4.5 Article

Heparin concentration is critical for cell culture with human platelet lysate

期刊

CYTOTHERAPY
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 1174-1181

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2013.05.006

关键词

differentiation; fetal bovine serum; fibroblasts; human platelet lysate; mesenchymal stromal cells; platelet lysate gel; proliferation; serum

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [WA1706/2-1, WA1706/3-1]
  2. StemCellFactory Project
  3. Ziel2.NRW
  4. Stem Cell Network NRW

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background aims. Culture media for mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are generally supplemented with fetal bovine serum. Human platelet lysate (hPL) has been proven to be a very effective alternative without the risk of xenogeneic infections or immune reactions. In contrast to fetal bovine serum, hPL comprises plasma, and anticoagulants-usually unfractionated heparin (UFH)-need to be added to prevent gel formation. Methods. Cultures of MSCs in hPL media with various concentrations of UFH and enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), were systematically compared with regard to proliferation, fibroblastoid colony-forming unit frequency, immunophenotype and in vitro differentiation. Results. At least 0.61 IU/mL UFH or 0.024 mg/mL LMWH was necessary for reliable prevention of coagulation of hPL pools used in this study. Higher concentrations impaired cellular proliferation in a dose-dependent manner even without benzyl alcohol, which is commonly added to heparins as a bacteriostatic agent. Colony-forming unit frequency was also reduced at higher heparin concentrations, particularly with LMWH, whereas no significant effect was observed on cellular morphology or immunophenotype. High concentrations of heparins reduced the in vitro differentiation toward adipogenic and osteogenic lineages. Conclusions. Heparin concentration is critical for culture of MSCs in hPL media; this is of particular relevance for cellular therapy where cell culture procedures need to be optimized and standardized.

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

4.5
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