4.6 Article

Microcarrier choice and bead-to-bead transfer for human mesenchymal stem cells in serum-containing and chemically defined media

期刊

PROCESS BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 59, 期 -, 页码 255-265

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2017.03.017

关键词

Mesenchymal stem cells; Microcarriers; Chemically defined medium; Dynamic cell expansion; Bead-to-bead transfer

资金

  1. Hessen State Ministry for Higher Education, Research and the Arts within Hessen initiative for scientific and economic excellence (LOEWE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The production of stem cells for clinical applications requires a suitable mass expansion and harvest process, which is implemented in a microcarrier-based bioreactor. Important parameters to consider include the choice of microcarriers for cell expansion, the growth medium and the scale-up strategy. We investigated six different microcarriers to determine whether they can support the growth and harvest of primary human mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (hMSCs) derived from bone marrow, and the immortalized cell line hMSC-TERT. A serum containing medium (SCM) and a new chemically defined medium (CDM) were compared under dynamic culture conditions. We also investigated bead-to-bead transfer from spinner flasks to a stirred tank reactor as a scale-up strategy. We observed cell type-dependent differences in growth rate and attachment behavior on each microcarrier. Missing serum components in the CDM led to slower cell attachment and growth, whereas microcarriers suitable for the SCM were also suitable for CDM. Glass-coated microcarriers supported hMSC-TERT growth and bead-to-bead transfer in SCM, whereas plasma-treated plastic surfaces promoted cell growth in CDM. We demonstrated that stem cell cultures can be scaled up by bead-to-bead transfer, avoiding the need for pre-cultures in tissue flasks. The replacement of pre-cultures with a monitored bioprocess could therefore facilitate the development of conditions suitable for large-scale stem cell production.

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