Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 1, 2026
In Vitro and In Vivo Assessment of T, B and Myeloid Cells Suppressive Activity and Humoral Responses from Transplant Recipients
Published on: August 12, 2017
CD34 selection using three immunoselection devices: comparison of T-cell depleted allografts
P V O'Donnell1, B Myers, J Edwards
1Division of Hematologic Malignancies, The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center Baltimore, MD, USA.
Insights
Three stem cell selection devices for bone marrow transplants showed comparable clinical outcomes, despite differences in purity and processing time. Allografts engineered by these devices are suitable for T-cell depletion in bone marrow transplantation.
Area of Science:
- Hematology
- Immunology
- Transplant Science
Background:
- T-cell depletion of allografts reduces graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) after bone marrow transplantation (BMT).
- Counterflow centrifugal elutriation (CCE) combined with CD34(+) stem cell immunoselection is used for T-cell depletion.
- Comparison of commercial stem cell selection devices and their clinical impact is crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the performance of three commercial immunoselection devices (CellPro CEPRATE, Nexell Isolex 300i, AmCell CliniMACS) for CD34(+) stem cell recovery.
- To evaluate the clinical outcomes of allografts engineered using these different devices.
Main Methods:
- Bone marrow allografts were prepared for BMT using CCE to separate lymphocyte-rich and -depleted fractions.
- CD34(+) stem cells were recovered from lymphocyte-rich fractions using CEPRATE, Isolex 300i, or CliniMACS devices.
- Allografts comprised the lymphocyte-depleted fraction plus the CD34-selected fraction.
Main Results:
- CD34(+) cell yields were similar across all three devices.
- Significant differences were observed in purity (CEPRATE < Isolex 300i < CliniMACS) and processing time (CEPRATE < CliniMACS < Isolex 300i).
- The Isolex 300i device presented more technical challenges; however, allograft composition, engraftment, and GvHD incidence were comparable across devices.
Conclusions:
- Allografts prepared using CEPRATE, Isolex 300i (v 2.5), and CliniMACS devices are comparable for clinical use in T-cell depletion strategies.
- These devices provide suitable allografts for BMT, likely applicable to direct T-cell depletion of bone marrow.
Background:
T-cell depletion of allografts markedly reduces the incidence of GvHD following BMT. The approach taken at our Center has utilized the physical separation method of counterflow centrifugal elutriation (CCE), augmented by recovery of stem cells from lymphocyte-rich fractions by immunoaffinity selection of CD34(+) stem cells. We wanted to compare the performance characteristics of three commercially available selection devices, as well as the clinical outcomes of patients who received allografts engineered by the different devices.
Methods:
BM allografts were prepared for patients undergoing BMT for hematologic malignancies. BM cells were separated into lymphocyte-rich and lymphocyte-depleted fractions using CCE, followed by recovery of CD34(+) cells from the lymphocyte-rich fraction using one of three immunoselection devices [CellPro CEPRATE, Nexell Isolex 300i (software version 2.5) and AmCell CliniMACS]. Allografts consisted of the lymphocyte-depleted fraction plus the CD34-selected fraction.
Results:
Yields of CD34(+) cells were comparable for the three devices. However, there were significant differences in purity (CEPRATE < Isolex 300i < CliniMACS) and time from start of fractionation to infusion (CEPRATE < CliniMACS < Isolex 300i). More technical problems were encountered with the Isolex 300i device. Allograft compositions were comparable. Transplant outcomes (engraftment and incidence of GvHD) also were comparable.
Discussion:
Qualitatively and quantitatively, allografts prepared with the CEPRATE, Isolex 300i (v 2.5) and CliniMACS devices should be considered comparable for use in this setting and probably also for direct T-cell depletion of BM.
