CellTrace™ Violet Flow Cytometric Assay to Assess Cell Proliferation

The issue of heterogeneity of MSC-based advanced therapy medicinal products-a review

Mesenchymal stromal stem cells (MSCs) possess a remarkable potential for numerous clinical applications due to their unique properties including self-renewal, immunomodulation, paracrine actions and multilineage differentiation. However, the translation of MSC-based Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) into the clinic has frequently met with inconsistent outcomes. One of the suspected reasons for this issue is the inherent and extensive variability that exists among such ATMPs, which makes the interpretation of their clinical efficacy difficult to assess, as well as to compare the results of various studies. This variability stems from numerous reasons including differences in tissue sources, donor attributes, variances in manufacturing protocols, as well as modes of administration. MSCs can be isolated from various tissues including bone marrow, umbilical cord, adipose tissue and others, each with its unique phenotypic and functional characteristics. While MSCs from different sources do share common features, they also exhibit distinct gene expression profiles and functional properites. Donor-specific factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and underlying health conditions can influence MSC phenotype, morphology, differentiation potential and function. Moreover, variations in preparation of MSC products introduces additional heterogeneity as a result of cell culture media composition, presence or absence of added growth factors, use of different serum supplements and culturing techniques. Once MSC products are formulated, storage protocols play a pivotal role in its efficacy. Factors that affect cell viability include cell concentration, delivery solution and importantly, post-thawing protocols where applicable. Ensuing, differences in administration protocols can critically affect the distribution and functionallity of administered cells. As MSC-based therapies continue to advance through numerous clinical trials, implication of strategies to reduce product heterogeneity is imperative. Central to addressing these challenges is the need for precise prediction of clinical responses, which require well-defined MSC populations and harmonized assessment of their specific functions. By addressing these issues by meaningful approaches, such as, e.g., MSC pooling, the field can overcome barriers to advance towards more consistent and effective MSC-based therapies.

Methods to Assess Proliferation of Stimulated Human Lymphocytes In Vitro: A Narrative Review

The ability to monitor lymphocyte responses is critical for developing our understanding of the immune response in humans. In the current clinical setting, relying on the metabolic incorporation of [³H] thymidine into cellular DNA via a lymphocyte proliferation test (LPT) is the only method that is routinely performed to determine cell proliferation. However, techniques that measure DNA synthesis with a radioactive material such as [³H] thymidine are intrinsically more sensitive to the different stages of the cell cycle, which could lead to over-analyses and the subsequent inaccurate interpretation of the information provided. With cell proliferation assays, the output should preferably provide a direct and accurate measurement of the number of actively dividing cells, regardless of the stimuli properties or length of exposure. In fact, an ideal technique should have the capacity to measure lymphocyte responses on both a quantitative level, i.e., cumulative magnitude of lymphoproliferative response, and a qualitative level, i.e., phenotypical and functional characterization of stimulated immune cells. There are many LPT alternatives currently available to measure various aspects of cell proliferation. Of the nine techniques discussed, we noted that the majority of these LPT alternatives measure lymphocyte proliferation using flow cytometry. Across some of these alternatives, the covalent labelling of cells with a high fluorescence intensity and low variance with minimal cell toxicity while maximizing the number of detectable cell divisions or magnitude of proliferation was achieved. Herein, we review the performance of these different LPT alternatives and address their compatibility with the [³H] thymidine LPT so as to identify the "best" alternative to the [³H] thymidine LPT.