Safety concerns over cell-derived pharmaceutical products being manufactured in
supplements of fetal bovine serum (FBS) have ignited pleas to replace FBS. Herein, four
newly marketed alternatives to FBS were compared: a xeno-free product called Cell-Ess®, a
human platelet lysate marketed as GroPro®, and two mixtures of adult bovine serum varying
in their proportions of neonatal growth factors, called Liporo® and FetalGro®. An
endothelial cell line (C2BBe1) and a neuronal cell line (SHSY5Y) near confluency in media
with 10% FBS were selectively scraped and taken through a 25-day step-wise algorithm to
replace FBS, and another human endothelial cell line (HRA-19) was studied to replicate
C2BBe1. Cells were stained, counted, and compared for viability, migration, and spheroids.
The C2BBe1 and HRA-19 cell lines failed to proliferate in 10% Cell-Ess® but grew in 10%
GroPro® or 10% FetalGro® reasonably well compared to reference 10% FBS. With SH-SY5Y, only
FetalGro® approached FBS's efficacy. These were all inferior to 11 different branded lots
of FBS (positive controls), but five days into switching just amongst the FBS brands, 4 of
11 supported less proliferation than reference FBS in endothelial HRA-19
(p < 0.004). Moreover, neurospheres were enriched in two branded
lots of FBS and FetalGro® (each p < 0.004), neurospheres being an
unwanted phenotype for any neuronal cell application. Because platelet-derived GroPro®
stood out amongst the non-FBS growth supplements to allow proliferation without inducing
spheroids, it seems the best (mindful that the cells still grew slower in it compared to
FBS). While no perfect replacement was found amongst the alternatives to FBS, the
algorithm for switching should be useful in future testing of new alternatives to FBS as
the need arises to switch from FBS and expand pharmaceutical products with safety for
human use.
Background: Currently, no absolute contraindications to the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support exist. However, the presence of penetrating traumatic injuries is often considered a relative contraindication to ECMO support. In this study, we aim to assess whether penetrating traumatic injuries should be considered a contraindication to the use of ECMO support, and how to better select patients who may benefit from this therapy.
Materials and Methods:In this paper, we present the findings of a retrospective review of all patients at a large, level 1 trauma center who received ECMO support following penetrating traumatic injuries. We describe the use of ECMO in these patients along with the complications associated with this therapy.
Conclusion:In this study we show penetrating traumatic injuries should not be considered a contraindication to ECMO support, and how ECMO can be a useful treatment strategy in selected patients with these injuries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.