4.6 Article

Novel low shear 3D bioreactor for high purity mesenchymal stem cell production

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252575

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fenton Bioprocessing Leadership award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that a novel bioreactor design can successfully cultivate bone marrow-derived hMSCs, with high cell yield, purity, and differentiation potential.
Eq 2: Specific growth rate. Where mu is the specific growth rate, T-2 is the total time elapse of the run, T-1 is the time of seeding, q(2) is the final cell yield, and q(1) is the initial cell seeding quantity. Eq 3: Where tau is the shear stress, eta is the viscosity of the liquid, and gamma is the strain rate (s(-1)). Eq 1: Doubling time. Where T-d is the doubling time, T-2 is the total time elapse of the run, T-1 is the time of seeding, q(2) is the final cell yield, and q(1) is the initial cell seeding quantity. Bone marrow derived human Mesenchymal Stem Cells (hMSCs) are an attractive candidate for regenerative medicine. However, their harvest can be invasive, painful, and expensive, making it difficult to supply the enormous amount of pure hMSCs needed for future allogeneic therapies. Because of this, a robust method of scaled bioreactor culture must be designed to supply the need for high purity, high density hMSC yields. Here we test a scaled down model of a novel bioreactor consisting of an unsubmerged 3D printed Polylactic Acid (PLA) lattice matrix wetted by culture media. The growth matrix is uniform, replicable, and biocompatible, enabling homogenous cell culture in three dimensions. The goal of this study was to prove that hMSCs would culture well in this novel bioreactor design. The system tested resulted in comparable stem cell yields to other cell culture systems using bone marrow derived hMSCs, while maintaining viability (96.54% +/- 2.82), high purity (>98% expression of combined positive markers), and differentiation potential.

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

4.6
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