4.7 Article

HLA-DR expression in clinical-grade bone marrow-derived multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells: a two-site study

期刊

STEM CELL RESEARCH & THERAPY
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13287-019-1279-9

关键词

Multipotent mesenchymal stromal cell; Potency; Identity; HLA-DR; Cellular therapy; Cell culture; Quality compliance

资金

  1. Generalitat de Catalunya as Consolidated Research Group [RD16/0011/0028, 2017SGR719]
  2. ACCIO (Catalonia Trade Investment
  3. Generalitat de Catalunya) under the Catalonian ERDF operational program (European Regional Development Fund) 2014-2020

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundContrary to the minimal criteria proposed by the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC), human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DR expression is largely unpredictable in ex vivo-expanded clinical-grade cultures. Although activation of MSC in culture does not appear to affect their functionality, a large study investigating the impact of HLA-DR expression on cell identity and potency is still missing in the literature.MethodsA retrospective analysis of HLA-DR expression in 130 clinical batches of bone marrow (BM)-MSC from two independent Good Manufacturing Practice-compliant production facilities was performed in order to identify the consequences on critical quality attributes as well as potential activation cues and dynamics of MSC activation in culture.ResultsHLA-DR+ cells in culture were confirmed to maintain fibroblastic morphology, mesenchymal phenotype identity, multipotency in vitro, and immunomodulatory capacity. Interestingly, the use of either human sera or platelet lysate supplements resulted in similar results.ConclusionsHLA-DR expression should be considered informative rather than as a criterion to define MSC. Further work is still required to understand the impact of HLA-DR expression in the context of product specifications on BM-MSC qualities for clinical use in specific indications.

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