Cargando…

Adipose-derived stem cells: Comparison between two methods of isolation for clinical applications

BACKGROUND: Adipose-derived stem cells are recognized as being an effective mesenchymal stem cell population with enormous potential in different fields of regenerative medicine and stem cell therapy. Although there is unanimous agreement on the harvesting procedure for adipose tissue, there are var...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Raposio, Edoardo, Simonacci, Francesco, Perrotta, Rosario E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5508488/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28736612
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2017.07.018
_version_ 1783249892658905088
author Raposio, Edoardo
Simonacci, Francesco
Perrotta, Rosario E.
author_facet Raposio, Edoardo
Simonacci, Francesco
Perrotta, Rosario E.
author_sort Raposio, Edoardo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Adipose-derived stem cells are recognized as being an effective mesenchymal stem cell population with enormous potential in different fields of regenerative medicine and stem cell therapy. Although there is unanimous agreement on the harvesting procedure for adipose tissue, there are various protocols for adipose-derived stem cell isolation. The aim of this study was compare two methods of adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) isolation, one based on a mechanical + enzymatic (ME) procedure and the other one exclusively mechanical (MC), in order to determine which one was superior to the other in accordance with current European and US legislation. METHODS: We reported step by step the two different methods ASCs isolation by comparing them. The ME procedure included the use of a centrifuge, an incubator and collagenase digestion solution (Collagenase NB 6 GMP Grade 17458; Serva GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany). The MC procedure was performed by vibrating shaker and centrifuge, both placed in a laminar airflow bench. RESULTS: With the ME procedure, a mean of 9.06 × 10(5) ASCs (range, 8.4 to 9.72 × 10(5); SD ± 6.6 × 10(5)) was collected, corresponding to 25.9% of the total number of harvested cells. With the MC procedure, a mean of 5 × 10(5) ASCs (range: 4.0 to 6.0 × 10(5); SD, ±1 × 10(5)) was collected, corresponding to 5% of the total number of harvested cells. CONCLUSION: Based on data collected, from the same amount of lipoaspirate the ME procedure allowed to isolate a greater number of ASCs (25,9%) compared to the MC one (5%).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5508488
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55084882017-07-21 Adipose-derived stem cells: Comparison between two methods of isolation for clinical applications Raposio, Edoardo Simonacci, Francesco Perrotta, Rosario E. Ann Med Surg (Lond) Original Research BACKGROUND: Adipose-derived stem cells are recognized as being an effective mesenchymal stem cell population with enormous potential in different fields of regenerative medicine and stem cell therapy. Although there is unanimous agreement on the harvesting procedure for adipose tissue, there are various protocols for adipose-derived stem cell isolation. The aim of this study was compare two methods of adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) isolation, one based on a mechanical + enzymatic (ME) procedure and the other one exclusively mechanical (MC), in order to determine which one was superior to the other in accordance with current European and US legislation. METHODS: We reported step by step the two different methods ASCs isolation by comparing them. The ME procedure included the use of a centrifuge, an incubator and collagenase digestion solution (Collagenase NB 6 GMP Grade 17458; Serva GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany). The MC procedure was performed by vibrating shaker and centrifuge, both placed in a laminar airflow bench. RESULTS: With the ME procedure, a mean of 9.06 × 10(5) ASCs (range, 8.4 to 9.72 × 10(5); SD ± 6.6 × 10(5)) was collected, corresponding to 25.9% of the total number of harvested cells. With the MC procedure, a mean of 5 × 10(5) ASCs (range: 4.0 to 6.0 × 10(5); SD, ±1 × 10(5)) was collected, corresponding to 5% of the total number of harvested cells. CONCLUSION: Based on data collected, from the same amount of lipoaspirate the ME procedure allowed to isolate a greater number of ASCs (25,9%) compared to the MC one (5%). Elsevier 2017-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5508488/ /pubmed/28736612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2017.07.018 Text en © 2017 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Research
Raposio, Edoardo
Simonacci, Francesco
Perrotta, Rosario E.
Adipose-derived stem cells: Comparison between two methods of isolation for clinical applications
title Adipose-derived stem cells: Comparison between two methods of isolation for clinical applications
title_full Adipose-derived stem cells: Comparison between two methods of isolation for clinical applications
title_fullStr Adipose-derived stem cells: Comparison between two methods of isolation for clinical applications
title_full_unstemmed Adipose-derived stem cells: Comparison between two methods of isolation for clinical applications
title_short Adipose-derived stem cells: Comparison between two methods of isolation for clinical applications
title_sort adipose-derived stem cells: comparison between two methods of isolation for clinical applications
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5508488/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28736612
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2017.07.018
work_keys_str_mv AT raposioedoardo adiposederivedstemcellscomparisonbetweentwomethodsofisolationforclinicalapplications
AT simonaccifrancesco adiposederivedstemcellscomparisonbetweentwomethodsofisolationforclinicalapplications
AT perrottarosarioe adiposederivedstemcellscomparisonbetweentwomethodsofisolationforclinicalapplications