Al-Saqi Shahla Hamza, Saliem Mohammed, Quezada Hernan Concha, Ekblad Åsa, Jonasson Aino Fianu, Hovatta Outi, Götherström Cecilia
Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, K57, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, 141 86, Stockholm, Sweden,
Cell Tissue Bank. 2015 Jun;16(2):181-93. doi: 10.1007/s10561-014-9463-8. Epub 2014 Aug 13.
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have vast potential in cell therapy, and are experimentally used in the clinic. Therefore, it is critical to find a serum- and xeno-free cryopreservation method. The aim of this study was to compare two serum- and xeno-free cryoprotectants for MSCs. Adipose tissue MSCs (Ad-MSCs) and bone marrow MSCs (BM-MSCs) were cryopreserved in two cryoprotectants: the defined serum- and xeno-free STEM-CELLBANKER™ (CB) and 10 % dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in a xeno-free serum replacement cell culture medium and compared to non-cryopreserved MSCs. MSCs cryopreserved in CB or DMSO had similar morphology and surface marker expression compared to their respective non-cryopreserved MSC. Ad-MSCs and BM-MSC in both cryoprotectant media exhibited reduced mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) for CD105, BM-MSCs for CD73 and Ad-MSC increased MFI for HLA class I compared to non-cryopreserved MSCs. Population doubling time of CB cryopreserved and non-cryopreserved Ad-MSCs was similar (38.1 ± 13.6 and 36.8 ± 12.1 h), but somewhat higher when cryopreserved in DMSO (42.2 ± 10.8 h). BM-MSCs had higher population doubling time (CB 47.7 ± 11.4 and DMSO 62.3 ± 32.9 h respectively, p < 0.05) compared to Ad-MSCs. The viability of Ad-MSCs was significantly higher after cryopreservation in CB compared to DMSO (90.4 ± 4.5 % vs. 79.9 ± 3.8 % respectively). Ad-MSCs and BM-MSCs retained their mesodermal differentiation potential when cryopreserved in both cryoprotectants. The characteristics of Ad-MSCs post-thawing are better preserved by CB than by DMSO in serum- and xeno-free medium. Furthermore, Ad-MSCs and BM-MSCs are differently affected by the cryoprotectants, which may have implications for cell therapy.
间充质干细胞(MSCs)在细胞治疗中具有巨大潜力,且已在临床实验中应用。因此,找到一种无血清、无异种的冷冻保存方法至关重要。本研究的目的是比较两种用于MSCs的无血清、无异种冷冻保护剂。脂肪组织间充质干细胞(Ad-MSCs)和骨髓间充质干细胞(BM-MSCs)分别用两种冷冻保护剂进行冷冻保存:特定的无血清、无异种的STEM-CELLBANKER™(CB)以及在无血清、无异种的细胞培养基中的10%二甲基亚砜(DMSO),并与未冷冻保存的MSCs进行比较。与各自未冷冻保存的MSCs相比,用CB或DMSO冷冻保存的MSCs具有相似的形态和表面标志物表达。与未冷冻保存的MSCs相比,两种冷冻保护剂培养基中的Ad-MSCs和BM-MSC的CD105平均荧光强度(MFI)降低,BM-MSCs的CD73降低,Ad-MSC的HLA I类分子MFI升高。CB冷冻保存和未冷冻保存的Ad-MSCs的群体倍增时间相似(分别为38.1±13.6小时和36.8±12.1小时),但用DMSO冷冻保存时略高(42.2±10.8小时)。与Ad-MSCs相比,BM-MSCs的群体倍增时间更高(CB分别为47.7±11.4小时和DMSO为62.3±32.9小时,p<0.05)。与DMSO相比,Ad-MSCs在CB中冷冻保存后的活力显著更高(分别为90.4±4.5%和79.9±3.8%)。当在两种冷冻保护剂中冷冻保存时,Ad-MSCs和BM-MSCs保留了它们的中胚层分化潜能。在无血清、无异种培养基中,解冻后Ad-MSCs的特性用CB比用DMSO保存得更好。此外,Ad-MSCs和BM-MSCs受冷冻保护剂的影响不同,这可能对细胞治疗有影响。
Cell Tissue Bank. 2015-6
Stem Cell Res Ther. 2022-6-21