Cargando…
High Variability of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Obtained via Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Compared With Traditional Bone Marrow Aspiration Technique
BACKGROUND: Bone marrow aspirate (BMA) is a common source for harvesting mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), other progenitor cells, and associated cytokines and growth factors to be used in the biologic treatment of various orthopaedic pathologies. The aspirate is commonly centrifuged into a concentrate...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8655450/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34901292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211058459 |
_version_ | 1784612076854968320 |
---|---|
author | Brozovich, Ava Sinicrope, Brent J. Bauza, Guillermo Niclot, Federica Banche Lintner, David Taraballi, Francesca McCulloch, Patrick C. |
author_facet | Brozovich, Ava Sinicrope, Brent J. Bauza, Guillermo Niclot, Federica Banche Lintner, David Taraballi, Francesca McCulloch, Patrick C. |
author_sort | Brozovich, Ava |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Bone marrow aspirate (BMA) is a common source for harvesting mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), other progenitor cells, and associated cytokines and growth factors to be used in the biologic treatment of various orthopaedic pathologies. The aspirate is commonly centrifuged into a concentrated volume that can be immediately administered to a patient using commercially available kits. However, the handling and efficacy of BMA concentrate (BMAC) are still controversial. PURPOSE: To characterize BMA versus BMAC for MSC quantity, potency, and cytokine profile. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: From 8 participants (age, 17-68 years), 30 mL of bone marrow was aspirated by a single surgeon from either the proximal humerus or distal femur and was separated into 2 equal samples. One sample was kept as BMA, and the other half was centrifuged into BMAC. The 2 samples then underwent flow cytometry for detection of MSCs, cell analysis for colony-forming units (CFUs), and cytokine profiling. A 2-tailed t test was used to detect differences between MSCs, CFUs, and cytokine density concentrations between BMA and BMAC. RESULTS: The average concentration of MSCs in both BMA and BMAC was 0.001%. Average MSC events detected by flow cytometry were significantly higher in BMA versus BMAC (15.1 and 8.1, respectively; P < .045). Expanded MSCs demonstrated similar phenotypes, but CFUs were significantly increased in BMA compared with BMAC (104 vs 68 CFUs, respectively; P < .001). Total protein concentration and cytokine profiling demonstrated great variability between BMA and BMAC and between patients. Most importantly, BMAC failed to concentrate MSCs in 6 of 8 samples. CONCLUSION: There is great variability in MSC concentration, total protein concentration, and cytokine profile between BMA and BMAC. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When studying the clinical efficacy of BMAC, one must also evaluate the sample itself to determine the presence, concentration, and potency of MSCs if this is to be considered a cell-based therapy. Further standard operating procedures need to be investigated to ensure reproducible results and appropriate treatments. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8655450 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86554502021-12-10 High Variability of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Obtained via Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Compared With Traditional Bone Marrow Aspiration Technique Brozovich, Ava Sinicrope, Brent J. Bauza, Guillermo Niclot, Federica Banche Lintner, David Taraballi, Francesca McCulloch, Patrick C. Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: Bone marrow aspirate (BMA) is a common source for harvesting mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), other progenitor cells, and associated cytokines and growth factors to be used in the biologic treatment of various orthopaedic pathologies. The aspirate is commonly centrifuged into a concentrated volume that can be immediately administered to a patient using commercially available kits. However, the handling and efficacy of BMA concentrate (BMAC) are still controversial. PURPOSE: To characterize BMA versus BMAC for MSC quantity, potency, and cytokine profile. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: From 8 participants (age, 17-68 years), 30 mL of bone marrow was aspirated by a single surgeon from either the proximal humerus or distal femur and was separated into 2 equal samples. One sample was kept as BMA, and the other half was centrifuged into BMAC. The 2 samples then underwent flow cytometry for detection of MSCs, cell analysis for colony-forming units (CFUs), and cytokine profiling. A 2-tailed t test was used to detect differences between MSCs, CFUs, and cytokine density concentrations between BMA and BMAC. RESULTS: The average concentration of MSCs in both BMA and BMAC was 0.001%. Average MSC events detected by flow cytometry were significantly higher in BMA versus BMAC (15.1 and 8.1, respectively; P < .045). Expanded MSCs demonstrated similar phenotypes, but CFUs were significantly increased in BMA compared with BMAC (104 vs 68 CFUs, respectively; P < .001). Total protein concentration and cytokine profiling demonstrated great variability between BMA and BMAC and between patients. Most importantly, BMAC failed to concentrate MSCs in 6 of 8 samples. CONCLUSION: There is great variability in MSC concentration, total protein concentration, and cytokine profile between BMA and BMAC. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When studying the clinical efficacy of BMAC, one must also evaluate the sample itself to determine the presence, concentration, and potency of MSCs if this is to be considered a cell-based therapy. Further standard operating procedures need to be investigated to ensure reproducible results and appropriate treatments. SAGE Publications 2021-12-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8655450/ /pubmed/34901292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211058459 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Article Brozovich, Ava Sinicrope, Brent J. Bauza, Guillermo Niclot, Federica Banche Lintner, David Taraballi, Francesca McCulloch, Patrick C. High Variability of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Obtained via Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Compared With Traditional Bone Marrow Aspiration Technique |
title | High Variability of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Obtained via Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Compared With Traditional Bone Marrow Aspiration Technique |
title_full | High Variability of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Obtained via Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Compared With Traditional Bone Marrow Aspiration Technique |
title_fullStr | High Variability of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Obtained via Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Compared With Traditional Bone Marrow Aspiration Technique |
title_full_unstemmed | High Variability of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Obtained via Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Compared With Traditional Bone Marrow Aspiration Technique |
title_short | High Variability of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Obtained via Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Compared With Traditional Bone Marrow Aspiration Technique |
title_sort | high variability of mesenchymal stem cells obtained via bone marrow aspirate concentrate compared with traditional bone marrow aspiration technique |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8655450/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34901292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211058459 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brozovichava highvariabilityofmesenchymalstemcellsobtainedviabonemarrowaspirateconcentratecomparedwithtraditionalbonemarrowaspirationtechnique AT sinicropebrentj highvariabilityofmesenchymalstemcellsobtainedviabonemarrowaspirateconcentratecomparedwithtraditionalbonemarrowaspirationtechnique AT bauzaguillermo highvariabilityofmesenchymalstemcellsobtainedviabonemarrowaspirateconcentratecomparedwithtraditionalbonemarrowaspirationtechnique AT niclotfedericabanche highvariabilityofmesenchymalstemcellsobtainedviabonemarrowaspirateconcentratecomparedwithtraditionalbonemarrowaspirationtechnique AT lintnerdavid highvariabilityofmesenchymalstemcellsobtainedviabonemarrowaspirateconcentratecomparedwithtraditionalbonemarrowaspirationtechnique AT taraballifrancesca highvariabilityofmesenchymalstemcellsobtainedviabonemarrowaspirateconcentratecomparedwithtraditionalbonemarrowaspirationtechnique AT mccullochpatrickc highvariabilityofmesenchymalstemcellsobtainedviabonemarrowaspirateconcentratecomparedwithtraditionalbonemarrowaspirationtechnique |