Title |
Comparison of Hematopoietic Stem Cells Derived from Fresh and Cryopreserved Whole Cord Blood in the Generation of Humanized Mice
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, October 2012
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0046772 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Johanna Scholbach, Anett Schulz, Florian Westphal, Dietmar Egger, Anja Kathrin Wege, Ina Patties, Margarethe Köberle, Ulrich Sack, Franziska Lange |
Abstract |
To study the function and maturation of the human hematopoietic and immune system without endangering individuals, translational human-like animal models are needed. We compare the efficiency of CD34(+) stem cells isolated from cryopreserved cord blood from a blood bank (CCB) and fresh cord blood (FCB) in generating highly engrafted humanized mice in NOD-SCID IL2Rγ(null) (NSG) rodents. Interestingly, the isolation of CD34(+) cells from CCB results in a lower yield and purity compared to FCB. The purity of CD34(+) isolation from CCB decreases with an increasing number of mononuclear cells that is not evident in FCB. Despite the lower yield and purity of CD34(+) stem cell isolation from CCB compared to FCB, the overall reconstitution with human immune cells (CD45) and the differentiation of its subpopulations e.g., B cells, T cells or monocytes is comparable between both sources. In addition, independent of the cord blood origin, human B cells are able to produce high amounts of human IgM antibodies and human T cells are able to proliferate after stimulation with anti-CD3 antibodies. Nevertheless, T cells generated from FCB showed increased response to restimulation with anti-CD3. Our study reveals that the application of CCB samples for the engraftment of humanized mice does not result in less engraftment or a loss of differentiation and function of its subpopulations. Therefore, CCB is a reasonable alternative to FCB and allows the selection of specific genotypes (or any other criteria), which allows scientists to be independent from the daily changing birth rate. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 3% |
Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
France | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 35 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 24% |
Researcher | 9 | 24% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
Lecturer | 3 | 8% |
Other | 7 | 18% |
Unknown | 2 | 5% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 29% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 29% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 16% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
Other | 3 | 8% |
Unknown | 4 | 11% |