ArticleStem cells translational medicine2012
Optimized processing of growth factor mobilized peripheral blood CD34+ products by counterflow centrifugal elutriation.
Article in Stem cells translational medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Enhanced genetic modification of adult growth factor mobilized peripheral blood hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells with rapamycin.Stem cells translational medicine · 2014Article
- Engraftment and lineage potential of adult hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells is compromised following short-term culture in the presence of an aryl hydrocarbon receptor antagonist.Human gene therapy methods · 2014Article
- Optimized lentiviral vectors for HIV gene therapy: multiplexed expression of small RNAs and inclusion of MGMT(P140K) drug resistance gene.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2014Article
- Genomic editing of the HIV-1 coreceptor CCR5 in adult hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells using zinc finger nucleases.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cell separation by counterflow centrifugal elutriation has been described for the preparation of monocytes for vaccine applications, but its use in other current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) operations has been limited. In this study, growth factor-mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cell products were collected from healthy donors and processed by elutriation using a commercial cell washing device. Fractions were collected for each product as per the manufacturer's instructions or using a modified protocol developed in our laboratory. Each fraction was analyzed for cell count, viability, and blood cell differential. Our data demonstrate that, using standard elutriation procedures, >99% of red blood cells and platelets were removed from apheresis products with high recoveries of total white blood cells and enrichment of CD34+ cells in two of five fractions. With modification of the basic protocol, we were able to collect all of the CD34+ cells in a single fraction. The CD34-enriched fractions were formulated, labeled with a ferromagnetic antibody to CD34, washed using the Elutra device, and transferred directly to a magnetic bead selection device for further purification. CD34+ cell purities from the column were extremely high (98.7 ± 0.9%), and yields were typical for the device (55.7 ± 12.3%). The processes were highly automated and closed from receipt of the apheresis product through formulation of target-enriched cell fractions. Thus, elutriation is a feasible method for the initial manipulations associated with primary blood cell therapy products and supports cGMP and current good tissue practice-compliant cell processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.