Johnsen H E, Hutchings M, Taaning E, Rasmussen T, Knudsen L M, Hansen S W, Andersen H, Gaarsdal E, Jensen L, Nikolajsen K, Kjaesgârd E, Hansen N E
The Stem Cell Laboratory, Department of Haematology, Oncology and Clinical Immunology, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bone Marrow Transplant. 1999 Dec;24(12):1329-36. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1702077.
In this preclinical evaluation we have compared the efficacy of three clinical CD34+enrichment procedures with respect to purity, yield and recovery, as well as risk of selective loss of CD34+ lineage-specific subsets. The three devices work by different principles and have several different manipulation steps: The magnetic field separator uses paramagnetic iron-dextran particles; the magnetic microbead selection is based on the advantage of a large surface area for immobilisation of the monoclonal antibody within a very small volume; the original immunoabsorption technique is based on the use of biotinylated antibody applied to a column of avidin-coated sephadex beads. The results of this evaluation gave a median purity 96% (88-98%), 86% (62-97%), and 49% (18-85%), and median yield of 65% (54-100%), 40% (21-74%), and 30% (8-55%), respectively. Subset analysis recognised a selective loss of CD34+/61+ after enrichment, most likely due to class I-II antibodies used for the enrichment step or, alternatively, nonspecific binding of megakaryocytic progenitors. Tumour cell spiking experiments on a clinical scale documented an expected 2-4 log reduction resulting in a number of potentially malignant cells in the CD34 enriched product. Our data support four major conclusions: First, that magnetic field separation is superior to magnetic beads and chromatography selection, mainly due to the risk of cell loss and insufficient recovery with the two latter methods. Second, that late differentiated progenitors with CD34 class III epitopes present are lost during the enrichment procedures. The third major conclusion is that chromatography selection results in a selective loss of CD34bright cells, which are most likely uncommitted early progenitors. This was an unexpected finding which may be a consequence of an imbalance between the strong forces between biotin-avidin and insufficient physical manipulation for CD34+ cell release. Finally, the data document that CD34 selection alone is an inappropriate way to eliminate tumour cells due to the uncontrolled variables and the inconsistent outcome. The only products which can be expected to be purged free of tumour cells are the ones with very minimal (<10-5) contamination in the starting products, ie products documented tumour free with the most sensitive techniques for quantitation. If this is not the case, the optimal purging strategy may be a two-step procedure including CD34 selection and subsequent depletion of the tumour cells in question.
在这项临床前评估中,我们比较了三种临床CD34+富集程序在纯度、产量、回收率以及CD34+谱系特异性亚群选择性丢失风险方面的效果。这三种设备的工作原理不同,且有几个不同的操作步骤:磁场分离器使用顺磁性铁葡聚糖颗粒;磁性微珠分选基于在非常小的体积内固定单克隆抗体的大表面积优势;原始免疫吸附技术基于将生物素化抗体应用于抗生物素蛋白包被的葡聚糖凝胶珠柱。该评估结果给出的中位纯度分别为96%(88 - 98%)、86%(62 - 97%)和49%(18 - 85%),中位产量分别为65%(54 - 100%)、40%(21 - 74%)和30%(8 - 55%)。亚群分析发现富集后CD34+/61+有选择性丢失,最可能是由于富集步骤中使用的I - II类抗体,或者是巨核细胞祖细胞的非特异性结合。临床规模的肿瘤细胞加标实验记录了预期的2 - 4个对数级减少,导致CD34富集产物中存在一定数量的潜在恶性细胞。我们的数据支持四个主要结论:第一,磁场分离优于磁性微珠和色谱分选,主要是因为后两种方法存在细胞丢失风险和回收率不足的问题。第二,具有CD34 III类表位的晚期分化祖细胞在富集过程中会丢失。第三个主要结论是色谱分选导致CD34bright细胞选择性丢失,这些细胞很可能是未定向的早期祖细胞。这是一个意外发现,可能是生物素 - 抗生物素蛋白之间强大作用力与CD34+细胞释放的物理操作不足之间失衡的结果。最后,数据表明仅通过CD34分选来消除肿瘤细胞是一种不合适的方法,因为存在不受控制的变量和不一致的结果。唯一有望清除肿瘤细胞的产品是起始产品中污染极少(<10 - 5)的产品,即使用最灵敏定量技术记录无肿瘤的产品。如果不是这种情况,最佳的清除策略可能是两步程序,包括CD34分选以及随后去除相关肿瘤细胞。