pearson correlation coefficient, adj. R-squared < 0). Similarly, when the water-free and wet thawing data were considered separately no significant relationship was found: for water-free thawing the p-values were 0.944 and 0.631 for trypan blue and flow cytometry assessed viabilities, respectively, and for wet thawing, the comparable p-values were 0.532 and 0.677, with negative adj. R-squared values.

Fig 3

The comparative effect of cryogenic storage time of cryopreserved leukapheresis samples on the immediate post-thaw cell viability.

(A) Immediate post-thaw cell viability determined as trypan blue exclusion or (B) by flow cytometry for CD34+ cells. Storage periods ranged between 3 months and 17 years, and results for water-free (WF) and wet thawing are presented as open and filled symbols, respectively. The linear model applied to the data as a function of cryogenic storage time is indicated by a dashed line. The adjusted square of the Pearson correlation coefficient (adj. R-squared) indicating the extent of variability in the dataset explained by the linear model, is provided.

Patient age and post-thaw survival

Patient age at the time of initial collection of blood for leukapheresis, ranging from 39 to 70 years old, had no positive or negative relationship on the immediate post-thaw trypan blue viability (p-value = 0.899) when considering the combined data from water-free and wet thawing (Fig 4A). The relationship determined by flow cytometry for post-thaw CD34+ viability (Fig 4B), however, suggested a negative trend but this was not significant (p-value = 0.065). The linear model explained only approximately 3% of the variability in the data (adj. R-squared = 0.0029). When considering the data for water-free thawing, similar observations were made with p-values of 0.970 and 0.065 for trypan blue and flow cytometry assessed viabilities, respectively. Similarly, wet thawing gave no significant result for the trypan blue and flow cytometry assessments (p-values = 0.820 and 0.429 respectively, with negative adj. R-squared values; data not shown).

Fig 4

The effect of patient age at initial collection of leukapheresis samples before cryopreservation on immediate post-thaw cell viability.

(A) Immediate post-thaw cell viability determined as trypan blue exclusion or (B) by flow cytometry for CD34+ cells. Results for water-free and wet thawing are presented as open and filled symbols, respectively. Linear models applied to the combined water-free (WF) and wet thawing datasets as a function of patient age are shown as dashed lines, and the adjusted square of their Pearson correlation coefficient (adj. R-squared) indicating the percentage of variability in the dataset explained by the linear model, is indicated.

Patient gender and post-thaw survival

Post-thaw viability determined as trypan blue dye exclusion and by flow cytometry for CD45+ and CD34+ cells are presented in Fig 5 together with trypan blue exclusion for all cells. The mean viabilities are not statistically significant (p-value > 0.05) between male (n = 23) and female (n = 15 trypan blue; n = 18 CD34+ and CD45+) patients, despite the apparent, higher recovery for female patients.

Fig 5

The comparative effect of patient gender on the immediate post-thaw viability of cryopreserved leukapheresis samples.

Cell viability was determined as trypan blue exclusion or by flow cytometry for CD45+ and CD34+ cells. The p-values obtained from comparing means between patient gender are indicated.

Discussion

This study has shown that dry thawing is applicable to cellular materials such as leukapheresis samples, resulting in comparable, correlated, post-thaw outcomes to those produced by an experienced operative using wet thawing (Figs 1 and 2). This was despite the longer time taken to complete thawing in the water-free thawing system when compared to the conventional water bath technique (means of 405 vs. 337 seconds respectively, p-value < 0.05). This result may appear unexpected as, across the broader field of cryopreservation, rapid thawing (at least as fast as can be achieved in a 37°C water bath) is considered essential for good post-thaw recovery for a very wide range of cell types [26-29]. However, recent studies have shown that rapid thawing at this level is not required for somatic mammalian cells as long as the earlier cooling stage is appropriately controlled (as is the case with apheresis samples). Damage on warming these samples is commonly caused by the expansion of incomplete ice crystals as more energy becomes available for water mobility. While the sample is still cold enough to support ice, water molecules will more readily migrate to the surfaces of incomplete crystals to form more ice. Slow cooling, below about 10°C min-1 in DMSO-based cryoprotectants, allows complete ice formation on cooling and so largely removes the requirement for rapid warming [6,11-13].

The rationale underlying rapid thawing can be illustrated by considering cryopreserved sperm cells. In this instance rapid cooling is employed, together with a glycerol-based cryoprotectant. A consequence of this rapid cooling is that water loss from the cells is limited by diffusion and so the amount of extracellular ice is less than would be expected if an equilibrium had been reached. This means that ice can crystallise during thawing, as described above, causing a potentially lethal osmotic shock for the cells [30]. Rapid thawing limits the extent of this ice formation during thawing, so reducing any damaging, osmotic stresses. However, cryopreserved apheresis samples represent a system with significantly different properties. The relatively slow cooling rate and low viscosity, DMSO-based cryoprotectant that are employed allow more time for diffusion and allow the maximum amount of ice to form during controlled cooling. Consequently, ice crystallisation during thawing will be limited and so thawing can occur rapidly or slowly with a minimal risk of osmotic stress. However, it is important that samples are either used immediately or the DMSO washed out immediately after thawing. DMSO is toxic to cells at higher temperatures, and so thawed cells left in an aqueous DMSO solution will be adversely affected [31]. Establishing that water-free thawing is as effective as wet thawing is critical in enacting GMP processes in the manufacture of cell therapies, as water-free thawing allows for user-independent, traceable, and more accurately recordable thawing profiles, both for the final cell therapy but also for early stages in the manufacture—e.g. thawing of an initial apheresis sample which may be shipped cryopreserved to a manufacturing site as a starting material for the treatment.

The data presented in Fig 3 indicates that extending frozen storage from 3 months to 17 years has no significant effect on the post-thaw outcome of the samples. To ensure the safe, long-term storage of apheresis samples it is critical that the samples are held, continuously, below the glass transition temperature of the cryoprotectant solution, some -120°C for DMSO-based solutions [6,32]. Studies with other biological systems have shown this to be effective, and necessary, for decades [4,33-37]. This is achieved as cellular, chemical and biological processes in the sample effectively stop below this temperature [32]. Allowing the storage conditions to rise above the glass transition temperature, even briefly, introduces the risk of resumed diffusion, threatening the stability of the samples [38-40]. It should also be noted that the trypan blue assay gave a higher level of viability than flow cytometry in this instance, as was the case when assessing the effect of gender on post-that performance (Fig 5). This assay is quick and inexpensive, and its use is commonplace, but this potential overestimate of viability should be held in mind when calculating potential cell numbers that can be transplanted.

Unwanted storage temperature fluctuations may occur where many samples are stored together and retrieving one requires moving others, inadvertently exposing them to a temperature rise. If this excursion goes above the glass transition temperature for any particular sample, then a risk to stability arises. The few reports of decline in post-thaw outcome after storage in liquid nitrogen vapour (below -120°C) are likely due to such unintentional warming. Multiple temperature cycling between the vapour phase of liquid nitrogen and up to -120°C has been shown to be minimally damaging for PBMC cells [41], but similar studies for apheresis samples are lacking.

There was no significant negative impact of patient age on post-thaw assessment (Fig 4) up to 70 years, the maximum within the study, which agrees with findings for healthy donors [42]. This would appear to support continuing with the protocol, without modification, for the greater proportion of the patient population. However, a possible trend was observed for CD34+ cells where increased patient age seemed to negatively impact post-thaw viability (Fig 4B), and it may be possible that this trend became significant if the dataset included more patients aged 70 and above. Myeloma cases are more common in older patients with an average age of 67 and reduced engraftment has been observed in patients of 70+ years, particularly with respect to CD34+ cells [42,43]. This may become more significant concern as survival rates improve and the upper age limit of the patient population increases. The underlying reasons for this need to be determined and their significance for research into possible changes in the cryopreservation protocol considered.

Patient gender also had no significant impact on the post-thaw outcome of cells. Few studies have been reported looking specifically at the differences between male and female cryopreservation outcome. From this study of peripheral blood mononuclear cells, any improved outcome for female-derived samples did not stand up to statistical scrutiny.

11 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-17327

Automated dry thawing of cryopreserved haematopoietic cells is not adversely influenced by cryostorage time, patient age or gender

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kilbride,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

There is obviously a large differences of opinion between the two reviews.  Please try to address the critical issues raised by the one reviewer.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 25 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jeffrey Chalmers, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your competing interests statement; "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Authors PK, JM, GC, and GJM are employees of Cytiva."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Cytiva, Danaher Corporation, Cambridge, UK

Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3.  We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this study cryopreserved cell viability after dry and wet thawing is compared. No differences between both methods are observed in a comparison of obtained viabilities by t-test/Wilcoxon SR test. Furthermore, no correlation between viabilities and storage time, age, or sex is observed. The authors interpret these observations as being supportive for the use of dry thawing.

General:

The choice of statistical analysis in this study is not convincing. Instead of a t-test or Wilcoxon SR test, other methods (e.g., linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis) should have been applied. CD34+ viability ranged between ~10% and ~90% for both methods with a quite homogenous distribution and a possible range of 0-100%. It is obvious that P would not be <.05. The current way of presentation does not allow pairwise comparison of dry and wet thaw results on an individual basis. The attentive reader, however, can see in Fig. 2,3 that viability differs by up to 20-30 percent points in some cases (e.g., the ~64-year-old individual whose cells were stored for ~3 years). This suggests poor agreement between both methods of thawing, which in turn would impair assessment of the subgroup analyses.

Abstract:

The abstract should adhere to the conventional objectives-methods-results-conclusions structure in compliance with the journal author guidelines. Currently, it does not include information on background/objectives.

Introduction:

- I understand that all analyzed samples were cryopreserved PBMCs from stimulated donors (although this is never explicitly stated). Therefore, the introduction should be shortened, and it should focus on these products. While being the hot topic of the time, CAR-T cells have not much to do with this study.

- In the last paragraph the authors state that the studied samples were from “donors treated for myeloma and now in remission”, and that 2x10^6 viable cells/kg BW already had been used for therapy prior to the study. In case of the products with ~10% CD34+ viability there must have been a unplausibly high number of cryobags available to achieve this therapeutic dose. I am assuming that the viability of the cells used for infusion was as low as the viability observed in this study, as the authors state that cryogenic storage time does not affect post-thaw viability.

Materials and Methods:

- It should be explicitly stated what products are studied, e.g., PBMCs from autologous donors after stimulation (GCSF only? GCSF plus plerixafor?). It should be explicitly stated, if the cryobags used for comparison were identical pairs (Same total volume? Same content?)

- The dry thawing device should be described in more detail, as the reader might not be familiar with it.

Results:

- Viability is unusually low in a quite high number of products. Pre-freeze viability usually is near 100%. In the literature recovery rates of viable CD34+ cells are usually described to lay between 80% and 90%. In real life recovery rates might be as low as 50-60% in some cases. But viabilities of 10-20% implicate recovery rates of <50%, and it is not clear to me, how one could successfully collect enough CD34+ cells for therapeutic use with such low viability.

- In the last paragraph the authors state that trypan blue viability was higher than CD34+ and CD45+ viability, but no statistical comparison is provided.

Discussion:

- First paragraph: The absence of a significant difference in this case does not in turn implicate that the compared methods are equivalent (see general comment).

- Second paragraph discusses importance of thaw time without much concrete reference to the performed analyses and observed results.

- Third paragraph: See above (second comment regarding Results section).

- Fourth paragraph: Again, too much general information.

- Sixth paragraph: “Red blood cell transplant effectiveness” and ref. 43 refer to common allogenic RBC transfusions (without cryopreservation). These cannot be compared with autologous PBMC infusions.

Author contributions:

- The comment used for internal communication between the authors should be removed from the word document before submission.

Reviewer #2: This study compared two methods for thawing hematopoietic stem cell grafts cryopreserved using DMSO, thawing using the traditional water bath and thawing using an automated water-free thawing device. The study also evaluated the effect of storage duration, patient age and patient gender on the post-thaw recovery of leukocytes and CD34+ cells. While all of the data is important to laboratories involved with processing hematopoietic stem cells, the most relevant data involves the finding that automated water-free thawing device yielded similar results as a water bath.

These finding are of particular importance to laboratories thawing genetically engineered T-cells such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells. The processing of CAR T-cells is, in general, expected to meet strict Good Manufacturing Practice requirements. Thawing cells using the automated water-free thawing device prevents variations in the thawing process due to technique differences among lab staff which allows for a more consistent thawing process. In addition, maintaining a water bath in a processing laboratory presents a risk for microbial contamination of the laboratory and the product. The study did not directly evaluate thawing of genetically engineered T cells, but the results of thawing with the automated water-free thaw device would likely be similar. While the manuscript mentions the advantages of the automated water-free thaw device in the introduction section, it may be worthwhile to include some mention of these advantages in the discussion section.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

4 Sep 2020

Dear Editor,

Please note that these have also been uploaded as a word document.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our work for PLOS. We’d also like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments, and we hope that you find the revised text suitable for publication. In the below document, we first answer the journal requests regarding competing interests and the financial statement, before going on to answer the reviewer comments. We have kept the reviewer comments in black, with our responses in blue.

Best Wishes,

Peter and the authors,

1. We have prepared a Financial Statement as requested:

The funder Cytiva provided support in the form of salaries only for authors PK, GC, JM, and GJM, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

And an updated Competing Interests Statement as requested:

Authors PK, JM, GC, and GJM are employees of Cytiva, which provided salaries for these authors. No consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products were derived from this study. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Responses to reviewers:

Reviewer #1: In this study cryopreserved cell viability after dry and wet thawing is compared. No differences between both methods are observed in a comparison of obtained viabilities by t-test/Wilcoxon SR test. Furthermore, no correlation between viabilities and storage time, age, or sex is observed. The authors interpret these observations as being supportive for the use of dry thawing.

General:

The choice of statistical analysis in this study is not convincing. Instead of a t-test or Wilcoxon SR test, other methods (e.g., linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis) should have been applied. CD34+ viability ranged between ~10% and ~90% for both methods with a quite homogenous distribution and a possible range of 0-100%. It is obvious that P would not be <.05. The current way of presentation does not allow pairwise comparison of dry and wet thaw results on an individual basis. The attentive reader, however, can see in Fig. 2,3 that viability differs by up to 20-30 percent points in some cases (e.g., the ~64-year-old individual whose cells were stored for ~3 years). This suggests poor agreement between both methods of thawing, which in turn would impair assessment of the subgroup analyses.

We agree that for these age and storage time tests a linear regression is appropriate for population-wide tests i.e. for when we plot say storage time or patient age against post-thaw viability. We have in fact done this for these datasets shown in figures 2 and 3 (now numbered figures 3 and 4 in the revised manuscript), using a Pearson correlation coefficient to a linear regression model. We have changed the text to be more explicit about the method used here (p. 8, l. 216-217 in the revised manuscript with track changes).

We agree that Bland-Altman analyses, as suggested by the reviewer, on CD45+ and CD34+ post-thaw cell viabilities relative to wet and dry thawing is appropriate as the differences between both methods for each cellular parameter were normally distributed (test performed: Shapiro-Wilk normality test, p-values = 0.3 and 0.2, respectively). We have carried out these analyses using Bland-Altman as suggested by the reviewer, and the plot of both thawing methods with line of equality for CD45+ and CD34+ post-thaw cell viabilities are shown in the updated Figure 1.

Overall, agreement between both thawing methods is considered substantial for CD45+ and moderate for CD34+ (Altman, 1991; McBride, 2005), which was confirmed by concordance correlation coefficients (Lin et al. 1989), with values of 0.95 and 0.80, respectively. We have updated the methods (p. 8, l. 210-214), figure numbering (throughout the results and discussion sections), and results section accordingly (p. 9, l. 234-238).

Abstract:

The abstract should adhere to the conventional objectives-methods-results-conclusions structure in compliance with the journal author guidelines. Currently, it does not include information on background/objectives.

We agree and have added some new text to the start of the abstract to better put the work and aims in context (p. 2, l. 28-34).

Introduction:

- I understand that all analyzed samples were cryopreserved PBMCs from stimulated donors (although this is never explicitly stated). Therefore, the introduction should be shortened, and it should focus on these products. While being the hot topic of the time, CAR-T cells have not much to do with this study.

We’ve updated the methods section to make the mobilization of the cells, and this general process, more detailed and reproducible (also based on another comment below; p. 5, l. 125-128). We have removed some extra text in the introduction where possible (p. 3, l. 72-76). We have also removed some references to T cells too (p. 3, l. 61-65) to streamline the introduction, although we think it is relevant to keep some mention of the CAR-T area. This is because CAR-T is perhaps the fastest growing area of research in apheresis samples, and so we think that there is relevance and usefulness from this work to researchers in that area. Specifically, in CAR-T processing the initial step usually involves taking an apheresis sample from a patient, cryopreserving and shipping it, before thawing at a manufacturing site, a process for which this work is directly relevant (except perhaps the extended storage times part). While this paper focuses on apheresis samples which were taken for use in myeloma samples, this doesn’t preclude the relevance for the data for apheresis samples used in other areas.

- In the last paragraph the authors state that the studied samples were from “donors treated for myeloma and now in remission”, and that 2x10^6 viable cells/kg BW already had been used for therapy prior to the study. In case of the products with ~10% CD34+ viability there must have been a unplausibly high number of cryobags available to achieve this therapeutic dose. I am assuming that the viability of the cells used for infusion was as low as the viability observed in this study, as the authors state that cryogenic storage time does not affect post-thaw viability.

We have rephrased this statement in the text as it was unacceptably ambiguous (p. 5, l. 112-113). What we intended to state in this paragraph was that the myeloma samples had been taken from patients who in the past had been successfully treated and so were in remission at point of apheresis. The 2x10^6 viable cells/kg is actually the pre-freeze value target (this was reworded in p. 5, l. 115-117). In practice we thaw and transfuse cells immediately, as the cells start to die due to the DMSO toxicity as soon as they are warmed so we cannot wait for flow work. In the case of very low viabilities (trypan blue as flow takes too long), we advise the clinical who can decide the best course of action (such as give a larger number of cryobags for example). The work shows that cryogenic storage duration does not significantly affect post-thaw viability, however the freeze-thaw process itself does, to an extent that is minimal to considerable (with for instance CD34+ cell viability ranging from 8% to 87%), due to patient sample variability at apheresis.

Materials and Methods:

- It should be explicitly stated what products are studied, e.g., PBMCs from autologous donors after stimulation (GCSF only? GCSF plus plerixafor?). It should be explicitly stated, if the cryobags used for comparison were identical pairs (Same total volume? Same content?)

- The dry thawing device should be described in more detail, as the reader might not be familiar with it.

We have edited the methods section to give more detail about the mobilization process of the patients (p. 5, l. 125-128), as well as making clear that all bags were identical (p. 6, l. 143-144). We have added another reference about dry thawing devices and explained further how they work in the introduction (p.4, l. 96-98 and 103-104) and in the methods (p.6, l. 162-163). One thing we want to avoid in this paper is making it too specifically focused on a single thawing device – the main outcome of this part of the work is that water-free thawing has the same outcome as a water bath, even though the thaw takes a little longer (which would be true for any dry thawing system as thermal transfer relies on conduction rather than on convection) – we believe these results aren’t limited to the system tested here so don’t want to limit the readers’ interest. The details of the system are mentioned in the text, so a reader should find out more detailed specifics if required.

Results:

- Viability is unusually low in a quite high number of products. Pre-freeze viability usually is near 100%. In the literature recovery rates of viable CD34+ cells are usually described to lay between 80% and 90%. In real life recovery rates might be as low as 50-60% in some cases. But viabilities of 10-20% implicate recovery rates of <50%, and it is not clear to me, how one could successfully collect enough CD34+ cells for therapeutic use with such low viability.

These are taken from a patient in the expectation of having enough cells, with a target of 2X10^6 cells/kg body weight minimum taken from each patient. However with some patients, either because they’re very ill, have a poor response to mobilization, or have a compromised immune system etc. have cells which freeze poorly (the exact mechanism by which one patient has ‘better’ cells in terms of freezing related to another is poorly understood), but we’ve highlighted this variation in results (p. 9, l. 239-240) and in the first section of the discussion (p. 13, l. 337-341). We didn’t want to remove these very poor results as this might artificially boost the suggested numbers, however we agree that these patients would have a low chance of engraftment – in practice we usually advise the clinician in the cases of very low viability, however infusing lower than 2x10^6 cell/kg doesn’t necessarily mean there won’t be engraftment.

- In the last paragraph the authors state that trypan blue viability was higher than CD34+ and CD45+ viability, but no statistical comparison is provided.

We have moved this text to the first section of the results where we think this sits better, and also added in the statistical comparison (p. 9, l. 239-240).

Discussion:

- First paragraph: The absence of a significant difference in this case does not in turn implicate that the compared methods are equivalent (see general comment).

See response to first comment.

- Second paragraph discusses importance of thaw time without much concrete reference to the performed analyses and observed results.

We have now added the thawing data to the results section to make the discussion better placed (p. 9, l. 240-241).

- Third paragraph: See above (second comment regarding Results section).

Answer same as previous.

- Fourth paragraph: Again, too much general information.

We have removed the general information to shorten the paragraph (p. 13, l. 330-335).

- Sixth paragraph: “Red blood cell transplant effectiveness” and ref. 43 refer to common allogenic RBC transfusions (without cryopreservation). These cannot be compared with autologous PBMC infusions.

This reference has been removed, and the final paragraph of this section re-written (p. 14, l. 363-371).

Author contributions:

- The comment used for internal communication between the authors should be removed from the word document before submission.

This has been removed.

Reviewer #2: This study compared two methods for thawing hematopoietic stem cell grafts cryopreserved using DMSO, thawing using the traditional water bath and thawing using an automated water-free thawing device. The study also evaluated the effect of storage duration, patient age and patient gender on the post-thaw recovery of leukocytes and CD34+ cells. While all of the data is important to laboratories involved with processing hematopoietic stem cells, the most relevant data involves the finding that automated water-free thawing device yielded similar results as a water bath.

These finding are of particular importance to laboratories thawing genetically engineered T-cells such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells. The processing of CAR T-cells is, in general, expected to meet strict Good Manufacturing Practice requirements. Thawing cells using the automated water-free thawing device prevents variations in the thawing process due to technique differences among lab staff which allows for a more consistent thawing process. In addition, maintaining a water bath in a processing laboratory presents a risk for microbial contamination of the laboratory and the product. The study did not directly evaluate thawing of genetically engineered T cells, but the results of thawing with the automated water-free thaw device would likely be similar. While the manuscript mentions the advantages of the automated water-free thaw device in the introduction section, it may be worthwhile to include some mention of these advantages in the discussion section.

We have added some more detail in the discussion (p. 12, l. 313-318). To avoid this being a repeat of the introduction, we have mentioned some of the GMP practical considerations related to dry thawing, which is likely useful to many clinical readers.

Submitted filename: 2020-08-28 Reviewer Comments Response Final.docx

Click here for additional data file.

24 Sep 2020

Automated dry thawing of cryopreserved haematopoietic cells is not adversely influenced by cryostorage time, patient age or gender

PONE-D-20-17327R1

Dear Dr. Kilbride,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jeffrey Chalmers, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all of the comments made by this reviewer. I have no further concerns about the manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

15 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-17327R1

Automated dry thawing of cryopreserved haematopoietic cells is not adversely influenced by cryostorage time, patient age or gender

Dear Dr. Kilbride:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jeffrey Chalmers

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE