Cited by 16Mesenchymal stem cell researchHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cryopreservation of mesenchymal stem/stromal cells using a DMSO-free solution is comparable to DMSO-containing cryoprotectants: results of an international multicenter PACT/BEST collaborative study

Open access

Abstract

Background and aim An essential aspect of ensuring availability and stability of mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) products for clinical use is that these cells are cryopreserved before individual infusion into patients. Currently, cryopreservation of MSCs involves use of a cryoprotectant solution containing dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). However, it is recognized that DMSO may be toxic for both the patient and the MSC product. In this Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies (PACT) and Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) Collaborative study, we compared a novel DMSO-free solution with DMSO containing cryoprotectant solutions for freezing MSCs. Methods A DMSO-free cryoprotectant solution containing sucrose, glycerol, and isoleucine (SGI) in a base of Plasmalyte A was prepared at the University of Minnesota. Cryoprotectant solutions containing 5-10% DMSO (in-house) were prepared at seven participating centers (five from USA, one each from Australia and Germany). The MSCs were isolated from bone marrow or adipose tissue and cultured ex vivo per local protocols at each center. The cells in suspension were frozen by aliquoting into vials/bags. For six out of the seven centers, the vials/bags were placed in a controlled rate freezer (one center placed them at -80°C freezer overnight) before transferring to liquid nitrogen. The cells were kept frozen for at least one week before thawing and testing. Pre- and post-thaw assessment included cell viability and recovery, immunophenotype as well as transcriptional and gene expression profiles. Linear regression, mixed effects models and two-sided t-tests were applied for statistical analysis. Results MSCs had an average viability of 94.3% (95% CI: 87.2-100%) before cryopreservation, decreasing by 4.5% (95% CI: 0.03-9.0%; P: 0.049) and 11.4% (95% CI: 6.9-15.8%; P< 0.001), for MSCs cryopreserved in the in-house and SGI solutions, respectively. The average recovery of viable MSCs cryopreserved in the SGI was 92.9% (95% CI: 85.7-100.0%), and it was lower by 5.6% (95% CI: 1.3-9.8%, P < 0.013) for the in-house solution. Additionally, MSCs cryopreserved in the two solutions had expected level of expressions for CD45, CD73, CD90, and CD105 with no significant difference in global gene expression profiles. Conclusion MSCs cryopreserved in a DMSO-free solution containing sucrose, glycerol, and isoleucine in a base of Plasmalyte A had slightly lower cell viability, better recovery, and comparable immunophenotype and global gene expression profiles compared to MSCs cryopreserved in DMSO containing solutions. The average viability of MSCs in the novel solution was above 80% and, thus, likely clinically acceptable. Future studies are suggested to test the post-thaw functions of MSCs cryopreserved in the novel DMSO-free solution.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcyt.2024.07.001

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • DMSO is a widely used CPA for MSCs, but its potential toxicity to both the cells and recipients presents a significant challenge.

    “DMSO is a widely used CPA for MSCs. However, its potential toxicity to both the cells and recipients presents a significant challenge [320].”
  • Melatonin-pretreated AD-MSCs achieved superior antifibrotic efficacy to both untreated BM-MSCs and their AD-MSC counterparts in rat models.

    “Recently, Elzainy et al. demonstrated that melatonin-pretreated AD-MSCs achieved superior antifibrotic efficacy to both untreated BM-MSCs and their AD-MSC counterparts in rat models, highlighting the potential of bioenhancement to overcome intrinsic disparities among MSC sources [320].”

    From Mechanisms, efficacy, and future perspectives of cellular-based therapies for liver fibrosis/cirrhosis: focusing on mesenchymal stromal cells (2025) · cites this paper as [320]

    The Methods (Post Thaw Assessment; page unavailable) describe cell viability, recovery and phenotype measurements, not antifibrotic efficacy in rats. The Discussion (page unavailable) says functional studies were lacking; searches for melatonin-pretreated AD-MSCs and Elzainy found no passage reporting the claimed comparison with untreated BM-MSCs or AD-MSCs. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Introna, 2014, Treatment of graft versus host disease with mesenchymal stromal cells: a phase I study on 40 adult and pediatric patients, Biol Blood Marrow Transplant, 20, 375, 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.11.033 · DOI
  2. Le Blanc, 2008, Mesenchymal stem cells for treatment of steroid-resistant, severe, acute graft-versus-host disease: a phase II study, Lancet, 371, 1579, 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60690-X · DOI
  3. Yun, 2019, Enhancement of functionality and therapeutic efficacy of cell-based therapy using mesenchymal stem cells for cardiovascular disease, Int J Mol Sci, 20, 982, 10.3390/ijms20040982 · DOI
  4. Lalu, 2020, From the lab to patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of mesenchymal stem cell therapy for stroke, Transl Stroke Res, 11, 345, 10.1007/s12975-019-00736-5 · DOI
  5. Matthay, 2019, Treatment with allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells for moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (START study): a randomised phase 2a safety trial, Lancet Respir Med, 7, 154, 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30418-1 · DOI
  6. Wilson, 2015, Mesenchymal stem (stromal) cells for treatment of ARDS: a phase 1 clinical trial, Lancet Respir Med, 3, 24, 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70291-7 · DOI
  7. Ibenana, 2022, Assessment of the LOVO device for final harvest of novel cell therapies: a production assistance for cellular therapies multi-center study, Cytotherapy, 24, 691, 10.1016/j.jcyt.2022.01.010 · DOI
  8. Shaz, 2024, Cytotherapy, 26, 531, 10.1016/j.jcyt.2023.11.003 · DOI
  9. Stroncek, 2020, Human mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) characteristics vary among laboratories when manufactured from the same source material: a report by the cellular therapy team of the Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) collaborative, Front Cell Dev Biol, 8, 458, 10.3389/fcell.2020.00458 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Li, 2019, Preservation of cell-based immunotherapies for clinical trials, Cytotherapy, 21, 943, 10.1016/j.jcyt.2019.07.004 · DOI
  11. Galipeau, 2013, The mesenchymal stromal cells dilemma–does a negative phase III trial of random donor mesenchymal stromal cells in steroid-resistant graft-versus-host disease represent a death knell or a bump in the road?, Cytotherapy, 15, 2, 10.1016/j.jcyt.2012.10.002 · DOI
  12. Yong, 2015, Cryopreservation of human mesenchymal stem cells for clinical applications: current methods and challenges, Biopreserv Biobank, 13, 231, 10.1089/bio.2014.0104 · DOI
  13. Ragoonanan, 2013, Response of the cell membrane-cytoskeleton complex to osmotic and freeze/thaw stresses. Part 2: the link between the state of the membrane-cytoskeleton complex and the cellular damage, Cryobiology, 66, 96, 10.1016/j.cryobiol.2012.10.008 · DOI
  14. Haack-Sorensen, 2016, Cryopreservation and revival of human mesenchymal stromal cells, Methods Mol Biol, 1416, 357, 10.1007/978-1-4939-3584-0_21 · DOI
  15. van der Walle, 2021, Formulation considerations for autologous T cell drug products, Pharmaceutics, 13, 1317, 10.3390/pharmaceutics13081317 · DOI
  16. Kollerup Madsen, 2018, Adverse reactions of dimethyl sulfoxide in humans: a systematic review, F1000Res, 7, 1746, 10.12688/f1000research.16642.1 · DOI
  17. Marquez-Curtis, 2024, Mesenchymal stromal cells derived from various tissues: biological, clinical and cryopreservation aspects: update from 2015 review, Cryobiology, 115, 104856, 10.1016/j.cryobiol.2024.104856 · DOI
  18. Pollock, 2017, Improved post-thaw function and epigenetic changes in mesenchymal stromal cells cryopreserved using multicomponent osmolyte solutions, Stem Cells Dev, 26, 828, 10.1089/scd.2016.0347 · DOI
  19. Pollock, 2016, Combinations of osmolytes, including monosaccharides, disaccharides, and sugar alcohols act in concert during cryopreservation to improve mesenchymal stromal cell survival, Tissue Eng Part C Methods, 22, 999, 10.1089/ten.tec.2016.0284 · DOI
  20. Ritchie, 2015, limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies, Nucleic Acids Res, 43, e47, 10.1093/nar/gkv007 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Korotkevich, 2021, Fast gene set enrichment analysis, bioRxiv
  22. Fernandez-Santos, 2022, Optimization of mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) manufacturing processes for a better therapeutic outcome, Front Immunol, 13, 10.3389/fimmu.2022.918565 · DOI
  23. Shivakumar, 2015, Cryopreservation of human Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells following controlled rate freezing protocol using different cryoprotectants; a comparative study, Int J Stem Cells, 8, 155, 10.15283/ijsc.2015.8.2.155 · DOI
  24. Zhang, 2020, The combination of trehalose and glycerol: an effective and non-toxic recipe for cryopreservation of human adipose-derived stem cells, Stem Cell Res Ther, 11, 460, 10.1186/s13287-020-01969-0 · DOI
  25. Linkova, 2022, Cryostorage of mesenchymal stem cells and biomedical cell-based products, Cells, 11, 2691, 10.3390/cells11172691 · DOI
  26. Dominici, 2006, Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement, Cytotherapy, 8, 315, 10.1080/14653240600855905 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Andrzejewska, 2019, Multi-parameter analysis of Biobanked human bone marrow stromal cells shows little influence for donor age and mild comorbidities on phenotypic and functional properties, Front Immunol, 10, 2474, 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02474 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Francois, 2012, Cryopreserved mesenchymal stromal cells display impaired immunosuppressive properties as a result of heat-shock response and impaired interferon-gamma licensing, Cytotherapy, 14, 147, 10.3109/14653249.2011.623691 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Moll, 2014, Do cryopreserved mesenchymal stromal cells display impaired immunomodulatory and therapeutic properties?, Stem Cells, 32, 2430, 10.1002/stem.1729 · DOI
  30. Oh, 2023, Sphingosine-1-phosphate treatment improves cryopreservation efficiency in human mesenchymal stem cells, Life (Basel), 13, 1286

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mamo, T., Cox, C. A., Demorest, C., Fontaine, M. J., Hubel, A., Kelley, L., Khan, A., Marks, D. C., Pati, S., Reems, J.-A., Spohn, G., Schäfer, R., Shi, R., Shao, L., Stroncek, D., & McKenna, D. H.
Affiliations
  • Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Australian Red Cross Lifeblood (AU)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • German Red Cross (DE)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Cytotherapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-12
Volume
26
Issue
12
Pages
1522-1531
ISSN
1465-3249 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400380943
Cited by
16
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7
FWCI
4.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cytotherapy (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHSN268201600012I, HSN268201600013I, HHSN268201600014I)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (HHSN268201600014I)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Mesenchymal stem cell research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Keywords
mesenchymal stem cells, cryopreservation, dimethyl sulfoxide toxicity, cell viability, post-thaw recovery, gene expression, immunophenotype, bone marrow-derived MSCs, adipose-derived MSCs
MeSH terms
Cell Survival, Cells, Cultured, Cryoprotective Agents, Dimethyl Sulfoxide, Humans, Cryopreservation, Mesenchymal Stem Cells

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review