4.0 Article

Evaluation of Sericin as a Fetal Bovine Serum-Replacing Cryoprotectant During Freezing of Human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells and Human Osteoblast-Like Cells

期刊

BIOPRESERVATION AND BIOBANKING
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 99-105

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/bio.2013.0078

关键词

-

资金

  1. Charles University in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine [PRVOUK-P24/LF1/3, PRVOUK-P27/LF1/1]
  2. Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen [PRVOUK-P36/LFP]
  3. Faculty of Science [501212]
  4. Ministry of Public Health, Czech Republic [NT 13531]
  5. European Regional Development Fund [ED2.1.00/03.0076]
  6. [SVV-2013-267205]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A reliable, cryoprotective, xeno-free medium suitable for different cell types is highly desirable in regenerative medicine. There is danger of infection or allergic reaction with the use of fetal bovine serum (FBS), making it problematic for medical applications. The aim of the present study was to develop an FBS-free cryoprotective medium for human mesenchymal stromal cells (hMSCs; primary cells) and immortalized human osteoblasts (SAOS-2 cell line). Furthermore, we endeavored to eliminate or reduce the presence of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in the medium. Sericin, a sticky protein derived from the silkworm cocoon, was investigated as a substitute for FBS and DMSO in the freezing medium. Cell viability (24 hours after thawing, both hMSC and SAOS-2) and colony-forming ability (2 weeks after thawing, only for hMSCs) were both determined. The FBS-free medium with 1% sericin in 10% DMSO was found to be a suitable freezing medium for primary hMSCs, in contrast to immortalized human osteoblasts. Surprisingly, the storage of hMSCs in a cultivation medium with only 10% DMSO also provided satisfactory results. Any drop in DMSO concentration led to significantly worse survival of cells, with little improvement in hMSC survival in the presence of sericin. Thus, sericin may substitute for FBS in the freezing medium for primary hMSCs, but cannot substitute for DMSO.

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

4.0
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