4.2 Article

Characterization of mononuclear cells remaining in the leukoreduction system chambers of apheresis instruments after routine platelet collection:: a new source of viable human blood cells

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 47, 期 6, 页码 1042-1049

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2007.01233.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The yield of white blood cells (WBCs) extracted from whole-blood leukoreduction filters can be affected by the storage conditions and delay before filtration. Platelets (PLTs) collected with apheresis instruments (Trima Accel, Gambro BCT) are leukoreduced during the procedure on a fluidized particle bed in a leukoreduction chamber (LRS chamber). In this report, the residual cell content of these LRS chambers was characterized to determine whether it would be a valuable source of viable human blood cells. Study Design and Methods: The content of LRS chambers was eluted by gravity, and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMNCs) were purified on a Ficoll-Paque gradient. Analyses were performed before and after freezing. Proportions of CD3+, CD14+, CD16+, CD19+, CD34+, and CD45+ cells were determined by flow cytometry. The frequency of T cells expressing CD4, CD8, and CD27 and of B cells expressing immunoglobulin G (IgG), IgM, and CD27 was also determined. Results: LRS chambers held approximately 10(9) CD45+ cells representing the normal proportions of CD3+, CD14+, CD16+, and CD19+ cell populations of PBMNCs. A small fraction of these CD45+ cells were CD34+CD38+ cells (0.3 +/- 0.2%). The viability of these cells, measured before and after freezing, was more than 95 percent. Conclusion: The residual cell content of Trima Accel LRS chambers recovered after PLT collection is a good source of viable monocytes and lymphocytes. These PBMNCs, containing CD3+, CD14+, CD16+, CD19+, and CD34+ cells can be frozen to prepare cell banks, which opens new avenues for utilization in several physiologic studies or even in cellular therapy applications.

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

4.2
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