ndwarshuis
/
phd_thesis
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

ADD references to the microcarrier section

This commit is contained in:
Nathan Dwarshuis 2021-08-02 12:00:34 -04:00
parent fe3c12c072
commit 39201efffb
2 changed files with 172 additions and 34 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

141
tex/references.bib
View File

@ -1799,6 +1799,147 @@ CONCLUSIONS: We developed a simplified, semi-closed system for the initial selec
publisher = {Informa {UK} Limited},
}
@Article{WEZEL1967,
author = {A. L. VAN WEZEL},
journal = {Nature},
title = {Growth of Cell-strains and Primary Cells on Micro-carriers in Homogeneous Culture},
year = {1967},
month = {oct},
number = {5110},
pages = {64--65},
volume = {216},
doi = {10.1038/216064a0},
publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media {LLC}},
}
@Article{Derakhti2019,
author = {Sorour Derakhti and Seyed Hamid Safiabadi-Tali and Ghassem Amoabediny and Mojgan Sheikhpour},
journal = {Materials Science and Engineering: C},
title = {Attachment and detachment strategies in microcarrier-based cell culture technology: A comprehensive review},
year = {2019},
month = {oct},
pages = {109782},
volume = {103},
doi = {10.1016/j.msec.2019.109782},
publisher = {Elsevier {BV}},
}
@Article{Chen2013,
author = {Allen Kuan-Liang Chen and Shaul Reuveny and Steve Kah Weng Oh},
journal = {Biotechnology Advances},
title = {Application of human mesenchymal and pluripotent stem cell microcarrier cultures in cellular therapy: Achievements and future direction},
year = {2013},
month = {nov},
number = {7},
pages = {1032--1046},
volume = {31},
doi = {10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.03.006},
publisher = {Elsevier {BV}},
}
@Article{Xiao1999,
author = {Chengzu Xiao and Zicai Huang and Wengqing Li and Xianwen Hu and Wenlu Qu and Lihua Gao and Gaoyan Liu},
journal = {Cytotechnology},
title = {{High} density and scale-up cultivation of recombinant {CHO} cell line and hybridomas with porous microcarrier {Cytopore}},
year = {1999},
number = {1/3},
pages = {143--147},
volume = {30},
doi = {10.1023/a:1008038609967},
publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media {LLC}},
}
@Article{Kim2011,
author = {Beum Jun Kim and Ti Zhao and Lincoln Young and Peng Zhou and Michael L. Shuler},
journal = {Biotechnology and Bioengineering},
title = {Batch, fed-batch, and microcarrier cultures with {CHO} cell lines in a pressure-cycle driven miniaturized bioreactor},
year = {2011},
month = {oct},
number = {1},
pages = {137--145},
volume = {109},
doi = {10.1002/bit.23289},
publisher = {Wiley},
}
@Article{Zhang2016,
author = {Zhanpeng Zhang and Thomas W Eyster and Peter X Ma},
journal = {Nanomedicine},
title = {Nanostructured injectable cell microcarriers for tissue regeneration},
year = {2016},
month = {jun},
number = {12},
pages = {1611--1628},
volume = {11},
doi = {10.2217/nnm-2016-0083},
publisher = {Future Medicine Ltd},
}
@Article{Saltz2016,
author = {Adam Saltz and Umadevi Kandalam},
journal = {Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A},
title = {Mesenchymal stem cells and alginate microcarriers for craniofacial bone tissue engineering: A review},
year = {2016},
month = {jan},
number = {5},
pages = {1276--1284},
volume = {104},
doi = {10.1002/jbm.a.35647},
publisher = {Wiley},
}
@Article{Park2013,
author = {Jeong-Hui Park and Rom{\'{a}}n A. P{\'{e}}rez and Guang-Zhen Jin and Seung-Jun Choi and Hae-Won Kim and Ivan B. Wall},
journal = {Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews},
title = {Microcarriers Designed for Cell Culture and Tissue Engineering of Bone},
year = {2013},
month = {apr},
number = {2},
pages = {172--190},
volume = {19},
doi = {10.1089/ten.teb.2012.0432},
publisher = {Mary Ann Liebert Inc},
}
@Article{Malda2006,
author = {Jos Malda and Carmelita G. Frondoza},
journal = {Trends in Biotechnology},
title = {Microcarriers in the engineering of cartilage and bone},
year = {2006},
month = {jul},
number = {7},
pages = {299--304},
volume = {24},
doi = {10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.04.009},
publisher = {Elsevier {BV}},
}
@Article{Schop2010,
author = {D. Schop and R. van Dijkhuizen-Radersma and E. Borgart and F. W. Janssen and H. Rozemuller and H-J. Prins and J. D. de Bruijn},
journal = {Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine},
title = {Expansion of human mesenchymal stromal cells on microcarriers: growth and metabolism},
year = {2010},
month = {feb},
number = {2},
pages = {131--140},
volume = {4},
doi = {10.1002/term.224},
publisher = {Wiley},
}
@Article{Rafiq2016,
author = {Qasim A. Rafiq and Karen Coopman and Alvin W. Nienow and Christopher J. Hewitt},
journal = {Biotechnology Journal},
title = {Systematic microcarrier screening and agitated culture conditions improves human mesenchymal stem cell yield in bioreactors},
year = {2016},
month = {feb},
number = {4},
pages = {473--486},
volume = {11},
doi = {10.1002/biot.201400862},
publisher = {Wiley},
}
@Comment{jabref-meta: databaseType:bibtex;}
@Comment{jabref-meta: grouping:

65
tex/thesis.tex
View File

@ -579,40 +579,39 @@ present our final conclusions in Chapter~\ref{conclusions}.
Microcarriers have historically been used to grow a number of adherent cell
types for a variety of applications. They were introduced in 1967 as a means to
grow adherent cells `in suspension', effectively turning a 2D flask system into
a 3D culture system (https://www.nature.com/articles/216064a0.pdf).
Microcarriers are generally spherical and are several hundred \si{\um} in
diameter, which means they collectively have a much higher surface area than a
traditional flask when matched for volume. Consequently, this means that
microcarrier-based cultures can operate with much lower footprints than
flask-like systems. Microcarriers also allow cell culture to operate more like a
traditional chemical engineering process, wherein a stirred tank bioreactor may
be employed to enhance oxygen transfer, maintain pH, and continuously supply
nutrients ().
a 3D culture system\cite{WEZEL1967}. Microcarriers are generally spherical and
are several hundred \si{\um} in diameter, which means they collectively have a
much higher surface area than a traditional flask when matched for volume.
Consequently, this means that microcarrier-based cultures can operate with much
lower footprints than flask-like systems. Microcarriers also allow cell culture
to operate more like a traditional chemical engineering process, wherein a
stirred tank bioreactor may be employed to enhance oxygen transfer, maintain pH,
and continuously supply nutrients\cite{Derakhti2019}.
A variety of microcarriers have been designed, primarily differing in their
choice of material and macroporous structure. Key concerns have been cell
attachment at the beginning of culture and cell detachment at the harvesting
step; these have largely driven the nature of the material and structures
employed. Many microcarriers simply use polystyrene (the material used for
tissue culture flasks and dishes in general) with no modification (SoloHill
Plastic, Nunc Biosilon), with a cationic surface charge (SoloHill Hillex) or
coated with an \gls{ecm} protein such as collagen (SoloHill Fact III). Other
base materials have been used such as dextran (GE Healthcare Cytodex), cellulose
(GE Healthcare Cytopore), and glass (Sigma Aldrich G2767), all with none or
similar surface modifications. Additionally, some microcarriers such as
\gls{cus} and \gls{cug} are composed entirely out of protein (in these cases,
porcine collagen) which also allows the microcarriers to be enzymatically
employed\cite{Derakhti2019}. Many microcarriers simply use polystyrene (the
material used for tissue culture flasks and dishes in general) with no
modification (SoloHill Plastic, Nunc Biosilon), with a cationic surface charge
(SoloHill Hillex) or coated with an \gls{ecm} protein such as collagen (SoloHill
Fact III). Other base materials have been used such as dextran (GE Healthcare
Cytodex), cellulose (GE Healthcare Cytopore), and glass (Sigma Aldrich G2767),
all with none or similar surface modifications. Additionally, some microcarriers
such as \gls{cus} and \gls{cug} are composed entirely out of protein (in these
cases, porcine collagen) which also allows the microcarriers to be enzymatically
degraded. In the case of non-protein materials, cells may still be detached
using enzymes but these require similar methods to those currently used in
flasks such as trypsin which target the cellular \gls{ecm} directly. Since
trypsin and related enzymes tends to be harsh on cells, an advantage of using
entirely protein-based microcarriers is that they can be degraded using a much
safer enzyme such as collagenase, at the cost of being more expensive and also
being harder to make \gls{gmp}-compliant. Going one step further, some
microcarriers are composed of a naturally degrading scaffold such as alginate,
which do not need an enzyme for degradation but are limited in that the
degradation process is less controllable. Finally, microcarriers can differ in
their overall structure. \gls{cug} and \gls{cus} microcarriers as well as the
being harder to make \gls{gmp}-compliant\cite{Derakhti2019}. Going one step
further, some microcarriers are composed of a naturally degrading scaffold such
as alginate, which do not need an enzyme for degradation but are limited in that
the degradation process is less controllable. Finally, microcarriers can differ
in their overall structure. \gls{cug} and \gls{cus} microcarriers as well as the
Cytopore microcarriers are macroporous, meaning they have a porous network in
which cells can attach throughout their interior. This drastically increases the
effective surface area and consequently the number of cells which may be grown
@ -620,18 +619,16 @@ per unit volume. Other microcarriers are microporous (eg only to small
molecules) or not porous at all (eg polystyrene) in which case the cells can
only grow on the surface.
% https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734975013000657
% https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008038609967
% https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bit.23289
Microcarriers have seen the most use in growing \gls{cho} cells and hybridomas
in the case of protein manufacturing (eg \gls{igg} production) as well as
pluripotent stem cells and mesenchymal stromal cells more recently in the case
of cell manufacturing\cite{Heathman2015, Sart2011}. Interestingly, some groups
have even explored using biodegradable microcarriers \invivo{} as a delivery
vehicle for stem cell therapies in the context of regenerative medicine.
However, the characteristic shared by all the cell types in this application is
the fact that they are adherent. In this work, we explore the use of
microcarrier for T cells, which are naturally non-adherent.
in the case of protein manufacturing (eg \gls{igg} production)\cite{Xiao1999,
Kim2011} as well as pluripotent stem cells and mesenchymal stromal cells more
recently in the case of cell manufacturing\cite{Heathman2015, Sart2011,
Chen2013, Schop2010, Rafiq2016}. Interestingly, some groups have even explored
using biodegradable microcarriers \invivo{} as a delivery vehicle for stem cell
therapies in the context of regenerative medicine\cite{Zhang2016, Saltz2016,
Park2013, Malda2006}. However, the characteristic shared by all the cell types
in this application is the fact that they are adherent. In this work, we explore
the use of microcarrier for T cells, which are naturally non-adherent.
\subsection{overview of T cells in immunotherapies}