High-quality human hepatocytes form the basis of drug safety and efficacy tests, cell-based therapies, and bridge-to-transplantation devices. Presently the only supply of cells derives from an inadequate pool of suboptimal disqualified donor livers. Here we evaluated whether machine perfusion could ameliorate ischemic injury that many of these livers experience prior to hepatocyte isolation.
Non-heparinized female Lewis rat livers were exposed to an hour of warm ischemia (34°C) and then perfused for 3h. Five different perfusion conditions that utilized the cell isolation apparatus were investigated, namely: (1) modified Williams Medium E and (2) Lifor, both with active oxygenation (95%O2/5%CO2), as well as (3) Lifor passively oxygenated with ambient air (21%O2/0.04%CO2), all at ambient temperatures (20±2°C). At hypothermic temperatures (5±1°C) and under passive oxygenation were (4) University of Wisconsin solution (UW) and (5) Vasosol. Negative and positive control groups comprised livers that had ischemia (WI) and livers that did not (Fresh) prior to cell isolation, respectively.
Fresh livers yielded 32±9million cells/g liver while an hour of ischemia reduced the cell yield to 1.6±0.6million cells/g liver. Oxygenated Williams Medium E and Lifor recovered yields of 39±11 and 31±2.3million cells/g liver, respectively. The passively oxygenated groups produced 15±7 (Lifor), 13±7 (Vasosol), and 10±6 (UW)million cells/g liver. Oxygenated Williams Medium E was most effective at sustaining pH values, avoiding the accumulation of lactate, minimizing edematous weight gain and producing bile during perfusion.
Machine perfusion results in a dramatic increase in cell yields from livers that have had up to an hour of warm ischemia, but perfusate choice significantly impacts the extent of recovery. Oxygenated Williams Medium E at room temperature is superior to Lifor, UW and Vasosol, largely facilitated by its high oxygen content and low viscosity.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Cryobiology
#1,179
of 1,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,876
of 276,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cryobiology
#14
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,305 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
