Back

Combined computational and experimental analysis confirm donor-dependent optimization of critical processing parameters for improving mesenchymal stromal cell potency and expansion attributes

Kolade, O.; P. Robb, K.; Audet, J.; Viswanathan, S.

2026-07-06 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.07.03.735619 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSC) face several heterogeneity challenges hindering clinical and commercial success. Employing a multiple response model, interplay between donor heterogeneity, and critical processing parameters (CPPs), effects on MSC potency and cell expansion attributes were investigated through computed composite attribute scores. Twelve unique CPP combinations were tested in thirteen marrow-derived MSC(M) and five adipose-tissue MSC(AT) training and test datasets, respectively. Donor heterogeneity and select CPP conditions affected a curated gene panel (surrogate for MSC potency); while MSC expansion was primarily influenced by CPPs. Model performances were evaluated against clinical effectiveness data from a previously deployed clinical trial; top-performing model predicted donor rankings coincided with clinical effectiveness data, validating the modeling approach used. Our model predicted that only 8% of tested donors were agnostic to CPPs; a majority (62%) of donors showed CPP-dependent optimal composite quality attributes, with MSC seeding density as a key driver; medium supplementation and oxygen preferences were highly donor dependent. Approximately 30% of donors performed poorly at all conditions tested and may be prospectively identified using a subset of genes (TGFB, VEGF, PDCD1LG1, PDCD1LG2, IDO). Model predicted optimal parameters worked for 69% of tested donors, while sub-optimal parameters worked for only 23% of donors and were confirmed in an independent CD14+ macrophage assay. Our integrated computational and experimental framework predictably identified interactive effects of donor heterogeneity and CPP conditions to optimize MSC potency attributes.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cytotherapy
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.6%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 22%
7.7%
3
Stem Cell Research & Therapy
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.9%
4
Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.6%
5
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.6%
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 24%
4.3%
7
Advanced Healthcare Materials
85 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
8
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.4%
9
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.0%
10
Biotechnology and Bioengineering
53 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.3%
11
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.3%
12
Stem Cells
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.3%
13
Biofabrication
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.0%
14
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
15
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
16
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 23%
1.1%
17
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
18
Stem Cell Reports
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
Journal of Biological Engineering
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
20
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 33%
0.9%
21
Biomaterials
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
BMC Methods
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
24
Journal of Biotechnology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
25
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
26
Biomaterials Advances
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
27
Advanced Science
286 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.6%
28
Journal of Molecular Cell Biology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
29
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.5%
30
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.5%