Umbilical Cord Blood Processing Techniques and Their Comparative Advantages: A Review

Eze Evelyn Mgbeoma, Christian Serekara Gideon
{"title":"Umbilical Cord Blood Processing Techniques and Their Comparative Advantages: A Review","authors":"Eze Evelyn Mgbeoma, Christian Serekara Gideon","doi":"10.9734/ibrr/2023/v14i4321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Umbilical Cord Blood (UCB) has steadily gained prominence in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Despite UCB advantages, the main disadvantage of UCB in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is its limited cell dose. Initially, UCB used to be processed and then made to undergo cryopreservation as whole cord blood banking leading to the problem of storing sufficiently large number of cryoprotected UCB units which requires vast amounts of costly storage space in liquid nitrogen. The sole purpose of processing is to concentrates the stem cells and reduce the volume for storage. Different UCB processing methods have been developed. 
 Aim: This review is aimed at bringing together the literature on the different processing methods and highlighting the underlying principles of each method, the relative efficiency and advantages of the methods.
 Methodology: The work involved mainly the critical review of all available academic, professional and industry documents on cord blood processing. The relevant information was obtained from textbooks, academic journals, conference proceedings, the internet among others. The major UCB processing methods include Plasma Depletion, Density Gradient Centrifugation (DGC), Hetastarch, PrepaCyte-CB and Sepax. A study of the potential impact of Hetastarch and PrepaCyte processing methods on transplantation outcomes revealed no difference that was significant was observed between patients receiving cells after the processing regimens were compared.
 Results: A comparison of the engraftment time of PrepaCyte-CB with five other processing methods revealed a quicker engraftment time for PrepaCyte-CB processed cord blood units compared to other processing methods. PrepaCyte-CB also recovers significantly more viable stem cells than AutoXpress (AXP) and hydroxyethyl starch (HES) processing methods. Other workers demonstrated that Sepax depletion produces higher recovery of cells that are nucleated. The effect initial volume of cord blood had on the recovery of nucleated cells for the different method of processing were also compared. Recovery when using Sepax is reduced as the unit size processed increases. Hetastarch, which is a density gradient, and plasma depletion separation is also affected in like manner, however, processing done using PrepaCyte-CB was not affected by the initial volume of the collected unit. The advantage of Sepax is that it is fully automated and this allows for mass processing of samples, suitable for bigger cord blood banks. For erythrocyte removal, density gradient separation is a better method that is effective. PrepaCyte-CB is the second most efficient method for removing RBC. The result of Total Nucleated Cells (TNC) and Mono Nucleated Cells (MNC) recovery rate of Hespan and Sepax against AXP processing methods shows that both Hespan and Sepax reproducibly recover greater than 95% of the cord blood stem cells in a typical collection and result in a reduced final volume for final storage.
 Conclusion: The five most popular processing techniques are Plasma Depletion, Density Gradient, Hetastarch, PrepaCyte-CB and Automated Centrifugal Machine (Sepax). Most methods involve centrifugation, sedimentation and/or filtration for reducing the red cell content, plasma volume, or both. The different UCB processing methods each has its advantages and disadvantages.","PeriodicalId":13659,"journal":{"name":"International Blood Research & Reviews","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Blood Research & Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/ibrr/2023/v14i4321","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Umbilical Cord Blood (UCB) has steadily gained prominence in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Despite UCB advantages, the main disadvantage of UCB in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is its limited cell dose. Initially, UCB used to be processed and then made to undergo cryopreservation as whole cord blood banking leading to the problem of storing sufficiently large number of cryoprotected UCB units which requires vast amounts of costly storage space in liquid nitrogen. The sole purpose of processing is to concentrates the stem cells and reduce the volume for storage. Different UCB processing methods have been developed. Aim: This review is aimed at bringing together the literature on the different processing methods and highlighting the underlying principles of each method, the relative efficiency and advantages of the methods. Methodology: The work involved mainly the critical review of all available academic, professional and industry documents on cord blood processing. The relevant information was obtained from textbooks, academic journals, conference proceedings, the internet among others. The major UCB processing methods include Plasma Depletion, Density Gradient Centrifugation (DGC), Hetastarch, PrepaCyte-CB and Sepax. A study of the potential impact of Hetastarch and PrepaCyte processing methods on transplantation outcomes revealed no difference that was significant was observed between patients receiving cells after the processing regimens were compared. Results: A comparison of the engraftment time of PrepaCyte-CB with five other processing methods revealed a quicker engraftment time for PrepaCyte-CB processed cord blood units compared to other processing methods. PrepaCyte-CB also recovers significantly more viable stem cells than AutoXpress (AXP) and hydroxyethyl starch (HES) processing methods. Other workers demonstrated that Sepax depletion produces higher recovery of cells that are nucleated. The effect initial volume of cord blood had on the recovery of nucleated cells for the different method of processing were also compared. Recovery when using Sepax is reduced as the unit size processed increases. Hetastarch, which is a density gradient, and plasma depletion separation is also affected in like manner, however, processing done using PrepaCyte-CB was not affected by the initial volume of the collected unit. The advantage of Sepax is that it is fully automated and this allows for mass processing of samples, suitable for bigger cord blood banks. For erythrocyte removal, density gradient separation is a better method that is effective. PrepaCyte-CB is the second most efficient method for removing RBC. The result of Total Nucleated Cells (TNC) and Mono Nucleated Cells (MNC) recovery rate of Hespan and Sepax against AXP processing methods shows that both Hespan and Sepax reproducibly recover greater than 95% of the cord blood stem cells in a typical collection and result in a reduced final volume for final storage. Conclusion: The five most popular processing techniques are Plasma Depletion, Density Gradient, Hetastarch, PrepaCyte-CB and Automated Centrifugal Machine (Sepax). Most methods involve centrifugation, sedimentation and/or filtration for reducing the red cell content, plasma volume, or both. The different UCB processing methods each has its advantages and disadvantages.
脐带血处理技术及其比较优势综述
背景:脐带血(UCB)在造血干细胞移植(HSCT)中占有重要地位。尽管UCB具有优势,但UCB在造血干细胞移植(HSCT)中的主要缺点是其有限的细胞剂量。最初,脐带血通常经过处理,然后作为整个脐带血库进行冷冻保存,这导致了在液氮中储存足够数量的冷冻保护的脐带血单位的问题,这需要大量昂贵的储存空间。处理的唯一目的是浓缩干细胞,减少储存体积。不同的UCB加工方法已经被开发出来。& # x0D;目的:本文综述了不同加工方法的文献,并着重介绍了每种方法的基本原理、相对效率和优势。方法:这项工作主要涉及对所有现有的关于脐带血处理的学术、专业和行业文件进行批判性审查。相关信息来自教科书、学术期刊、会议记录、互联网等。UCB的主要处理方法包括血浆耗尽、密度梯度离心(DGC)、Hetastarch、PrepaCyte-CB和Sepax。一项关于Hetastarch和PrepaCyte处理方法对移植结果的潜在影响的研究显示,在比较处理方案后接受细胞的患者之间没有观察到显著差异。 结果:将PrepaCyte-CB与其他5种处理方法的移植时间进行比较,发现PrepaCyte-CB处理的脐带血单位的移植时间比其他处理方法更快。与autopress (AXP)和羟乙基淀粉(HES)处理方法相比,PrepaCyte-CB还能回收更多的活干细胞。其他研究人员证明,Sepax耗竭能提高有核细胞的回收率。并比较了不同处理方法下脐带血初始体积对有核细胞回收率的影响。使用Sepax时的恢复随着处理的单元大小的增加而减少。Hetastarch是一个密度梯度,血浆耗尽分离也以类似的方式受到影响,然而,使用PrepaCyte-CB进行的处理不受收集单元的初始体积的影响。Sepax的优势在于它是全自动的,这允许大量处理样本,适用于较大的脐带血库。对于红细胞的去除,密度梯度分离是一种较好的、有效的方法。PrepaCyte-CB是去除RBC的第二有效方法。Hespan和Sepax对AXP处理方法的总有核细胞(TNC)和单有核细胞(MNC)回收率结果表明,Hespan和Sepax在典型标本中可重复性地回收95%以上的脐带血干细胞,并减少最终储存的最终体积。 结论:血浆衰竭、密度梯度、Hetastarch、PrepaCyte-CB和自动离心机(Sepax)是最常用的5种处理技术。大多数方法包括离心、沉淀和/或过滤,以减少红细胞含量、血浆体积,或两者兼而有之。不同的UCB处理方法各有其优点和缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信