Observational studyCell and tissue banking2025
Comprehensive evaluation of the clinical feasibility of using perinatal medical waste as a source for fetal mesenchymal stem cell banking under good manufacturing practice conditions.
Observational study in Cell and tissue banking, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Isolation, Expansion and Characterization of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells from Fresh and Cryopreserved Umbilical Cord Tissues in Horse and Dog.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the most feasible perinatal tissue for Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)-compliant banking of mesenchymal stromal-like cells (MSC-like cells). It was hypothesized that amniotic fluid collected during cesarean section would yield lower contamination rates and greater processing feasibility compared with other perinatal tissues. This prospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary university hospital and included 32 healthy term pregnancies. A total of 160 perinatal samples-amniotic fluid, amniotic membrane, umbilical cord, intact placenta, and placental fragments-were obtained. A validated feasibility scoring system evaluated material acquisition difficulty, transportation logistics, storage duration, and processing complexity. Samples were stratified by delivery mode (cesarean section vs. vaginal delivery) and collection timing (within vs. outside laboratory working hours). Stem cell isolation, sterility assessment, and immunophenotypic characterization were performed. Due to the absence of trilineage differentiation assays and maternal-fetal origin confirmation, the isolated cells were defined as MSC-like cells rather than definitive fetal MSCs. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests (p < 0.05). Samples collected via cesarean section demonstrated significantly lower rates of blood contamination (25.8% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.001) and bacterial contamination (25.8% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.001) compared with those from vaginal deliveries. Amniotic fluid achieved the highest acquisition score, required no enzymatic digestion, and had the shortest median isolation time (45 min). It exhibited the lowest overall contamination and was the most suitable source for GMP-oriented MSC-like cell processing. Conversely, intact placenta and placental fragments showed the highest contamination rates, longest enzymatic processing times, and greatest logistical burden. While collection timing affected storage duration and workflow continuity, tissue type and delivery mode were the dominant determinants of feasibility. Cesarean section-derived amniotic fluid appears to be the most practical, sterile, and processing-efficient perinatal source for GMP-adapted MSC-like cell banking within the evaluated parameters. These results support its prioritization in the development of standardized collection and processing protocols for perinatal stromal cell applications in regenerative medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41283960What 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.