Functional Assessment of Cord Blood Units Using Two Different Assays

• Main Authors: Chandra Viswanathan, Munmee Adhikary, Pranali Sawant, Sushilkumar Ramdasi, Raghunandan Mehnawat, Rahul Sapre, Vanita Nazareth, Madhura Joshi, Shabari Sarang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2012-07-01
• Series: International Journal of Hematology-Oncology and Stem Cell Research
• Subjects: Cord Blood Units; Colony Forming Assay; HALO Assay; Potency Assay; Functional Efficacy Evaluation
• Online Access: http://ijhoscr.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijhoscr/article/view/313/344

Background : The cord blood banks and cord blood transplantation community are on the constant lookout for a single objective dependable test that will indicate the functional capabilities of the cord blood units. This should ideally reflect engraftment, proliferation and differentiation capabilities. Presently in vitro Colony forming unit (CFU) assay is being performed by most cord blood centers to determine the functional efficacy of cord blood units. However, technical challenges associated with this assay have made it difficult to standardize the methodology among testing laboratories. A subjective test is associated with variability and non-uniform reporting.The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the newly introduced HALO® assay by Hemogenix® by comparing it with the information provided by the traditional colony forming assay (CFU). Repeatability and objectivity were also studied.Methods : Sixteen Cord Blood units processed in the repository were tested by both, the traditional CFU assay and the HALO® assay.Results : Our study shows that the CFU assay provides information relating to proliferation and differentiation potential of CBUs while the HALO® assay gives quantitative output with reference to proliferative capability of CBUs.Conclusion : While both the assays provide valuable information on the functional efficacy of cord blood units from different stand points, one test perhaps cannot be substituted for the other. It is good to have both the tests available to bring in some additional information on its capabilities, which is much better than providing only one value with high subjectivity component.