4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Pretransplant islet culture: A comparison of four serum-free media using a murine model of islet transplantation

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
卷 37, 期 8, 页码 3446-3449

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2005.09.073

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. Human islet transplant protocols frequently incorporate a brief period of islet culture before transplantation. The optimal medium for pretransplant islet culture is unknown. Methods. We compared four serum-free media formulated for human islets: Miami (MM1), Memphis (M-SFM), Edmonton (EDM), and Kell OCZEM-SF/AF (Kell). Islets isolated from a single human pancreas with purity > 80% were cultured in 2500-islet-equivalent (IE) fractions using the media listed. After 7 days, each 2500-IE fraction was grafted under the kidney capsule of a streptozocin-diabetic rag1 mouse (n = 4 per group). Mice were evaluated with serum glucose monitoring, stimulated C-peptide release, and glucose tolerance tests. Islet fractions transplanted immediately after isolation (n = 4 mice) served as controls. In vitro islet function was assessed on days 0 and 3 and included insulin release (after static glucose stimulation), total cellular C-peptide content, cell count, and viability. Results. Glucose control was improved in all cohorts of mice after transplant, but only islet grafts cultured in MM1 were statistically indistinguishable from fresh islets. MM1 and hCell-cultured islet grafts showed improved glucose tolerance compared with fresh islets; C-peptide release was similar among the four cohorts. In vitro, only islets cultured in MM1 had similar stimulation index to fresh islets, whereas only hCell- and MM1-cultured islets demonstrated recovery of C-peptide content and insulin release. Conclusions. Media choice before transplant can influence islet quality, even when culture periods are short. Miami MM1 and hCell media may provide better islet protection than alternative media.

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

4.1
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