分离基质血管部分和脂肪来源干细胞的非酶方法:系统综述。

Vamsi Krishna Mundluru, M J Naidu, Ravi Teja Mundluru, Naveen Jeyaraman, Sathish Muthu, Swaminathan Ramasubramanian, Madhan Jeyaraman
{"title":"分离基质血管部分和脂肪来源干细胞的非酶方法:系统综述。","authors":"Vamsi Krishna Mundluru, M J Naidu, Ravi Teja Mundluru, Naveen Jeyaraman, Sathish Muthu, Swaminathan Ramasubramanian, Madhan Jeyaraman","doi":"10.5662/wjm.v14.i2.94562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) and the stromal vascular fraction (SVF) have garnered substantial interest in regenerative medicine due to their potential to treat a wide range of conditions. Traditional enzymatic methods for isolating these cells face challenges such as high costs, lengthy processing time, and regu-latory complexities.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and practicality of non-enzymatic, mechanical methods for isolating SVF and ADSCs, comparing these to conventional enzymatic approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases. Studies were selected based on inclusion criteria focused on non-enzymatic isolation methods for SVF and ADSCs from adipose tissue. The risk of bias was assessed, and a qualitative synthesis of findings was performed due to the methodological heterogeneity of the included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, highlighting various mechanical techniques such as centrifugation, vortexing, and ultrasonic cavitation. The review identified significant variability in cell yield and viability, and the integrity of isolated cells across different non-enzymatic methods compared to enzymatic procedures. Despite some advantages of mechanical methods, including reduced processing time and avoidance of enzymatic reagents, the evidence suggests a need for optimization to match the cell quality and therapeutic efficacy achievable with enzymatic isolation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Non-enzymatic, mechanical methods offer a promising alternative to enzymatic isolation of SVF and ADSCs, potentially simplifying the isolation process and reducing regulatory hurdles. However, further research is necessary to standardize these techniques and ensure consistent, high-quality cell yields for clinical applications. The development of efficient, safe, and reproducible non-enzymatic isolation methods could significantly advance the field of regenerative medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":94271,"journal":{"name":"World journal of methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11229868/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-enzymatic methods for isolation of stromal vascular fraction and adipose-derived stem cells: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Vamsi Krishna Mundluru, M J Naidu, Ravi Teja Mundluru, Naveen Jeyaraman, Sathish Muthu, Swaminathan Ramasubramanian, Madhan Jeyaraman\",\"doi\":\"10.5662/wjm.v14.i2.94562\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) and the stromal vascular fraction (SVF) have garnered substantial interest in regenerative medicine due to their potential to treat a wide range of conditions. Traditional enzymatic methods for isolating these cells face challenges such as high costs, lengthy processing time, and regu-latory complexities.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and practicality of non-enzymatic, mechanical methods for isolating SVF and ADSCs, comparing these to conventional enzymatic approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases. Studies were selected based on inclusion criteria focused on non-enzymatic isolation methods for SVF and ADSCs from adipose tissue. The risk of bias was assessed, and a qualitative synthesis of findings was performed due to the methodological heterogeneity of the included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, highlighting various mechanical techniques such as centrifugation, vortexing, and ultrasonic cavitation. The review identified significant variability in cell yield and viability, and the integrity of isolated cells across different non-enzymatic methods compared to enzymatic procedures. Despite some advantages of mechanical methods, including reduced processing time and avoidance of enzymatic reagents, the evidence suggests a need for optimization to match the cell quality and therapeutic efficacy achievable with enzymatic isolation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Non-enzymatic, mechanical methods offer a promising alternative to enzymatic isolation of SVF and ADSCs, potentially simplifying the isolation process and reducing regulatory hurdles. However, further research is necessary to standardize these techniques and ensure consistent, high-quality cell yields for clinical applications. The development of efficient, safe, and reproducible non-enzymatic isolation methods could significantly advance the field of regenerative medicine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World journal of methodology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11229868/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World journal of methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v14.i2.94562\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v14.i2.94562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:脂肪源性干细胞(ADSCs)和基质血管部分(SVF)具有治疗多种疾病的潜力,因此在再生医学领域引起了广泛关注。目的:本系统综述旨在评估分离SVF和ADSCs的非酶机械方法的有效性和实用性,并将这些方法与传统酶法进行比较:方法:根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南,在多个数据库中进行了全面的文献检索。根据纳入标准筛选出的研究侧重于从脂肪组织中分离 SVF 和 ADSCs 的非酶分离方法。由于纳入的研究在方法上存在异质性,因此对偏倚风险进行了评估,并对研究结果进行了定性综合:结果:19 项研究符合纳入标准,突出了离心、涡旋和超声空化等各种机械技术。综述发现,与酶解程序相比,不同的非酶解方法在细胞产量和活力以及分离细胞的完整性方面存在很大差异。尽管机械方法有一些优势,包括缩短处理时间和避免使用酶试剂,但有证据表明需要进行优化,以达到与酶分离法相匹配的细胞质量和疗效:结论:非酶机械方法为酶法分离 SVF 和 ADSCs 提供了一种很有前景的替代方法,有可能简化分离过程并减少监管障碍。然而,要使这些技术标准化并确保临床应用中稳定、高质量的细胞产量,还需要进一步的研究。开发高效、安全、可重复的非酶分离方法将极大地推动再生医学领域的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Non-enzymatic methods for isolation of stromal vascular fraction and adipose-derived stem cells: A systematic review.

Background: Adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) and the stromal vascular fraction (SVF) have garnered substantial interest in regenerative medicine due to their potential to treat a wide range of conditions. Traditional enzymatic methods for isolating these cells face challenges such as high costs, lengthy processing time, and regu-latory complexities.

Aim: This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and practicality of non-enzymatic, mechanical methods for isolating SVF and ADSCs, comparing these to conventional enzymatic approaches.

Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases. Studies were selected based on inclusion criteria focused on non-enzymatic isolation methods for SVF and ADSCs from adipose tissue. The risk of bias was assessed, and a qualitative synthesis of findings was performed due to the methodological heterogeneity of the included studies.

Results: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, highlighting various mechanical techniques such as centrifugation, vortexing, and ultrasonic cavitation. The review identified significant variability in cell yield and viability, and the integrity of isolated cells across different non-enzymatic methods compared to enzymatic procedures. Despite some advantages of mechanical methods, including reduced processing time and avoidance of enzymatic reagents, the evidence suggests a need for optimization to match the cell quality and therapeutic efficacy achievable with enzymatic isolation.

Conclusion: Non-enzymatic, mechanical methods offer a promising alternative to enzymatic isolation of SVF and ADSCs, potentially simplifying the isolation process and reducing regulatory hurdles. However, further research is necessary to standardize these techniques and ensure consistent, high-quality cell yields for clinical applications. The development of efficient, safe, and reproducible non-enzymatic isolation methods could significantly advance the field of regenerative medicine.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Anticoagulant use before COVID-19 diagnosis prevent COVID-19 associated acute venous thromboembolism or not: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Botulinum toxin type A for treating chronic low back pain: A double blinded randomized control study. Cluster sampling methodology to evaluate immunization coverage. COVID-19 mutations: An overview. Early versus delayed necrosectomy in pancreatic necrosis: A population-based cohort study on readmission, healthcare utilization, and in-hospital mortality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1