Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMedOpen access

Comparative flow cytometry immunophenotyping of ASCs expanded in conventional flasks versus automated bioreactors.

Alipour H., Ren G., Sørensen MB., Aghazadeh S., Xuan Z., Dardmeh F.

Laboratory Study on Face & Skin, published in Front Cell Dev Biol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Front Cell Dev Biol (2026)
Country
Switzerland
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
41608084
PMCID
PMC12835361
DOI
10.3389/fcell.2026.1748921

Abstract (original English)

Introduction Adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) hold significant promises for various regenerative approaches, necessitating the production of a substantial quantity of in vitro expanded ASCs for clinical applications. While ASC expansion is traditionally performed in tissue culture polystyrene (TCP) flasks, the Quantum Cell Expansion System, a hollow fiber bioreactor (HFB), offers an automated and closed system for cell expansion, presenting advantages over manual culture methods. In this study, we compared ASC cultures from a HFB system with traditional TCP flasks, focusing on immunophenotypes. Methods ASCs from three donors were cultured and underwent equivalent population doublings in both systems. The cell number was counted to compare the growth rate. Furthermore, the individual expressions of 15 surface markers and their co-expression of 5 (CD73, CD90, CD105, CD166, and CD201) and 8 epitopes (CD34, CD36, CD146, CD248, CD271, CD274, and Stro-1) were analyzed by using multicolor flow cytometry. Results ASCs expanded in the HFB and TCP system showed a comparable growth rate. Except for a significant downregulation of CD201 in HFB ( p = 0.008), other surface marker expression profiles were largely comparable between HFB and TCP, with no statistically significant differences observed. While both systems met ISCT criteria for ASC identity, the HFB supported a broader diversity

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research