TY - JOUR
T1 - Quantification of the islet product
T2 - Presentation of a standardized current good manufacturing practices compliant system with minimal variability
AU - Friberg, Andrew S.
AU - Brandhorst, Heide
AU - Buchwald, Peter
AU - Goto, Masafumi
AU - Ricordi, Camillo
AU - Brandhorst, Daniel
AU - Korsgren, Olle
PY - 2011/3/27
Y1 - 2011/3/27
N2 - Background. Accurate islet quantification has proven difficult to standardize in a good manufacturing practices (GMP) approved manner. Methods. The influence of assessment variables from both manual and computer-assisted digital image analysis (DIA) methods were compared using calibrated, standardized microspheres or islets alone. Additionally, a mixture of microspheres and exocrine tissue was used to evaluate the variability of both the current, internationally recognized, manual method and a novel GMP-friendly purity- and volume-based method (PV) evaluated by DIA in a semiclosed, culture bag system. Results. Computer-assisted DIA recorded known microsphere size distribution and quantities accurately. By using DIA to evaluate islets, the interindividual manually evaluated percent coefficients of variation (CV%; n=14) were reduced by almost half for both islet equivalents (IEs; 31% vs. 17%, P=0.002) and purity (20% vs. 13%, P=0.033). The microsphere pool mixed with exocrine tissue did not differ from expected IE with either method. However, manual IE resulted in a total CV% of 44.3% and a range spanning 258 k IE, whereas PV resulted in CV% of 10.7% and range of 60 k IE. Purity CV% for each method were similar approximating 10.5% and differed from expected by +7% for the manual method and +3% for PV. CONCLUSION.: The variability of standard counting methods for islet samples and clinical quantities of microspheres mixed with exocrine tissue were reduced with DIA. They were reduced even further by use of a semiclosed bag system compared with standard manual counting, thereby facilitating the standardization of islet evaluation according to GMP standards.
AB - Background. Accurate islet quantification has proven difficult to standardize in a good manufacturing practices (GMP) approved manner. Methods. The influence of assessment variables from both manual and computer-assisted digital image analysis (DIA) methods were compared using calibrated, standardized microspheres or islets alone. Additionally, a mixture of microspheres and exocrine tissue was used to evaluate the variability of both the current, internationally recognized, manual method and a novel GMP-friendly purity- and volume-based method (PV) evaluated by DIA in a semiclosed, culture bag system. Results. Computer-assisted DIA recorded known microsphere size distribution and quantities accurately. By using DIA to evaluate islets, the interindividual manually evaluated percent coefficients of variation (CV%; n=14) were reduced by almost half for both islet equivalents (IEs; 31% vs. 17%, P=0.002) and purity (20% vs. 13%, P=0.033). The microsphere pool mixed with exocrine tissue did not differ from expected IE with either method. However, manual IE resulted in a total CV% of 44.3% and a range spanning 258 k IE, whereas PV resulted in CV% of 10.7% and range of 60 k IE. Purity CV% for each method were similar approximating 10.5% and differed from expected by +7% for the manual method and +3% for PV. CONCLUSION.: The variability of standard counting methods for islet samples and clinical quantities of microspheres mixed with exocrine tissue were reduced with DIA. They were reduced even further by use of a semiclosed bag system compared with standard manual counting, thereby facilitating the standardization of islet evaluation according to GMP standards.
KW - Digital imaging analysis
KW - GMP
KW - Islet evaluation
KW - Purity
KW - Volume
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952763576&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79952763576&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/TP.0b013e31820ae48e
DO - 10.1097/TP.0b013e31820ae48e
M3 - Article
C2 - 21248660
AN - SCOPUS:79952763576
SN - 0041-1337
VL - 91
SP - 677
EP - 683
JO - Transplantation
JF - Transplantation
IS - 6
ER -