Concentration of Bone Marrow Total Nucleated Cells by a Point-of-Care Device Provides a High Yield and Preserves Their Functional Activity

• Published in: Cell transplantation 2007-11, Vol.16 (10), p.1059-1069
• Main Authors: Hermann, Patrick C., Huber, Stephan L., Herrler, Tanja, Von Hesler, Christoph, Andrassy, Joachim, Kevy, Sherwin V., Jacobson, May S., Heeschen, Christopher
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animals; Bone Marrow Cells - cytology; Bone Marrow Cells - physiology; Bone Marrow Transplantation - methods; Cell Count; Cell Movement; Cell Separation - instrumentation; Cell Separation - methods; Female; Ficoll; Hindlimb - blood supply; Humans; Ischemia - physiopathology; Ischemia - surgery; Mice; Mice, Nude; Motor Activity - physiology; Point-of-Care Systems; Regional Blood Flow
• ISSN: 0963-6897; 1555-3892
• DOI: 10.3727/000000007783472363

Stem and progenitor cell therapy is a novel strategy to enhance cardiovascular regeneration. Cell isolation procedures are crucial for the functional activity of the administered cellular product. Therefore, new isolation techniques have to be evaluated in comparison to the Ficoll isolation procedure as the current gold standard. Here we prospectively evaluated a novel point-of-care device (Harvest BMAC System) for the concentration of bone marrow total nucleated cells (TNC) in comparison to the Ficoll isolation procedure for bone marrow mononucleated cells (MNC). The yield in total numbers of TNC was 2.4-fold higher for Harvest compared to Ficoll. Despite significant differences in their cellular compositions, the colony-forming capacity was similar for both products. Intriguingly, the migratory capacity was significantly higher for the Harvest TNC (164 ± 66%; p = 0.007). In a mouse model of hind limb ischemia, the increase in blood flow recovery was similar between Harvest BM-TNC and Ficoll BM-MNC (0.53 ± 0.20 vs. 0.46 ± 0.15; p = 0.88). However, adjustment of the injected cell number based on the higher yield of Harvest TNC resulted in a significant better recovery (0.64 ± 0.16 vs. 0.46 ± 0.15; p = 0.003). Cells concentrated by the Harvest point-of-care device show similar or greater functional activity compared to Ficoll isolation. However, the greater yield of cells and the wider range of cell types for the Harvest device may translate into an even greater therapeutic effect.