4.7 Review

Adapting Cord Blood Collection and Banking Standard Operating Procedures for HLA-Homozygous Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Production and Banking for Clinical Application

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm8040476

关键词

SOP; cord blood bank; induced pluripotent stem cells; cell therapy; advanced therapies medicinal products; HLA haplobank

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, National Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation 2013-2016 RETOS COLABORACION Program 2017 [RTC-2017-6000-1]
  2. Spanish Cell Therapy Network (TerCel) [RD16/0011/0028]
  3. ACCIO (Catalonia Trade Investment
  4. Generalitat de Catalunya) under the Catalonian ERDF operational program (European Regional Development Fund) 2014-2020
  5. TV3 Maraton 2018-FBG project [309768]
  6. AdvanceCat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this article, we will discuss the main aspects to be considered to define standard operation procedures (SOPs) for the creation of an induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) bank using cord blood (CB)or similar cell typebank guidelines for clinical aims. To do this, we adapt the pre-existing SOP for CB banking that can be complementary for iPSCs. Some aspects of iPSC manufacturing and the particular nature of these cells call for special attention, such as the potential multiple applications of the cells, proper explanation to the donor for consent of use, the genomic stability and the risk of genetic privacy disclosure. Some aspects of the iPSC SOP are solidly established by CB banking procedures, other procedures have good consensus in the scientific and medical community, while others still need to be further debated and settled. Given the international sharing vocation of iPSC banking, there is an urgent need by scientists, clinicians and regulators internationally to harmonize standards and allow future sample interchange between many iPSC bank initiatives that are springing up worldwide.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据