Table 6 Performance differences between static and perfusion reactor cultures
From: Lymphocyte expansion in bioreactors: upgrading adoptive cell therapy
Author - Year | Expansion | Purity | Functionality changes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fold | Days | Static control | Fold | Days | |||
T cell | |||||||
Lamers [124] - 1994 | 52.6 ± 21.3 | 14–17 | Bag | 238.4 ± 168.7 | 14–17 | CD4/CD8 ratio = 0.51 ± 0.23 vs. CD4/CD8 = 0.44 ± 0.16 static culture | NP |
Trickett [127] - 2002 | 53.2 ± 20.1 | 7–8 | Flasks | 71.2 ± 42.8 | 7–8 | NP | NP |
Jones [60] 2020 | 17.7 fold higher than static | 9 | Flask | – | 9 | Treg phenotype 93.7% for flasks versus 97.7% for reactor. | Reactor cultures had 8-fold greater interleukin-10 stimulation index |
TIL | |||||||
Knazek [78] - 1990 | 124–1170 | 14–32 | Bag | No difference | NP | NP | Bag and hollow fiber cultures has similar surface-antigen profiles; Cytotoxicity was similar in both systems |
Hillman [115] - 1994 | 20–60 | 7 | Plate | 3 | 7 | Shift in the T cell subpopulations is more pronounced in the bioreactor. | NP |
Freedman [119] - 1994 | 30.6 ± 5.6 | 18.2 ± 1.7 | Plate, flask, bag | 303.1 | 28.9 | CD4/CD8 ratios do not have a statistically significant difference; no difference in proportions of CD16+ and CD56 | NP |