Author Archives: admin


The Worldwide Cell Analysis Industry is Projected to Reach $28.6 Billion by 2027 – Yahoo Finance

DUBLIN, June 17, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- The "Cell Analysis Market by Product & Service (Reagents & Consumables, Instruments), Technique (Flow Cytometry, High Content Screening), Process (Single-cell Analysis), End User (Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Companies) - Global Forecast to 2027" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

Research_and_Markets_Logo

The global cell analysis market is projected to reach USD 28.6 Billion by 2027 from USD 17.7 Billion in 2022, at a CAGR of 10.1% during the forecast period.

Key opportunities for the cell analysis market include emerging economies, high risk of communicable diseases and pandemic outbreaks, and increasing adoption of novel cellular assays in various cancer research applications. On the other hand, high costs associated with cell analysis instruments along with limitations on the usage of reagents for experiments are expected to restrain the market growth.

The reagents & consumables segment dominates the cell analysis market through the study period of 2020-2027.

Based on product & service, the global cell analysis market is segmented into reagents & consumables, instruments, accessories, software, and services. The reagents & consumables segment represented the largest market share for the year 2021, in the cell analysis market. The development of affordable reagent solutions by key market players is the key attributive factor to the segment's dominance. This is further supplemented by increasing demand for novel cell analysis reagents & consumables in flow cytometry experiments.

The high content screening (HCS) segment will witness the highest growth in the cell analysis market during the forecast period.

Based on technique, the global cell analysis market is segmented into flow cytometry, PCR, cell microarrays, microscopy, spectrophotometry, high-content screening (HCS), and other techniques. HCS technique combines high-throughput automated imaging with analysis which helps in the extraction of single-cell data, multi-parametric in nature. In addition, widening applications of HCS have contributed to the robust CAGR registered by this segment from 2022-2027. North America dominated the cell analysis market in 2021.

Geographically, the cell analysis market is segmented into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East and Africa. In 2021, North America accounted for the largest share of the cell analysis market. North America harbors the majority of the key market players leading to the maturity of the cell analysis market in this region. Also, robust government support for academic & research activities offers opportunities for the key market players to introduce cutting-edge cell analysis products, further intensifying regional market competition.

Key Topics Covered:

1 Introduction

2 Research Methodology

3 Executive Summary

4 Premium Insights 4.1 Cell Analysis Market Overview 4.2 North America: Cell Analysis Market Share, by Product & Service and Country (2021) 4.3 North America: Cell Analysis Market, by Technique, 2022 Vs. 2027 (USD Million)

5 Market Overview 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Market Dynamics 5.2.1 Drivers 5.2.1.1 Rising Preference for Cell-Based Assays in Drug Discovery 5.2.1.2 Increasing Funding for Cell-Based Research 5.2.1.3 Growing Number of Drug Discovery Activities 5.2.2 Restraint 5.2.2.1 High Cost of Instruments and Restrictions on Reagent Use 5.2.3 Opportunities 5.2.3.1 Emerging Economies 5.2.3.2 Growing Risk of Pandemics and Communicable Diseases 5.2.3.3 Application of Novel Cell-Based Assays in Cancer Research 5.3 Porter's Five Forces Analysis 5.3.1 Threat of New Entrants 5.3.2 Threat of Substitutes 5.3.3 Bargaining Power of Buyers 5.3.4 Bargaining Power of Suppliers 5.3.5 Degree of Competition 5.4 Impact of COVID-19 on the Cell Analysis Market 5.5 Supply Chain Analysis 5.6 Value Chain Analysis 5.7 Ecosystem Analysis 5.8 Regulatory Analysis (Flow Cytometry-Based Cell Analysis) 5.9 Technology Analysis 5.10 Key Conferences & Events, 2021-2022 5.11 Pricing Analysis

6 Cell Analysis Market, by Product & Service 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Reagents & Consumables 6.2.1 Advent of Novel Cell Analysis Kits & Reagents for Flow Cytometry to Boost Segment Growth 6.3 Instruments 6.3.1 Innovations in Cell Analysis Instruments for Drug Discovery Research to Drive Market Growth 6.4 Accessories 6.4.1 Flow Cytometry Accessories Enable End-users to Customize Flow Cytometry Instruments 6.5 Software 6.5.1 Expanding Pool of Key Players Introducing Unique Software or Data Interpretation Tools Propels Segment Growth 6.6 Services 6.6.1 Remote Services Ensure Workflow Continuity and Maximize Performance

7 Cell Analysis Market, by Technique 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Flow Cytometry 7.2.1 Ability to Perform Multiple Measurements on Single Cells is Key Advantage Associated with this Technique 7.3 Pcr 7.3.1 Digital Pcr Can Effectively Measure and Monitor Rare Sequences 7.4 Cell Microarrays 7.4.1 Cell Microarrays are Used in Designing and Controlling Stem Cells in Tissue Engineering 7.5 Microscopy 7.5.1 Rising Incidence of Cancer and Growing Investments in Cell Biology to Drive Market Growth 7.6 Spectrophotometry 7.6.1 High Demand for Spectrophotometers in Research Settings to Support Market Growth 7.7 High-Content Screening (Hcs) 7.7.1 High Demand for Hcs in Cell Behavior Research Studies to Support Segment Growth 7.8 Other Techniques

8 Cell Analysis Market, by Process 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Cell Identification 8.2.1 Increasing Research Activities to Propel Market Growth 8.3 Cell Viability 8.3.1 Cell Viability is Used to Correlate Cell Behavior to Cell Numbers 8.4 Cell Signaling Pathway/Signal Transduction 8.4.1 High Demand for Toxicity Testing in Drug Development to Drive Market Growth 8.5 Cell Proliferation 8.5.1 Cell Proliferation is Measured on the Basis of Average Dna Content 8.6 Cell Counting & Quality Control 8.6.1 Flow Cytometry Enables Easy Differentiation of Cells Via Scattering or Staining 8.7 Cell Interaction 8.7.1 Increasing Advancements in Cell-Cell Interactions/Cell-Cell Communication to Boost Market Growth 8.8 Cell Structure Study 8.8.1 Advancements in Cellular Imaging to Support Market Growth 8.9 Target Identification & Validation 8.9.1 Hcs in Target Identification is Used to Identify Novel Targets Through Screening of Cellular Pathways 8.10 Single-Cell Analysis 8.10.1 Expanding Applications of Single-Cell Analysis in Clinical Research to Propel Segment Growth

9 Cell Analysis Market, by End-user 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Companies 9.2.1 High Demand for Cell-Based Research in Drug Discovery & Development Process Contributes to Segment Growth 9.3 Hospitals & Clinical Testing Laboratories 9.3.1 Development of Complex & Highly Specialized Tests and Assays Supports Market Growth 9.4 Academic & Research Institutes 9.4.1 Growing Number of Research Projects Through Industry-Academia Collaborations to Drive Market Growth 9.5 Other End-users

10 Cell Analysis Market, by Region

11 Competitive Landscape 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Right-To-Win Approaches Adopted by Key Players 11.3 Market Share Analysis 11.4 Revenue Share Analysis (Top 7 Market Players) 11.5 Company Evaluation Quadrant 11.5.1 Stars 11.5.2 Emerging Leaders 11.5.3 Pervasive Players 11.5.4 Participants 11.6 Competitive Leadership Mapping: Emerging Companies/ SMEs/Start-Ups (2021) 11.6.1 Progressive Companies 11.6.2 Starting Blocks 11.6.3 Responsive Companies 11.6.4 Dynamic Companies 11.7 Competitive Scenario and Trends 11.7.1 Product Launches 11.7.2 Deals 11.7.3 Other Developments

12 Company Profiles 12.1 Key Companies 12.1.1 Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. 12.1.2 Danaher 12.1.3 Becton, Dickinson and Company (Bd) 12.1.4 General Electric 12.1.5 Merck KGaA 12.1.6 Agilent Technologies, Inc. 12.1.7 Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. 12.1.8 Fluidigm Corporation 12.1.9 Miltenyi Biotec 12.1.10 Olympus Corporation 12.1.11 Biostatus Limited 12.1.12 Nanocellect Biomedical 12.1.13 Cell Biolabs, Inc. 12.1.14 Creative Bioarray 12.1.15 Meiji Techno 12.2 Other Players 12.2.1 Promega Corporation 12.2.2 PerkinElmer 12.2.3 Tecan Trading Ag 12.2.4 Carl Zeiss 12.2.5 Sysmex America, Inc. 12.2.6 Cellink 12.2.7 Qiagen 12.2.8 Illumina, Inc. 12.2.9 Corning Incorporated 12.2.10 10X Genomics

13 Appendix

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/cl0huh

Media Contact:

Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager press@researchandmarkets.com

For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

Cision

View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-worldwide-cell-analysis-industry-is-projected-to-reach-28-6-billion-by-2027--301570265.html

SOURCE Research and Markets

View post:
The Worldwide Cell Analysis Industry is Projected to Reach $28.6 Billion by 2027 - Yahoo Finance

United States Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Market Analysis Report 2022: Rapid R&D to Propel the Adoption of Hydrogen Fuels & Increasing Government…

Company Logo

US Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Market

US Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Market

Dublin, June 14, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "US Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Market (2022-2027) by Technology, Vehicle Type, Competitive Analysis and the Impact of Covid-19 with Ansoff Analysis" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The US Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Market is estimated to be USD 134.14 Mn in 2022 and is projected to reach USD 321.99 Mn by 2027, growing at a CAGR of 19.14%.

Market dynamics are forces that impact the prices and behaviors of the US Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Market stakeholders. These forces create pricing signals which result from the changes in the supply and demand curves for a given product or service. Forces of Market Dynamics may be related to macro-economic and micro-economic factors. There are dynamic market forces other than price, demand, and supply. Human emotions can also drive decisions, influence the market, and create price signals.

As the market dynamics impact the supply and demand curves, decision-makers aim to determine the best way to use various financial tools to stem various strategies for speeding the growth and reducing the risks.

Company Profiles

The report provides a detailed analysis of the competitors in the market. It covers the financial performance analysis for the publicly listed companies in the market. The report also offers detailed information on the companies' recent development and competitive scenario.

Some of the companies covered in this report are Ballard Power Systems, Borgwarner, Cummins, Doosan Group, Hyster-Yale, Hyundai Group, Plug Power, Toshiba, Toyota Motor Corp, etc.

Competitive Quadrant

The report includes Competitive Quadrant, a proprietary tool to analyze and evaluate the position of companies based on their Industry Position score and Market Performance score.

The tool uses various factors for categorizing the players into four categories. Some of these factors considered for analysis are financial performance over the last 3 years, growth strategies, innovation score, new product launches, investments, growth in market share, etc.

Ansoff Analysis

Story continues

The report presents a detailed Ansoff matrix analysis for the US Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Market. Ansoff Matrix, also known as Product/Market Expansion Grid, is a strategic tool used to design strategies for the growth of the company.

The matrix can be used to evaluate approaches in four strategies viz. Market Development, Market Penetration, Product Development and Diversification. The matrix is also used for risk analysis to understand the risk involved with each approach.

Why buy this report?

The report offers a comprehensive evaluation of the US Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Market. The report includes in-depth qualitative analysis, verifiable data from authentic sources, and projections about market size. The projections are calculated using proven research methodologies.

The report has been compiled through extensive primary and secondary research. The primary research is done through interviews, surveys, and observation of renowned personnel in the industry.

The report includes an in-depth market analysis using Porter's 5 forces model and the Ansoff Matrix. In addition, the impact of Covid-19 on the market is also featured in the report.

The report also includes the regulatory scenario in the industry, which will help you make a well-informed decision. The report discusses major regulatory bodies and major rules and regulations imposed on this sector across various geographies.

The report also contains the competitive analysis using Positioning Quadrants, the analyst's Proprietary competitive positioning tool.

Report Highlights:

A complete analysis of the market, including parent industry

Important market dynamics and trends

Market segmentation

Historical, current, and projected size of the market based on value and volume

Market shares and strategies of key players

Recommendations to companies for strengthening their foothold in the market

Key Topics Covered:

1 Report Description

2 Research Methodology

3 Executive Summary 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Market Size, Segmentations and Outlook

4 Market Dynamics 4.1 Drivers 4.1.1 Rise in Environmental Concern to Boost Market Growth 4.1.2 Technological Advancements in Hydrogen Fuel Cell 4.2 Restraints 4.2.1 High Initial Investment in Infrastructure 4.3 Opportunities 4.3.1 Increasing Government Initiative for Development of Hydrogen Fuel Cell 4.3.2 Rapid R&D to Propel the Adoption of Hydrogen Fuels 4.4 Challenges 4.4.1 Performance Constraints

5 Market Analysis 5.1 Regulatory Scenario 5.2 Porter's Five Forces Analysis 5.3 Impact of COVID-19 5.4 Ansoff Matrix Analysis

6 US Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Market, By Technology 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell 6.3 Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell 6.4 Others

7 US Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Market, By Vehicle Type 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Passenger Vehicle 7.3 Commercial Vehicle

8 Competitive Landscape 8.1 Competitive Quadrant 8.2 Market Share Analysis 8.3 Strategic Initiatives 8.3.1 M&A and Investments 8.3.2 Partnerships and Collaborations 8.3.3 Product Developments and Improvements

9 Company Profiles

Ballard Power Systems

Borgwarner

Cummins

Doosan Group

Hyster-Yale

Hyundai Group

Plug Power

Toshiba

Toyota Motor Corp

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/x770rz

Attachment

See original here:
United States Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Market Analysis Report 2022: Rapid R&D to Propel the Adoption of Hydrogen Fuels & Increasing Government...

Cell Sorting Market Key Players, Competitive Landscape, Revenue and Industry Analysis Report by 2027 Indian Defence News – Indian Defence News

The globalcell sorting marketis projected to reach a market size of USD 805.1 Million by 2027 and register a relatively high CAGR during the forecast period, according to a recent report by Reports and Data. Cell sorting is a process of taking cells from an organism and separating them according to their type. These cells are labelled and tagged. Cell sorting market revenue is growing due to increase in research and development activities in healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. Advancements in diagnostic procedures and increase in prevalence of chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cancer, are factors also contributing to growth of the global cell sorting market.

High prevalence of cancer is an issue of concern for governments across the globe. Rising prevalence of breast, lung, liver, and colorectal cancers is expected to drive demand for cell sorting in cancer research and in turn boost market growth in the near future. Geriatric population is also increasing rapidly worldwide, which in turn is creating a large cancer patient pool. Rise in government initiatives to improve healthcare facilities, increasing focus on research activities, and growth in funding by public and private entities are projected to drive growth of the cell sorting market over the forecast period.

Get a sample of the report @https://www.reportsanddata.com/sample-enquiry-form/3748

Some Key Factors Contributing to the Global Pharma & Healthcare Market Growth

Unprecedented revenue growth of the global pharma & healthcare industry is attributed to factors such as rising prevalence of chronic and acute diseases worldwide, increasing geriatric population, rising awareness of health & wellness among consumers, and growing demand for more advanced healthcare services. Increasing demand for advanced drugs and therapeutics, growing availability of next-generation diagnostics and treatment options especially in developing countries like India and China rise in R&D activities and clinical trials in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, increasing public and private investments in healthcare research projects, and rising consumer expenditure on healthcare are among the other significant factors contributing to the industry revenue growth.

Further Key Findings from the Report Suggest

Top Players in the Global Cell Sorting Market:

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Becton, Dickinson and Company, Miltenyi Biotec GmbH, Sysmex Partec GmbH, Beckman Coulter, Inc., On-Chip Biotechnologies Co., Ltd., Sony Biotechnology Inc., Affymetrix, Inc., Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., and Union Biometrica, Inc.

The coronavirus pandemic has had a drastic impact on the global healthcare industry, with rising cases of COVID-19 worldwide, substantially growing hospital admission and readmission rates, and rising demand for telehealth and telemedicine services for remote patient monitoring. Furthermore, rising focus on development of rapid COVID-19 diagnostics such as the RT-PCR test kits, increased government funding for vaccine development, stringent regulatory norms and protocols for COVID-19 safety, and increasing sales of COVID-19 safety equipment, such as N-95 masks, face shields, PPE kits, and hand sanitizers, have driven the global pharma & healthcare industry revenue growth over the recent past.

To know more about the report @https://www.reportsanddata.com/report-detail/cell-sorting-market

Cell Sorting Market Segmentation:

Product and Services Outlook (Revenue, USD Million; 2017-2027)

Technology Outlook (Revenue, USD Million; 2017-2027)

Application Outlook (Revenue, USD Million; 2017-2027)

End-use Outlook (Revenue, USD Million; 2017-2027)

Global Cell Sorting Market Report:Regional Segmentation

Download Summary @https://www.reportsanddata.com/download-summary-form/3748

Global Cell Sorting Market:Table of Contents

Chapter 1.Methodology & Sources

1.1. Market Definition

1.2. Research Scope

1.3. Methodology

1.4. Research Sources

1.4.1. Primary Sources

1.4.2. Secondary Sources

1.4.3. Paid Sources

1.5. Market Estimation Technique

Chapter 2.Executive Summary

Chapter 3.Key Insights

Chapter 4.Global Pharma & Healthcare Market Segmentation

4.1. Global Pharma & Healthcare Market COVID-19 Impact Analysis

4.2. Industrial Outlook

4.2.1. Market indicators analysis

4.2.2. Market drivers analysis

4.2.3. Market restraints analysis

4.3. Technological Insights

4.4. Porters Five Forces Analysis

4.5. Regulatory Framework

4.6. Price trend Analysis

4.7. Competitive Metric Space Analysis

Request a customization of the report @https://www.reportsanddata.com/request-customization-form/3748

Frequently Asked Questions Answered in the Report:

Thank you for reading our report. Please connect with us to know more about the report and its customization feature. Our team will ensure the report is well suited to meet your requirements.

Read More Reports:

Regenerative Medicine Market @ https://www.biospace.com/article/regenerative-medicine-market-to-reach-usd-23-57-billion-by-2027-says-reports-and-data/

Cell Sorting Market @ https://www.biospace.com/article/cell-sorting-market-to-reach-usd-805-1-million-by-2027-says-reports-and-data/

Blood Bags Market @ https://www.biospace.com/article/increasing-number-of-blood-donation-camps-around-the-globe-would-provide-new-opportunities-for-blood-bag-businesses-to-expand-reports-and-data/

Proteomics Market @ https://www.biospace.com/article/proteomics-market-to-reach-usd-65-91-by-2028-says-reports-and-data/

Spatial Genomics & Transcriptomics Market @ https://www.biospace.com/article/spatial-genomics-and-transcriptomics-market-to-reach-usd-675-34-million-by-2028-says-reports-and-data/

About Reports and Data

Reports and Data is a market research and consulting company that provides syndicated research reports, customized research reports, and consulting services. Our solutions purely focus on your purpose to locate, target, and analyze consumer behavior shifts across demographics, across industries, and help clients to make smarter business decisions. We offer market intelligence studies ensuring relevant and fact-based research across multiple industries, including Healthcare, Touch Points, Chemicals, Products, and Energy. We consistently update our research offerings to ensure our clients are aware of the latest trends existent in the market. Reports and Data has a strong base of experienced analysts from varied areas of expertise. Our industry experience and ability to develop a concrete solution to any research problems provides our clients with the ability to secure an edge over their respective competitors.

Contact Us:

John W Head of Business Development Reports And Data | Web:www.reportsanddata.com Direct Line: +1-212-710-1370 E-mail:[emailprotected] LinkedIn|Twitter|Blogs

View original post here:
Cell Sorting Market Key Players, Competitive Landscape, Revenue and Industry Analysis Report by 2027 Indian Defence News - Indian Defence News

3D Bioprinting Market Size Is Predicted To Grow 21.2% From 2022 to 2027 – Digital Journal

During the forecast period, the global 3D bioprinting market size is expected to develop at a CAGR of 21.2% and value USD 1724 million by 2027.

Browse details of the report @ https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/three-d-bioprinting-market

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has spread the globe, putting a strain on even the most overburdened healthcare systems. As a result, numerous 3D Bioprinting communities are responding to the international crisis by offering their unique abilities to reduce the strain on the supply chain and governments because of the rising incidence of coronavirus. As the number of people infected with COVID-19 rises, there is a shortage of supplies for medical experts and the general population. The unavailability of COVID-19 test kits is one of the most critical issues. As a result, numerous 3D bioprinting companies are mass-producing 3D printers and related software. The coronavirus pandemic has also hastened the development of medicine and vaccine testing, as scientists are employing new methods for post-clinical safety testing in patients. With the rising number of cases with COVID-19, the medical community is running out of respirators and ventilators. The use of 3D bioprinting technology is assisting in the production of respirators and ventilators, which is helping to alleviate a scarcity of these equipment.

The market for 3D bioprinting is being driven by technological advancements in 3D bioprinters and biomaterials, greater usage of 3D bioprinting in the pharmaceutical and cosmetology industries and rising governmental and private funding to support bioprinting research activities. Several medical applications, such as skin tissue production, cancer therapies, bone and cartilage formation, and liver modelling, have seen significant technological developments in the 3D bioprinting field. The stem cell and regenerative medicine industries are expanding around the world, due to improved stem cell research efforts and financial assistance from several public-private partnerships.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly being used in 3D bioprinting to build bio-tissues from a digital 3D model utilising a combination of cells, growth factors, and biomaterials in a layer-by-layer method. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a field of science that studies the simulation of human behaviour in machines.

On the other hand, preventing individual adoption of 3D bioprinting are the source of biomaterials utilized for manufacturing 3D bioprinter objects and waste disposal challenges are hampering the growth rate of the market.

Avail sample market brochure of the report to evaluate its usefulness; get a copy @https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/three-d-bioprinting-market/request-sample

KEY MARKET INSIGHTS:

This report can be customized as per the requirements; talk to our team @https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/three-d-bioprinting-market/customization

About MarketDataForecast:

Market Data Forecast is a firm working in market research, business intelligence, and consulting. We have rich research and consulting experience for various business domains to cater to individual and corporate clients needs.

Contact Us:

Market Data Forecast Phone: +1-888-702-9626 Email:[emailprotected]

Read more:
3D Bioprinting Market Size Is Predicted To Grow 21.2% From 2022 to 2027 - Digital Journal

Fujifilm Life Sciences Showcases its Comprehensive Solutions to Support Advanced Therapies at BIO2022 – GlobeNewswire

Cambridge, Mass., June 14, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Fujifilm Life Sciences, a portfolio of companies with comprehensive solutions ranging from Bio CDMO services to drug development support, and including induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), cell culture media, and reagents, today announced that it will have a unified presence at BIO2022 (June 13-16) at the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego, California.

Fujifilm Life Sciences will showcase each companys individual unique solutions, explore new business partnerships, and sponsor an interactive panel educational session on microbiome therapy development.

The many and diverse offerings of Fujifilm Life Sciences support and accelerate the discovery, development, manufacturing and commercialization of new therapies, said Yutaka Yamaguchi, general manager, Life Sciences Business Division, FUJIFILM Corporation; chairman and chief executive officer, FUJIFILM Irvine Scientific, Inc. As one Fujifilm, BIO2022 gives prospective partners a sense of the synergies and depth of experience Fujifilm can provide during the various stages of bringing new treatments to market.

Sponsored Educational Session

With numerous mid-to-late-stage trials targeting the microbiome well underway, a host of 2022 readouts, and the first-ever microbiome therapy approval on the horizon, there is growing interest in the field. Sign up for this panel of industry experts as they share recent gains in harnessing the power of the microbiome and what key stakeholders should be watching for the rest of 2022.

Gut Check: Current Trends in Microbiome Therapeutics Development

(Wednesday, June 15, 12:15pm - 1:30pm, Room 6B, San Diego Convention Center)

Moderator

Panelists

To register please click here: https://www.bio.org/events/bio-international-convention/sessions/930537

As a leader in the life sciences industry, Fujifilm Life Sciences is committed to advancing the field through ongoing research and education at BIO2022, added Yamaguchi.

The following Fujifilm Life Science companies look forward to welcoming attendees and forging new partnerships at BIO2022:

Exhibition and meetings based at Booth #1137

FUJIFILM Irvine Scientific Inc. a world leader in the development and manufacture of serum-free and chemically defined cell culture media and solutions for bioproduction and cell therapy manufacturing.

FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation is a leading manufacturer and supplier of laboratory chemicals, specialty chemicals and diagnostic reagents.

FUJIFILM Wako Chemicals, U.S.A. Corporation, LAL Division is a provider of the PYROSTAR ES-F line for the detection of bacterial endotoxin.

Exhibition and meetings based at Booth #1427

FUJIFILM Diosynth Biotechnologies is an industry-leading cGMP Contract Development and Manufacturing Organization (CDMO) supporting the biopharmaceutical industry in the development and production of biologics, vaccines and advanced therapies.

Meetings based in the BIO Business Forum

FUJIFILM Cellular Dynamics, Inc. is a leading developer and manufacturer of human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) utilized in drug discovery and cell therapies.

Learn more about Fujifilm Life Sciences:https://lifesciences.fujifilm.com/

About Fujifilm

FUJIFILM Holdings America Corporation is the regional headquarters for the Americas. It is comprised of more than 20 affiliate companies across North and Latin America that are engaged in the research, development, manufacture, sale and service of Fujifilm products and services. The companys portfolio represents a broad spectrum of industries including medical and life sciences, electronic, chemical, graphic arts, information systems, industrial products, broadcast, recording media, and photography. For more information, please visit:https://www.fujifilm.com/us/en/about/region.

FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation, Tokyo, leverages its depth of knowledge and proprietary core technologies to deliver Value from Innovation in our products and services in the business segments of healthcare, materials, business innovation, and imaging. Our relentless pursuit of innovation is focused on providing social value and enhancing the lives of people worldwide. Fujifilm is committed to responsible environmental stewardship and good corporate citizenship. For more information about Fujifilms Sustainable Value Plan 2030, click here. For the year ended March 31, 2022, the company had global revenues of approximately 2.5 trillion yen (21 billion $USD at an exchange rate of 122 yen/dollar). For more information, please visit: http://www.fujifilmholdings.com.

###

All product and company names herein may be trademarks of their registered owners.

View original post here:
Fujifilm Life Sciences Showcases its Comprehensive Solutions to Support Advanced Therapies at BIO2022 - GlobeNewswire

Stem Cell Characterization and Analysis Tool Market Size, Share and Trends 2022-2028, Forecast Key Players | Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., Cytori…

Drug Development and Discovery Embryonic Stem Cells Research

Stem Cell Characterization and Analysis Tool Market Segment Analysis

The market research explores new data in the Stem Cell Characterization and Analysis Tool market report. It examines the market size in terms of the value of each segment, as well as how market dynamics are likely to change over time. The report then divides this information into types and proposed applications, with a breakdown by geography (North America, Asia, Europe, and the Rest of the World). In addition, the report examines the structure of the industry, offers growth, forecast period, revenue value and volume estimates in industrial applications, and provides clarity regarding industry competition.

Stem Cell Characterization and Analysis Tool Market Report Scope

ATTRIBUTES

Description

ESTIMATED YEAR

2022

BASE YEAR

2021

FORECAST YEAR

2022 to 2028

HISTORICAL YEAR

2020

SEGMENTS COVERED

Types, Applications, End-Users, and more.

REPORT COVERAGE

Revenue Forecast, Company Ranking, Competitive Landscape, Growth Factors, and Trends

BY REGION

North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, Middle East and Africa

Regional Analysis of the Stem Cell Characterization and Analysis Tool Market:

The Stem Cell Characterization and Analysis Tool Market research report details the ongoing market trends, development outlines, and several research methodologies. It illustrates the key factors that directly manipulate the Market, for instance, production strategies, development platforms, and product portfolio. According to our researchers, even minor changes within the product profiles could result in huge disruptions to the above-mentioned factors.

Goals and objectives of the Stem Cell Characterization and Analysis Tool Market Study

The study thoroughly examines the profiles of major market players and their major financial aspects. This comprehensive business analysis report is useful for all new and existing participants when designing their business strategies. This report covers Stem Cell Characterization and Analysis Tools market output, revenue, market shares and growth rates for each key company and covers breakdown data (production, consumption, revenue and market shares) by regions, type and applications. Stem Cell Characterization and Analysis Tool historical breakdown data from 2016 to 2021 and forecast for 2022-2028.

Global Stem Cell Characterization and Analysis Tool Market Research Report 2022 2028

Chapter 1 Stem Cell Characterization and Analysis Tool Market Overview

Chapter 2 Global Economic Impact on Industry

Chapter 3 Global Market Competition by Manufacturers

Chapter 4 Global Production, Revenue (Value) by Region

Chapter 5 Global Supply (Production), Consumption, Export, Import by Regions

Chapter 6 Global Production, Revenue (Value), Price Trend by Type

Chapter 7 Global Market Analysis by Application

Chapter 8 Manufacturing Cost Analysis

Chapter 9 Industrial Chain, Sourcing Strategy and Downstream Buyers

Chapter 10 Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors/Traders

Chapter 11 Market Effect Factors Analysis

Chapter 12 Global Stem Cell Characterization and Analysis Tool Market Forecast

How Reports Globe is different than other Market Research Providers:

The inception of Reports Globe has been backed by providing clients with a holistic view of market conditions and future possibilities/opportunities to reap maximum profits out of their businesses and assist in decision making. Our team of in-house analysts and consultants works tirelessly to understand your needs and suggest the best possible solutions to fulfill your research requirements.

Our team at Reports Globe follows a rigorous process of data validation, which allows us to publish reports from publishers with minimum or no deviations. Reports Globe collects, segregates, and publishes more than 500 reports annually that cater to products and services across numerous domains.

Contact us:

Mr. Mark Willams

Account Manager

US: +1-970-672-0390

Email:[emailprotected]

Website:Reportsglobe.com

Follow this link:
Stem Cell Characterization and Analysis Tool Market Size, Share and Trends 2022-2028, Forecast Key Players | Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., Cytori...

Development and Characterization of 3D Hybrid Spheroids | OTT – Dove Medical Press

1Institute of General and Experimental Pathology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Wrocław Medical University, Wrocław, Poland; 2Flow Cytometry Laboratory, Department of Cancer Pathomorphology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland

Correspondence: Kamila Duś-Szachniewicz, Department of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Institute of General and Experimental Pathology, Wrocław Medical University, Marcinkowskiego 1, Wrocław, 50-368, Poland, Tel +48 71 7871212, Email [emailprotected]

Purpose: B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (B-NHLs) are the most common lymphoproliferative malignancy. Despite targeted therapies, the bone marrow involvement remains a challenge in treating aggressive B-NHLs, partly due to the protective interactions of lymphoma cells with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). However, data elucidating the relationship between MSCs and B-NHLs are limited and inconclusive due to the lack of reproducible in vitro three-dimensional (3D) models. Here, we developed and described a size-controlled and stable 3D hybrid spheroids of Ri-1 (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, DLBCL) and RAJI (Burkitt lymphoma, BL) cells with HS-5 fibroblasts to facilitate research on the crosstalk between B-NHL cells and MSCs. Materials and Methods: We applied the commercially available agarose hydrogel microwells for a fast, low-cost, and reproducible hybrid lymphoma/stromal spheroids formation. Standard histological automated procedures were used for formalin fixation and paraffin embedding (FFPE) of 3D models to produce good quality slides for histopathology and immunohistochemical staining. Next, we tested the effect of the anti-cancer drugs: doxorubicin (DOX) and ibrutinib (IBR) on mono-cultured and co-cultured B-NHLs with the use of alamarBlue and live/dead cell fluorescence based assays to confirm their relevancy for drug testing studies. Results: We optimized the conditions for B-NHLs spheroid formation in both: a cell line-specific and application-specific manner. Lymphoma cells aggregate into stable spheroids when co-cultured with stromal cells, of which internal architecture was driven by self-organization. Furthermore, we revealed that co-culturing of lymphoma cells with stromal cells significantly reduced IBR-induced apoptosis compared to the 3D mono-culture. Conclusion: This article provides details for generating 3D B-NHL spheroids for the studies on the lymphoma- stromal cells. This approach makes it suitable to assess in a relevant in vitro model the activity of new therapeutic agents in B-NHLs. Graphical Abstract:

Keywords: 3D lymphoma model, hybrid cell spheroids, lymphoma-stromal cell crosstalk, doxorubicin, ibrutinib, agarose hydrogel microwells

Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) represent heterogeneous and aggressive mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (B-NHLs).1,2 Approximately 20% and from 11 to 34% of patients with BL, and DLBCLs, respectively, have bone marrow (BM) involvement.3,4 Importantly, BM involvement by DLBCLs and BL is clinically recognized as a high-risk advanced disease.5

Key components of the BM niche are non-hematopoietic multipotent cells, known as mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). They support and regulate hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell homeostasis,6 however, not by direct contact or secretion of soluble factors.7 Ongoing research demonstrates that MSCs impact tumor growth and progression. Interestingly, some studies show conflicting results indicating both: antitumorigenic,812 and protumorigenic1318 properties of MSCs, still their net effect appears to be predominantly protumorigenic. Several groups reported BM stromal cells providing chemoprotection to hematopoietic tumor cells via secreted inflammatory and chemotactic cytokines, such as CXCR12, IL-6, and IL-8, from the inhibitory effect of a treatment.1921 However, direct cellcell interactions are the ones that are essential for the chemoprotection of lymphoma cells by the bone marrow niche. Over a decade ago, Lwin et al established that BM stromal cells-derived BAFF (B cell-activating factor belonging to the TNF family) protects B-NHL cells from spontaneous apoptosis and is involved in cell adhesion-mediated drug resistance.22 In turn, Mraz and co-authors established that co-cultures of rituximab-responsive B-NHL cells with HS-5 stromal cells significantly reduced rituximab-induced apoptosis compared to cells cultured on a plastic surface.20 Interestingly, this experiment demonstrated that the protective effect of stromal cells on rituximab cytotoxicity was very similar in magnitude to the cell adhesion-mediated resistance to doxorubicin (DOX). The importance of cellcell interaction in lymphoma protection against anti-cancer drugs is still unknown. It is also inconclusive whether an interaction with MSCs could lead to the emergence of chemoresistant cells at a physiologically relevant drug dose. This is partially due to the lack of reproducible models for direct studies of lymphoma-stromal cells interactions.

The development of preclinical models with more relevant translational predictivity for the response of human cancers to drug candidates garnered much attention in recent years. The traditional model for in vitro study and drug screening is the two-dimensional (2D) culture, which reflects neither the three-dimensional (3D) architecture nor the complex cellcell and cellmicroenvironmental interactions.2325 For those reasons, the drug testing studies with 2D models mostly fail to predict in vivo responses to anti-cancer treatment.2628 Concurrently, in vitro drug testing studies performed with 3D tumor spheroids predict the in vivo sensitivity of tumor cells more accurately.2931

Spheroids aggregates can be established from a single cell type or mixtures of multiple cell types, including tumor, stromal, and immune cells. Given that tumors are composed of multiple cell types, 3D co-culturing increases the complexity of tumor models.3234 Unfortunately, there is a lack of well-characterized 3D hybrid models for studying DLBCL lymphoma- microenvironment crosstalk. Regarding DLBCL lymphomas, in 2017 a three-dimensional lymphoma-on-chip model, recapitulating the interactions between immune cells, cancer cells, and endothelial cells in the tumor microenvironment of DLBCL, was successfully developed.35 Recently, Foxall et al described a collagen scaffolds-based spheroid co-culture system comprising DLBCL cells, cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAF), and tumor-associated macrophages (TAM).36 Notably, both studies demonstrated that DLBCL cells interact with their constituent components, resulting in their improved viability compared to 2D mono-cultures. Finally, An et al successfully developed a canine 3D hybrid model by co-culturing the lymphoma cells, and lymph node-derived primary stromal cells.37 Importantly, they observed that lymphoma co-culture with stromal cells influenced apoptosis and the cell cycle of tumor cells, as well as upregulated multidrug resistance genes, such as P-qp, MRP1, and BCRP, compared with 3D mono-cultures. The above study revealed that understanding the interaction between the tumor microenvironment and lymphoma cells is essential in designing experimental approaches to personalized medicine and predicting the effects of drugs.

Unlike solid tumors, lymphoma cells grow in suspension in vitro. When cultured under standard 3D methods (eg, hanging drop, ultra-low attachment plates, rotary cell cultures),38 lymphoma cells form relatively flat aggregates. The above methods have other limitations, such as a lack of reproducibility and variability of spheroid sizes.39,40 Recently, hydrogels (water-swollen networks of polymers) have been widely used for spheroid preparation due to their biocompatibility and biodegradable properties. Moreover, hydrogel microwells provide a facile method to produce uniform-sized spheroids in a fast and low-cost manner.41,42 Notably, it was observed that they mimic salient elements of native extracellular matrices, and their mechanical properties are similar to those of many soft tissues, thus they can support cell adhesion.43,44

The objective of this study was to develop and characterize over days the hybrid B-cell lymphoma/stromal cells models with the use of low-cost, fast, and commercially available hydrogel microwells. We successfully generated two co-culture systems that recapitulate the interaction of lymphoma cells with MSCs. Our 3D hybrid spheroids were prepared using two B-NHL cell lines: Ri-1 and Raji representing DLBCL and BL, respectively. First, the growth and proliferation characteristics of 3D cultures were characterized over days using an image analysis demonstrating the differences between mono-cultures and hybrid spheroids. Next, we have confirmed the suitability of the generated models for applications, such as drug screening, allowing comparison of cell growth, survival, and invasiveness between treatment conditions. Taken together, we conclude the B-NHL hybrid spheroids are a promising preclinical model for studying the mechanism of lymphoma-MSCs interactions and for screening anti-cancer drugs.

The human bone marrow cells HS-5 were obtained from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, MD, USA). The DLBCL cell line Ri-1 and BL cell line Raji were received from German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (DSMZ, Germany). The cells were cultured in RPMI-1640 (Gibco, UK) with 10% fetal bovine serum (Gibco, UK) and 1% penicillin/streptomycin (Gibco, UK). The cells were grown at 37 C in a humid atmosphere saturated with 5% CO2, and readjusted every week to a concentration of at least 1106 cells/mL by dilution in fresh complete medium or into new flasks.

Spheroids were generated using a non-adhesive agarose microwell system (mold 12256, 3D PetriDish, Microtissues Inc., RI, USA) according to the manufacturers instructions. In brief, molds with 15 mm wide and 3 mm high, containing 256 micropores of 400 m diameter each, were used to create gel microwells. A 2% agarose solution (w/v in H2O, UltraPure Agarose, Invitrogen, Thermo Fisher Scientific, UK) was molten by microwaving, cooled to about 60 C, and 500 L of agarose was pipetted on top of the mold. Once the agarose gelled at room temperature, the microwell was gently separated from the mold, UV irradiated for at least 30 min and stored in PBS up to 7 days in 4 C.

Prior to the preparation of spheroids, the agarose microwell was placed in a glass-bottom dish with a diameter of 35 mm, and was incubated for 15 minutes with the warm culture medium to equilibrate the gel. Next, the culture medium from the outside of the gel and from the cell seeding chamber was carefully removed. Cells were counted with an automated cell counter (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Germany) and appropriate cell dilutions have been prepared. Spheroids were obtained by seeding 3.2104 cells per mold (seeding densities of 125 cells/well). Mixed spheroids were prepared from 3.2104 cells in four ratios of lymphomas to stromal cells, including 1:1, 1:2, 1:4, and 1:10. 190 L of cell suspension was carefully dropped into the cell seeding chamber. The cells fell to the bottom of the micropores in the gel in approximately 10 minutes, and up to 4 mL of the additional culture medium was added to the outside of the microwells gel. The medium was exchanged after 24 h and then every other 2 days. The spheroids were grown at 37 C in a humid atmosphere saturated with 5% CO2 for a maximum of 14 days. The morphology and size of spheroids were monitored every 24 h until day 14 by bright field microscopy using an inverted Olympus IX73 microscope (Olympus, Germany) with the Olympus Cell^A software.

At each time point, spheroids were assessed by automated counting for overall viability using the trypan blue dye exclusion method. First, the spheroids were taken up in 1 mL TrypLE Express Enzyme (Gibco, UK) and incubated in a water bath at 37 C for 15 min for dissociation. The suspension was then homogenized by gently pipetting up and down 510 times with a wide borehole pipette tip, and the reaction was quenched by adding 5 mL of the culture medium. Next, a 1:1 (vol/vol) mixture of dissociated cells and 0.4% trypan blue (Merck, Germany) was incubated for 2 min at room temperature. Viability was evaluated in an automated cell counter and by the provided software (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Germany), adjusting the cell size gate between 6 and 20 m.

Entire hydrogels with multiple spheroids were fixed for 30 minutes with a 10% formalin neutral buffer solution. According to the manufacturers instructions, the top of the hydrogel was covered by Cytoblock Replacement Reagents (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Germany) to prevent displacement of spheroids during histological processing. Entire agarose blocks underwent automated tissue processing (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Germany) and were embedded in paraffin as a final step. Five-micrometer-thick paraffin sections were prepared. Spheroids were deparaffinized, rehydrated, and stained with hematoxylin. The immunostaining was performed using a monoclonal mouse anti-human antibody against CD20 (clone L26, cat No. IS604, Dako, Denmark) on an autostainer (Autostainer Plus; Dako, Inc., Denmark) according to the manufacturers manual.

Cell viability was monitored by live/dead cell viability/cytotoxicity assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Germany) after 7 and 14 days of cell seeding. Briefly, the culture medium was removed, and spheroids in each hydrogel sample were washed three times in PBS for 5 minutes. Next, spheroids were incubated with a 200 L of PBS solution containing 1 M Calcein AM targeting living cells and 4 M Ethidium homodimer-1 labeling dead cells at 37 C for 30 minutes, protected from the light, as instructed by the manual. Green and red fluorescence was detected at excitation/emission wavelengths of 485/530 and 550/590 nm, respectively, and imaged under a fluorescence microscope Olympus BX43 with the Olympus cellSens software. The green and red fluorescence intensity was separately analyzed by ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, MD, USA), and the percentage of living and dead cells in spheroids was calculated by the corrected total cell fluorescence (CTCF) intensity.45

Doxorubicin (DOX) and ibrutinib (IBR) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Steinheim am Albuch, Germany), Stock concentrations for DOX (1mM) were made in nuclease-free water and stored at 20 C, while IBR (10 mM) was dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, Sigma Aldrich) and stored at 4 C. Working stocks were made in the culture media.

The alamarBlue assay was performed to determine the drug IC50 values in B-NHL cell lines, as previously described.46 Three-day co-cultures of Ri-1 and HS-5 stromal cells (1:1 ratio), as well as mono-cultured Ri-1 spheroids, were treated with DOX and IBR in triplicate at 6 concentrations between 0.001 and 100 M. Gels with spheroids were reincubated for 48 hours after the addition of drugs. Next, the medium with drugs was gently aspirated, the spheroids were collected from the gel microwells and transferred into 96-well plates. A fresh cell culture medium with alamarBlue (Invitrogen, Germany) in an amount equal to 10% of the total volume was added and the plates were placed in an incubator for 24 h at 37 C, protected from the light. The absorbance was then read at 570 nm and 630 nm using a spectrophotometer (BioTek Instruments, VT, USA). Cell proliferation was determined by calculating the percentage reduction of alamarBlue with the use of the alamarBlue Colorimetric Calculator provided by Bio-rad.46 IC50 values were derived by a sigmoidal dose-response (variable slope) curve using GraphPad Prism 9 software (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

Three-day co-cultures of Ri-1 and HS-5 stromal cells (1:1 ratio), as well as mono-cultured Ri-1 spheroids, were exposed to up to 0.05 and 0.5 g/mL of DOX (Sigma-Aldrich, MO, USA) and 0.4 mol/L of IBR (Sigma-Aldrich, MO, USA) for 48 h at 37 C. Spheroids of the positive control for cytotoxicity were treated with 0.1% Triton-x-100 (TX) containing medium for 48 h. Untreated control spheroids were cultured in parallel. The proliferation/viability was assessed with an alamarBlue assay, as previously described.47

All data are represented as the meanstandard deviation (SD). Statistical comparisons were performed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Students t-test using Microsoft Excel 2018 (Microsoft Corp., CA, USA). P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

We developed hybrid models by co-culturing the representative B-NHL cell lines: Raji (BL) and Ri-1 (DLBCL) with MSCs in agarose hydrogels. Cells were plated at a density of 125 cells/well (in total 3.2104 cells per hydrogel), incubated for up to 14 days, followed by a visual assessment, image acquisition, and an analysis. Parallelly, we researched the formation of sell-assembled lymphoma aggregates followed by measurements of their overall morphology and size. Schematic illustrations of the 3D hybrid culture are presented in Figure 1A. In our model, stromal cells self-aggregate in the center of the spheroid and are evenly surrounded by layered lymphoma cells.

Figure 1 Culture and staining of B-NHL spheroids. (A) Schematic illustration of the assembly of a 3D hybrid spheroid. Stromal cells (HS-5) aggregate densely, while lymphoma cells evenly surround the stromal cell core. (B) Lymphoma/MSCs hybrid spheroids (ratio 1:1) formed within agarose gel within 24 h. (C) Co-culture of HS-5 and Ri-1 cells in a hanging drop after 72 h of incubation. MSCs form multiple spheroids variable in size, while lymphoma cells are assembled into a flat, irregular aggregate. (D) Hematoxylin staining of FFPE spheroids (ratio 1:2 of Ri-1:HS-5) in agarose gel. (E) Immunohistochemical staining shows CD20 positive lymphoma cells surrounding the CD20 negative stromal cells, which self-aggregate in the center of the spheroid.

Abbreviations: B-NHL, B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas; 3D, three-dimensional; MSCs, mesenchymal stromal cells; FFPE, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded.

Different tumor and stromal cell ratios were prepared, including 1:1, 1:2, 1:4, and 1:10. Notably, in the case of ratios 1:4 and 1:10, we frequently observed the formation of multiple stromal spheroids within the individual wells. At the same time, we observed that co-culturing of lymphoma cells and MSCs in the ratio of 1:1 and 1:2 results in the best spheroid formation (Figure 1B); thus, further analyses were performed with a concentration ratio of 1:1. Next, we tried unsuccessfully to obtain the above model with the hanging drop method and the use of ultra-low attachment plates. As presented in Figure 1C, stromal cells aggregate in multiple, variable in size spheroids. In turn, lymphoma cells formed a flat, loose-structured, and irregularly shaped cell suspension. Notably, hydrogels allow forming a truly cohesive spheroid, not only a confined aggregated cell. Besides, this observation was further confirmed upon hematoxylin and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining (Figure 1D and E). B-NHL cells stained with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody are generally considered confirmatory of lymphoma cell infiltration into the BM, which is CD20 negative.

The dynamics of spheroids formation differed between the two B-NHL cell lines, as shown in Figure 2A. Raji cells, representing BL, developed a more compact and homogeneous in shape spheroids when compared to Ri-1 cells (DLBCL), which formed spheroids of apparently looser structure. Raji and Ri-1 cells aggregated in 24 h after seeding onto hydrogel microwells when co-cultured with MSCs and reported here timeline is comparable with the spheroid formation of other solid tumors. In turn, mono-cultured cells required three days to generate spheroids, which showed irregular shapes with a rough surface. Importantly, we observed that lymphoma cell aggregation into a 3D structure was significantly stimulated when co-cultured with MSCs for both cell lines. Mono-culturing of both lymphoma cell lines resulted in more loosely aggregated spheroids in comparison to co-culturing with MSCs. We observed that hybrid spheroids survived gentle handling without significant damage, unlike lymphoma mono-spheroids, which were easily dissociated by handling, suggesting low cellcell adhesion.

Figure 2 The growth and morphology of Ri-1 (DLBCL) and RAJI (BL) spheroids over time. (A) Typical images of mono- and co-cultured spheroids. For both cell lines, co-cultured spheroids were formed within 24 h after seeding, while mono-cultured cells required 72 h to form the spheroids of an apparently looser structure. (B and C) Growth curves for Ri-1 and RAJI spheroids up to 7 days after seeding. The growth rates of mono- and co-cultured Raji spheroids were significantly faster than those of Ri-1 spheroids. The calculation of the diameter of spheroids was performed using bright field images and the Image J program. The measurements are presented as the mean SD of 15 spheroids formed in three independent experiments. *P<0.5, ***P<0.001.

Abbreviations: DLBCL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; BL, Burkitt Lymphoma; SD, standard deviation.

Next, we revealed that the growth rates of mono- and co-cultured Raji spheroids were significantly faster than Ri-1 spheroids (Figure 2B and C). The highest proliferation of Raji spheroids was observed between days 3 and 5, while the most prominent increase of Ri-1 spheroids growth was noted between days 57 after seeding. After seven days of incubation, the average diameter of monocultured and co-cultured RAJI spheroids was 369 69 m and 321 73 m, respectively. In turn, mono- and co-cultured Ri-1 cells formed significantly smaller spheroids with a diameter of 244 53 m, and 199 38 m, respectively. The above data suggest that the growth of lymphoma spheroids was not stimulated when co-cultured with stromal cells; furthermore, a significantly lower diameter of the co-cultured spheroids was observed in comparison to mono-cultured spheroids.

Raji cells were mono-cultured or co-cultured with stromal cells followed by live/dead fluorescent staining and imaging of spheroids after 7 and 14 days. At the same time, the percentage of cell viability in Raji and Ri-1 spheroids was measured by the trypan blue dye exclusion method. Spheroids were resuspended in TrypLE Express before cell counting.

The live/dead cell assay results revealed that the viability of both: mono- and co-cultured cells during spheroid formation was preserved at seven days of incubation (Figure 3A). Calcein AM-stained green fluorescing viable cells made up the bulk of the spheroid, while the dead cells labeled with ethidium homodimer made up a small percentage of the spheroids. In turn, at the 14th day of incubation, a larger proportion of red fluorescent signal was observed, indicating significantly decreased viability of cells in the spheroids compared to the seventh day of co-culturing. Dead cells were evenly distributed throughout the mono- and co-cultured spheroid, and no region with prominent dead cell accumulation was detected. Moreover, the live/dead fluorescent staining revealed that mono-culturing of Ri-1 cells results in more loosely aggregated spheroids in comparison to co-culture with stromal cells. Importantly, cell survival was apparently higher in hybrid spheroids compared to mono-cultured spheroids (62.5 versus 47.8%), which may be due to the protective role of stromal cells (Figure 3B).

Figure 3 B-NHL spheroids viability after a different period of culture. (A) Live/dead assay for the viability of the hybrid lymphoma/MSCs spheroids. Live/dead staining was performed on the 7th and 14th days of incubation. Green fluorescence indicates calcein AP stain in the live cells, and red fluorescence indicates the ethidium homodimer stain in the dead cells. (B) Quantification from the live/dead assay using ImageJ software. An index of live cells (% of cell viability) was constructed from the ratio of live to total cell numbers. (C) Percentage cell viability (viable cell count/total cell count) measured at days 7 and 14 using the trypan blue dye exclusion technique. Data from five independent experiments were analyzed and presented as the mean SD. *P<0.05, ***P<0.001, compared to mono-cultured cells.

Abbreviations: B-NHL, B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas; MSCs, mesenchymal stromal cells.

In line with the fluorescent staining results, after seven days of culturing, cell viability was 93% or greater for all lymphoma spheroids as confirmed by the results of the trypan blue exclusion assay (Figure 3C). In turn, cell viability assays on day 14 indicated a significant decrease in cells viability for all spheroids. Importantly, significant differences between the viability of mono- and co-cultured spheroids were revealed for both cell lines. This was particularly evident in Raji spheroids, where mono-cultured cells were significantly less viable than co-cultured cells (54 versus 72%, respectively) while the viability of mono-cultured and co-cultured Ri-1 cells was 59% and 67%, respectively.

The IC50 values, defined as the half-inhibitory concentration were obtained for mono- and co-cultured Ri-1 spheroids by alamarBlue assay. There were no significant differences in the activity of doxorubicin between mono- and co-cultured spheroids (IC50 values of 0.833 and 0.72, respectively), Figure 4A, while ibrutinib was active at much lower doses on mono-cultured spheroids (IC50=0.514) than co-cultured spheroids (IC50=0.909), Figure 4B. For anti-cancer treatment, the DOX doses were chosen such that they covered IC50 values. IBR dose was chosen within a maximum range equivalent to clinical concentration.

Figure 4 Anti-cancer drug treatment of B-NHL hybrid spheroids. Growth inhibition and corresponding IC50 values of DOX (A) and IBR (B) in mono-cultured and co-cultured Ri-1 spheroids as determinated by alamarBlue assay. Mono-cultured and co-cultured spheroids were treated with the range of drug concentrations. Data points represent average of n=3 experiments with eight technical replicates per DOX and IBR concentrations. (C) Light microscope images of Ri-1 cell line untreated and treated with DOX and IBR at day 3 after treatment. (D) Cell viability of mono-cultured and co-cultured Ri-1 spheroids under the anti-cancer treatment assessed by the use of the alamarBlue assay. Data were reported as the percentage of cell viability normalized to untreated control spheroids. Spheroids of the positive control for cytotoxicity were treated with 0.1% Triton-x-100 (TX). ***P<0.001; compared to control. ***P<0.001 underline; mono-culture versus co-culture.

Abbreviations: B-NHL, B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas; DOX, doxorubicin; IBR, ibrutinib, TX, Triton-X100.

We assessed the cell viability of the mono-cultured and co-cultured Ri-1 lymphoma spheroids under anti-cancer conditions: DOX (0.05 and 0.5 g/mL) and IBR (0.4 mol/L). Spheroids morphology presented in Figure 4C reflect the effect of drug treatment. No cytotoxic effects were observed when spheroids were treated with 0.05 g/mL of DOX for 72 h. Conversely, treatment with 0.5 g/mL of DOX for 72 h resulted in spheroid shrinkage and detachment of dead cells from the outer layers. No differences were observed between mono-cultured and co-cultured spheroids. In turn, a large decrease in the spheroid diameter was observed after the IBR treatment, particularly in mono-culturing cells. This is in line with experimental results determined by the alamarBlue assay (Figure 4D) revealing that cell viability was unaffected by 0.05 g/mL of DOX, while that 0.5 g/mL of DOX was significantly cytotoxic for mono- and co-cultured spheroids. No differences were observed between mono- and co-cultured cells (decrease in cell viability below 45% and 48%, respectively). In turn, our data revealed that mono-cultured cells were significantly more sensitive to IBR than co-cultures (P<0.001).

In this work, we developed a 3D model for studying the crosstalk between B-NHL cells and BM stromal cells. Stromal cells are an essential component of the BM microenvironment that impacts tumor development and survival. Numerous works have described the stroma of the bone marrow as a sanctuary site for lymphoma cells during traditional immunochemotherapy, which significantly contributes to drug resistance and leads in consequences to therapy failure.48 However, the reported antitumor effects are still controversial.49 Current data suggest that MSCs may both promote and constrain tumor growth, although their net effect appears to be predominantly protumorigenic.50 There is mounting evidence that MSCs restrict tumor growth by suppressing angiogenesis, inhibiting proliferation-related signaling pathways like PI3K, Wnt, and AKT, and inhibiting cell cycle progression.51 It was also suggested that MSCs appear to influence pathways that can suppress both proliferation and apoptosis.42,52,53 Interestingly, both inhibitory and proliferative effects of MSCs have been reported in the same studies.54,55 Discrepancies in the available data show that the biological role of BM stromal cells in cancer pathogenesis is not fully characterized. Meanwhile, it is believed that a better understanding of MSCs-tumor cells crosstalk will contribute to developing new treatment strategies in the future.56 Several reports showed that stromal cells chemoprotect tumor cells through direct cellcell contact; thus, there is an urgent need to develop models which allow studying such direct interactions.19 Importantly, our group previously investigated the direct interactions between B-cell lymphoma and stromal cells in optical tweezers using a 2D culture,57,58 whereas the 3D organization and cellular microenvironment emerged as critical determinants of lymphoma pathogenesis and drug resistance.

While 3D models of solid tumors are widely developed, the hemato-oncological malignancies remain omitted. Lymphocytes are generally mobile. B-lymphocytes within the lymph nodes remain in contact; however, they do not form solid cell structures. Similar to leukemias and myelomas, B-NHLs grow in a suspension when cultured in vitro, which results in difficulties in obtaining cohesive spheroids. The choice of a 3D culturing method is not without significance in the case of hemato-oncological malignancies such as B-NHLs. In the current study, we observed that B-NHL cells are grown within an ultra-low attachment plate or a hanging drop method aggregating into loose clumps of cells instead of 3D structures, which was previously described.59 Such methods may be helpful in drug studies; however, they do not support cellcell and microenvironment interactions. Here, we observed that the lymphoma cells form tight spheroids with agarose gel; however, the cells disintegrate when transferred with a pipette for further examination. Interestingly, when co-cultured with MSCs, B-NHL cells form compact and truly cohesive spheroids, which was previously described by Barbaglio et al on the chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) model.60

The HS-5 cell line used in this study was intentionally selected as HS-5 is a well-characterized model for the haemato-lymphopoietic microenvironment.20 A genome-wide analysis has revealed a similarity in the transcriptional profile of human primary MSCs and HS-5 cell lines, indicating their relevance to MSCs-lymphoma interactions studies.61 A co-culture method with HS-5 stromal cells has been used successfully in previous reports to generate CLL60 and multiple myeloma (MM) spheroids.62 Co-culturing of stromal cells and MM cells led to the promotion of pro-survival signaling and cell adhesion-mediated drug resistance.62 On the other hand, higher cellcell interactions and better cell retention and homing inside the 3D leukemia model were observed when CLL cells were co-cultured with stromal cells.60

The size of spheroids is a critical factor that affects the transport of therapeutics through the tumor model; thus, it should ideally be controlled for application in drug evaluation studies. The spheroid size of 200500 m is recommended for flexibility and ease of handling for most applications.63 The rationale is that smaller spheroids may not reproduce in vivo cellcell and cellmicroenvironment interactions. On the other hand, larger models may contain a hypoxic core that can affect cell behavior and alter interpretations of growth or survival assays. Notably, the size of our spheroids is compatible with a variety of adherent tumor and normal cell lines.63 Additionally, we showed that when cultured to specific time points, the established hydrogel mono- and co-cultures effectively produce uniform in size lymphoma spheroids for subsequent studies.

In this work, lymphoma spheroids were successfully formalin-fixed and processed directly in the agarose hydrogel via automated tissue processing and paraffin embedding. Thus, we confirmed that using hydrogel microwells allows applying the standard procedure for histological tissue processing, including paraffin embedding and cutting without removing spheroids from hydrogels. This is especially challenging in the key hemato-oncological models and it often destroys the weak connections between cells. Surprisingly, when we further stained hybrid spheroids with hematoxylin, we observed the clearly layered structure, where stromal cells aggregate in the center of the spheroid and are evenly surrounded by lymphoma cells. The observed self-organization process might recapitulate the in vivo DLBCL-BM interactions.

Tumor-stromal interactions affect B-NHL cells behavior, including survival and drug resistance. 3D cultures that recapitulate lymphoma-BM interactions are needed to thoroughly investigate disease progression and response to drugs, they are, however, unavailable. To evaluate the impact of BM stromal cells on doxorubicin (DOX) and ibrutinib (IBR) sensitivity, we performed parallel experiments in 3D mono-cultures versus 3D co-cultures using HS-5 stromal cells. The DOX64,65 and IBR66,67 concentrations were chosen within a range equivalent to clinical concentrations.

DOX is a chemotherapy medication used to treat cancer, including breast carcinoma, bladder carcinoma, Kaposis sarcoma, lymphoma including B-NHLs, and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. DOX is the main cytotoxic component of the R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) treatment regimen. DLBCLs include two major molecular subtypes; the germinal center B-cell-like (GCB) and the activated B-cell-like (ABC). DLBCL, represented in the Ri-1 cell line in this study, comes from ABC-DLBCL. It is well documented that ABC-DLBCL patients have poorer survival than GCB-DLBCLs under R-CHOP immunotherapy.68

In this work, we observed the high efficacy of DOX 0.5 g/mL on mesenchymal stromal cells, both: when treated with a single drug or together with lymphoma cells. Interestingly, identical doses of DOX (0.05 and 0.5 g/mL) were used in the canine 3D hybrid model of DLBCL by An et al, showing high efficacy at both tested doses.38 Notably, in our study, no protective effect of MSCs in 3D DLBCL culture was observed, which is in line with the recent report of Lamaison et al performed on DLBCL and follicular lymphoma (FL) spheroids.69 Importantly, hybrid models described here share other characteristics with DLBCL spheroids developed by Lamaison and co-authors. First, we observed a similar survival decrease during the second week of culture; however, the rate of cell death of our model was significantly lower. Next, Lamaison et al established that the survival decrease observed during the second week of culture is not associated with the formation of a hypoxic core, which is typically observed in 3D models of solid tumors. Accordingly, we did not detect any regionalization of dead cells deposition within the spheroid. Finally, the authors confirmed a supportive role of stromal cells (lymphoid stromal cells isolated from tonsils) in B-NHL spheroid formation.

Another important drug for the clinical treatment of DLBCL is ibrutinib. IBR is an oral irreversible inhibitor of Brutons tyrosine kinase (BTK), which performs a critical role in the oncogenic signal transduction pathway downstream of the B-cell antigen receptor in various B-NHLs, including CLL, mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), and Waldenstrms macroglobulinemia.70 Currently, IBR is thought to be a promising target drug of DLBCL, especially several clinical trials showed the potential to improve tumor response of patients with ABC-DLBCL. In this study, we evidenced that IBR more significantly affects ABC-DLBCL spheroids in the absence of BM-derived stromal cells, indicating a protective role exerted by the microenvironment, possibly through a direct contact with BM-derived stromal cells. This is further supported by the significantly greater drug resistance observed in 3D hybrid models compared to what was previously observed in spheroid mono-cultures.68,71 This creates the possibility that a similar environment may exist in the DLBCL environment in vivo. The above results indicate that tumor microenvironment (TME), tissue tension and adhesion are essential factors affecting lymphoma cell susceptibility to treatment.72,73 Moreover, these results suggest that our 3D hybrid model recapitulates the variability of drug response among B-NHLs.

The 3D co-culture, where lymphoma cells interact with stromal components, is particularly important in developing a more clinically relevant model. Such a model should be monitored through time and applied in studying the lymphoma response to various therapies. Here, we established and described cheap and fast hydrogel-based 3D co-cultures that can be used in a wide range of applications, including cell signaling or candidate drug screening. We believe that the above model may be necessary to develop a personalized therapy for patients with recurrent or refractory lymphoma with BM involvement.

ABC, activated B-cell-like; BAFF, B cell-activating factor belonging to the TNF family; B-NHLs, B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas; BM, bone marrow; BTK, Brutons tyrosine kinase; BL, Burkitt lymphoma; CAF, cancer-associated fibroblasts; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; CTCF, corrected total cell fluorescence; DLBCL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; DMSO, dimethyl sulfoxide; DOX, doxorubicin; FL, follicular lymphoma; FFPE, formalin fixation and paraffin embedding; GCB, germinal center B-cell-like; IBR, ibrutinib; MCL, mantle cell lymphoma; MSCs, mesenchymal stromal cells; MM, multiple myeloma; THRLBCL, T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma, TAM, tumor-associated macrophages; TX, Triton-X100; 2D, two-dimensional; 3D, three-dimensional.

The authors of this study would like to thank Piotr Zikowski from the Department of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Wrocaw Medical University for the mentoring support. K.D-S is grateful to Stanisawa Nowak for continuous support and inspiration.

This research was funded by The National Science Centre Poland (NCN, Poland); OPUS. UMO-2017/27/B/ST7/01255.

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

1. Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Pileri SA, et al. The 2016 revision of the World Health Organization classification of lymphoid neoplasms. Blood. 2016;127(20):23752390. doi:10.1182/blood-2016-01-643569

2. Said JW. Aggressive B-cell lymphomas: how many categories do we need? Mod Pathol. 2013;26 Suppl 1(01):S42S56. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2012.178

3. Campbell J, Seymour JF, Matthews J, et al. The prognostic impact of bone marrow involvement in patients with diffuse large cell lymphoma varies according to the degree of infiltration and presence of discordant marrow involvement. Eur J Haematol. 2006;76(6):473480. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0609.2006.00644.x

4. Chung R, Lai R, Wei P, et al. Concordant but not discordant bone marrow involvement in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma predicts a poor clinical outcome independent of the International Prognostic Index. Blood. 2007;110(4):12781282. doi:10.1182/blood-2007-01-070300

5. Yao Z, Deng L, Xu-Monette ZY, et al. Concordant bone marrow involvement of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma represents a distinct clinical and biological entity in the era of immunotherapy. Leukemia. 2018;32(2):353363. doi:10.1038/leu.2017.222

6. Crippa S, Santi L, Bosotti R, et al. Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells: a novel target to optimize hematopoietic stem cell transplantation protocols in hematological malignancies and rare genetic disorders. J Clin Med. 2019;9(1):2. doi:10.3390/jcm9010002

7. Mndez-Ferrer S, Michurina TV, Ferraro F, et al. Mesenchymal and haematopoietic stem cells form a unique bone marrow niche. Nature. 2012;466(7308):829834. doi:10.1038/nature09262

8. Kidd S, Caldwell L, Dietrich M, et al. Mesenchymal stromal cells alone or expressing interferon- suppress pancreatic tumors in vivo, an effect countered by anti-inflammatory treatment. Cytotherapy. 2011;13:498.

9. He N, Kong Y, Lei X, et al. MSCs inhibit tumor progression and enhance radiosensitivity of breast cancer cells by down-regulating Stat3 signaling pathway. Cell Death Dis. 2018;9(10):1026. doi:10.1038/s41419-018-0949-3

10. De Arajo Farias V, OValle F, Lerma BA, et al. Human mesenchymal stem cells enhance the systemic effects of radiotherapy. Oncotarget. 2015;6(31):3116431180. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.5216

11. Otsu K, Das S, Houser SD, et al. Concentration-dependent inhibition of angiogenesis by mesenchymal stem cells. Blood. 2009;113(18):41974205. doi:10.1182/blood-2008-09-176198

12. Dasari VR, Velpula KK, Kaur K, et al. Cord blood stem cell-mediated induction of apoptosis in glioma downregulates X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis protein (XIAP). PLoS One. 2010;5(7):e11813. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011813

13. Suzuki K, Sun R, Origuchi M, et al. Mesenchymal stromal cells promote tumor growth through the enhancement of neovascularization. Mol Med. 2011;17(78):579587. doi:10.2119/molmed.2010.00157

14. Karnoub AE, Dash AB, Vo AP, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells within tumour stroma promote breast cancer metastasis. Nature. 2007;449(7162):557563. doi:10.1038/nature06188

15. Bussard KM, Mutkus L, Stumpf K, et al. Tumor-associated stromal cells as key contributors to the tumor microenvironment. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18(1):84. doi:10.1186/s13058-016-0740-2

16. Le Naour A, Prat M, Thibault B, et al. Tumor cells educate mesenchymal stromal cells to release chemoprotective and immunomodulatory factors. J Mol Cell Biol. 2020;12(3):202215. doi:10.1093/jmcb/mjz090

17. Hussain S, Peng B, Cherian M, et al. The roles of stroma-derived chemokine in different stages of cancer metastases. Front Immunol. 2020;11:598532. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.598532

18. Hill BS, Sarnella A, DAvino G, et al. Recruitment of stromal cells into tumour microenvironment promote the metastatic spread of breast cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2020;60:202213. doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.07.028

19. Kumar A, Bhattacharyya J, Jaganathan BG. Adhesion to stromal cells mediates imatinib resistance in chronic myeloid leukemia through ERK and BMP signaling pathways. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):9535. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-10373-3

20. Mraz M, Zent CS, Church AK, et al. Bone marrow stromal cells protect lymphoma B-cells from rituximab-induced apoptosis and targeting integrin -4--1 (VLA-4) with natalizumab can overcome this resistance. Br J Haematol. 2011;155(1):5364. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08794.x

21. Janssens R, Struyf S, Proost P. The unique structural and functional features of CXCL12. Cell Mol Immunol. 2018;15(4):299311. doi:10.1038/cmi.2017.107

22. Lwin T, Crespo LA, Wu A, et al. Lymphoma cell adhesion-induced expression of B cell-activating factor of the TNF family in bone marrow stromal cells protects non-Hodgkins B lymphoma cells from apoptosis. Leukemia. 2009;23(1):170177. doi:10.1038/leu.2008.266

23. Breslin S, ODriscoll L. Three-dimensional cell culture: the missing link in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2013;18(56):240249. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2012.10.003

24. Edmondson R, Broglie JJ, Adcock AF, et al. Three-dimensional cell culture systems and their applications in drug discovery and cell-based biosensors. Assay Drug Dev Technol. 2014;12(4):207218. doi:10.1089/adt.2014.573

25. Zoetemelk M, Rausch M, Colin DJ, et al. Short-term 3D culture systems of various complexity for treatment optimization of colorectal carcinoma. Sci Rep. 2019;9:7103.

26. Powley IR, Patel M, Miles G, et al. Patient-derived explants (PDEs) as a powerful preclinical platform for anti-cancer drug and biomarker discovery. Br J Cancer. 2020;122(6):735744. doi:10.1038/s41416-019-0672-6

27. Unger FT, Witte I, David KA. Prediction of individual response to anticancer therapy: historical and future perspectives. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2015;72(4):729757. doi:10.1007/s00018-014-1772-3

28. Imamura Y, Mukohara T, Shimono Y, et al. Comparison of 2D- and 3D-culture models as drug-testing platforms in breast cancer. Oncol Rep. 2015;33(4):18371843. doi:10.3892/or.2015.3767

29. Tung YC, Hsiao AY, Allen SG, et al. High-throughput 3D spheroid culture and drug testing using a 384 hanging drop array. Analyst. 2011;136(3):473478. doi:10.1039/C0AN00609B

30. Benelli R, Zocchi MR, Poggi A. Three-Dimensional (3D) culture models in cancer investigation, drug testing and immune response evaluation. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;22(1):150. doi:10.3390/ijms22010150

31. Brningk SC, Rivens I, Box C, et al. 3D tumour spheroids for the prediction of the effects of radiation and hyperthermia treatments. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1653. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-58569-4

32. Luca AC, Mersch S, Deenen R, et al. Impact of the 3D microenvironment on phenotype, gene expression, and EGFR inhibition of colorectal cancer cell lines. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59689. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059689

33. Goers L, Freemont P, Polizzi KM. Co-culture systems and technologies: taking synthetic biology to the next level. J R Soc Interface. 2014;11(96):20140065. doi:10.1098/rsif.2014.0065

34. Vis MAM, Ito K, Hofmann S. Impact of culture medium on cellular interactions in in vitro co-culture systems. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:911. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2020.00911

35. Mannino RG, Santiago-Miranda AN, Pradhan P, et al. 3D microvascular model recapitulates the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma tumor microenvironment in vitro. Lab Chip. 2017;17(3):407414. doi:10.1039/C6LC01204C

36. Foxall R, Narang P, Glaysher B, et al. Developing a 3D B cell lymphoma culture system to model antibody therapy. Front Immunol. 2021;11:605231. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.605231

37. An JH, Song WJ, Li Q, et al. 3D-culture models as drug-testing platforms in canine lymphoma and their cross talk with lymph node-derived stromal cells. J Vet Sci. 2021;22(3):e25. doi:10.4142/jvs.2021.22.e25

38. Biakowska K, Komorowski P, Bryszewska M, et al. Spheroids as a type of three-dimensional cell cultures-examples of methods of preparation and the most important application. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(17):6225. doi:10.3390/ijms21176225

39. LaBarbera DV, Reid BG, Yoo BH. The multicellular tumor spheroid model for high throughput cancer drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2012;7(9):819830. doi:10.1517/17460441.2012.708334

40. Monjaret F, Fernandes M, Duchemin-Pelletier E, et al. Fully automated one-step production of functional 3D tumor spheroids for high-content screening. J Lab Autom. 2016;21(2):268280. doi:10.1177/2211068215607058

41. Caliari SR, Burdick JA. A practical guide to hydrogels for cell culture. Nat Methods. 2016;13(5):405414. doi:10.1038/nmeth.3839

42. Lee JM, Park DY, Yang L, et al. Generation of uniform-sized multicellular tumor spheroids using hydrogel microwells for advanced drug screening. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):17145. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-35216-7

43. Lutolf MP, Hubbell JA. Synthetic biomaterials as instructive extracellular microenvironments for morphogenesis in tissue engineering. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23(1):4755. doi:10.1038/nbt1055

44. Tibbitt MW, Anseth KS. Hydrogels as extracellular matrix mimics for 3D cell culture. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2009;103(4):655663. doi:10.1002/bit.22361

45. Determining fluorescence intensity and signal. University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Available from: https://kpif.umbc.edu/image-processing-resources/imagej-fiji/determining-fluorescence-intensity-and-positive-signal/. Accessed December 21, 2021.

46. Bio-Rad colorimetric and fluorometric calculator. Available from: https://www.bio-rad-antibodies.com/colorimetric-calculator-fluorometric-alamarblue.html. Accessed December 21, 2021.

47. Eilenberger C, Kratz SRA, Rothbauer M, et al. Optimized alamarBlue assay protocol for drug dose-response determination of 3D tumor spheroids. MethodsX. 2018;5:781787. doi:10.1016/j.mex.2018.07.011

48. Meads MB, Hazlehurst LA, Dalton WS. The bone marrow microenvironment as a tumor sanctuary and contributor to drug resistance. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(9):25192526. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-2223

49. Lee MW, Ryu S, Kim DS, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells in suppression or progression of hematologic malignancy: current status and challenges. Leukemia. 2019;33(3):597611. doi:10.1038/s41375-018-0373-9

Excerpt from:
Development and Characterization of 3D Hybrid Spheroids | OTT - Dove Medical Press

What Is the Appropriate Price for Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for …

Purpose: To identify the price of treatment at which platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is cost-effective relative to hyaluronic acid (HA) and saline solution intra-articular injections.

Methods: A systemized review process of the PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials comparing PRP with HA and saline solution with up to 1 year of follow-up. Level I trials that reported Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Likert scores were included. These scores were converted into utility scores. Cost data were obtained from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee schedules. Total costs included the costs of the injectable, clinic appointments, and procedures. The change in utility scores from baseline to 6 months and 1 year for the PRP, HA, and saline solution groups was divided by total cost to determine utility gained per dollar and to identify the price needed for PRP to be cost-effective relative to these other injection options.

Results: Nine randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. A total of 882 patients were included: 483 in the PRP group, 338 in the HA group, and 61 in the saline solution group. Baseline mean utility scores ranged from 0.55 to 0.57 for the PRP, HA, and saline solution groups. The 6-month gains in utility were 0.12, 0.02, and -0.06, respectively. The 12-month gains in utility from before injection were 0.14, 0.03, and 0.06, respectively. The lowest total costs for HA and saline solution were $681.93 and $516.29, respectively. For PRP to be cost-effective, the total treatment cost would have to be less than $3,703.03 and $1,192.08 for 6- and 12-month outcomes, respectively.

Conclusions: For patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, PRP is cost-effective, from the payer perspective, at a total price (inclusive of clinic visits, the procedure, and the injectable) of less than $1,192.08 over a 12-month period, relative to HA and saline solution.

Level of evidence: Level I, systematic review.

Read more from the original source:
What Is the Appropriate Price for Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for ...

Platelet Rich Plasma and Its Use in Hair Regrowth: A Review

Abstract

Platelet rich plasma (PRP) was described as a small volume of plasma containing higher concentrations of platelets than those found in peripheral blood and initially used as a transfusion product for treatment of thrombocytopenia. To date, it was discovered that there are several growth factors and cytokines that can accelerate wound healing and tissue regeneration, leading to a wider range of applications in the medical field, such as in sport medicine, regenerative medicine, and aesthetic medicine. Several studies have shown that PRP can be used effectively for treatment of hair loss. Although it has been widely used, the exact mechanism of action of PRP is still not fully elucidated. In this article, we aim to review and update current information on the definition, classification, mechanism of action, clinical efficacy in hair regrowth, and adverse events of PRP.

Keywords: platelet rich plasma, androgenetic alopecia, female pattern hair loss, alopecia areata, cicatricial alopecia, hair transplantation

Platelet rich plasma (PRP) was first described in Hematology as a small volume of plasma containing higher concentrations of platelets than those found in peripheral blood and initially used as a transfusion product for treatment of thrombocytopenia since 1970.1 Nowadays, PRP has become a popular treatment for many conditions in sport medicine,2 regenerative medicine,2,3 aesthetic medicine4 and hair loss treatment5,6 as it contains a variety number of growth factors and cytokines that can accelerate wound healing and tissue restoration. Both the device used to separate platelets and the subsequent use of the PRP product fall under the regulation of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).7 Any use of PRP other than blood transfusion is an off label use which is not prohibited by the FDA regulation if performed by a physician with the intent to practice medicine. Despite its widely application, the mechanism underlying the hair regrowth effects of PRP remains to be fully explored. We aim to review the effectiveness of PRP as a treatment for hair loss including definition, classification, mechanism of action, clinical efficacy in hair regrowth, and adverse effects.

Platelet-rich plasma, also known as platelet-rich growth factors or platelet concentrate, is a concentrate of platelet-rich plasma protein derived from whole blood, centrifuged to remove red blood cells. In addition to the main component that contains high concentrations of platelets, there are also other components, such as, the presence or absence of leucocytes and platelet-activating agents, which used to define different types of PRP. The effectiveness of stimulating tissue regeneration depends on the concentration of platelets present in the plasma, several studies have shown that concentrations two to six times higher than normal platelet count is required for optimal outcomes.8

Due to the lack of a standardized method of preparation and application of PRP, there is a wide variety method of preparation. However, the main principle is to prepare concentrated platelets from the patients own blood. All PRP preparation protocols follow a generic method, started with collecting venous blood approximately 10 to 60 mL from the patient and placing it into tubes containing an Anticoagulant, either acid citrate dextrose or sodium citrate solution to prevent coagulation and premature secretion of the alpha granules. Subsequently, whole blood is centrifuged and divided into 3 layers based on specific gravity, the bottom layer contains red blood cells (RBCs) with leukocytes the middle layer is the PRP, and the top layer is platelet-poor plasma (PPP).9 There are several types of commercial PRP kits that simplify the PRP preparation. These kits differed in platelet concentrations, the presence of leukocytes and platelet activator leading to the diversity of growth factors concentration. All of these explain the variability in the clinical benefits of PRP reported in the literature. Some studies induced growth factor secretion and degradation of alpha granules by adding calcium gluconate, calcium chloride, or thrombin before administration (activated PRP). There is no consensus as to whether platelets must be activated exogenously or use host thrombin as endogenous activator in order to maximize the therapeutic effect.1012 The platelet alpha granules secrete growth factors within 10 minutes after clotting or activation, so PRP should be used within 10 minutes of activation for maximum benefits.13

There are many variations in PRP preparations, from the type of collection tubes, power used, the number of cycles and the duration of centrifugation, components of PRP and an activation method was applied. A standardized classification of PRP called DEPA was proposed by Magalon et al, based on four components: dose of injected platelets (baseline concentration of platelets at 200109/L), efficiency of the process (platelet recovery rate %), purity of PRP (relative composition in platelets %) and activation process,14 as shown in . From this classification, an AAA DEPA score is referred to a high-concentration platelet injection (>5 billion) with minimal red blood cell contamination and well prepared with a proper method resulting in minor loss of platelets from whole blood. The last category in the DEPA classification is reporting the presence or absence of any exogenous activator, such as thrombin or calcium chloride.

DEPA Score is Categorized in Order from A to D

Currently, many studies have demonstrated that platelets not only affect hemostatic system, but also affect inflammatory system, angiogenesis, stem cell induction, and cell proliferation through the release of many different growth factors and cytokines.1517 Activated platelets in PRP release numerous growth factors and cytokines from their alpha granules, including platelet-derived endothelial growth factor (PDGF), transforming growth factor (TGF-), fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), glial cell linederived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), which play a major role in stimulating hair growth through cell proliferation, differentiation and angiogenesis.1822 GDNF can stimulate cell proliferation and protect hair follicle from premature catagen transition.23,24 VEGF play a major role as a potent hair growth stimulator via an angiogenesis induction.25,26 While IGF-1 stimulates proliferation of cycling Ki67+ basal keratinocytes, induce and prolong the anagen phase of the hair growth cycle.2729 In addition, PRP can induce the proliferation of dermal papilla (DP) cells by activating extracellular signal-related kinase (ERK), fibroblast growth factor 7 (FGF-7), beta-catenin, and Akt signaling (an anti-apoptotic signaling molecule). There is also an increase in expression of Bcl-2 protein (an anti-apoptotic protein) in vitro human dermal papilla cells cultured with PRP. Thus, it was clearly illustrated that PRP can increase the survival of hair follicle cells through anti-apoptotic effects and stimulate hair growth by extending the anagen phase of the hair cycle.30 This theory was further supported by the results of microscopic examination which demonstrated an increase in number of follicular bulge cells, hair follicles, epidermal thickening, vascularization, and a higher number of Ki67+ basal keratinocytes in PRP-treated scalp tissue compared with placebo.31

Although PRP is a safe treatment with minimal side effects, there are some contraindications that need to be considered. Absolute contraindication for PRP include critical thrombocytopenia, platelet dysfunction, hemodynamic instability, sepsis, local infection (site PRP) and patient with unwilling to accept risk. Relative contraindications include NSAIDs use in 48 hours, glucocorticoid injection at treatment site within one-month, systemic glucocorticoid within 2 weeks, recent illness or fever, cancer especially bone or hematolymphoid, anemia (hemoglobin less than 10 grams per deciliter), thrombocytopenia (platelets less than 150,000 per microliter) and tobacco use.32

Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is a non-scarring alopecia characterized by a shortened anagen phase and progressive miniaturization of terminal hairs into vellus hairs.33 This condition is found in approximately 50% of Caucasian men by the age of 50 years, and in women, it can be as much as 50% over the course of their lifetime.34 In men, baldness started with frontal recession and thinning of hair on vertex area (MPHL), while in women, hair loss is characterized by less hair density and smaller hair shaft diameter over the crown without frontal hairline recessions (FPHL). FDA has approved oral finasteride (for men only) and topical minoxidil for the treatment of AGA.35

A meta-analysis from six studies (four studies were randomized controlled trials, while the other two were retrospective studies) involving 177 patients, showed a significant increase in number of hairs per cm2 after PRP injections compared to control (mean difference (MD) 17.90, 95% CI 5.8429.95, P=0.004) and the tendency to increase in number of hairs and the percentage of hair thickness.36 Similar result was confirmed by another two meta-analysis studies which showed a significantly increased hair numbers per cm2 after PRP injections in the treatment group versus the control group with MD 38.75, 95% CI 22.2255.28, P <0.00001 and MD 30.35, 95% CI 1.7758.93, P <0.00001, respectively.37,38 Compared to minoxidil, finasteride, and adult stem cell-based therapy, 84% of all studies reported a positive effect of PRP, 50% demonstrated a statistically significant improvement while 34% showed hair density and hair thickness improvement, although no P values or statistical analysis was described.39

Despite several clinical trials showed the success of PRP therapy in AGA, there is no standard practice for PRP preparation and administration as well as a method to evaluate results. Attempts have been made to standardize PRP treatment for AGA patients. A standard PRP procedure was proposed by Stevens et al, employing a single spin centrifugation method to produce pure PRP with a platelet enrichment of 3 to 6 times the mean concentration of whole blood and adding a platelet activator such as calcium chloride or calcium gluconate before administration of PRP as subdermal injections. Treatment intervals should include monthly sessions for the first 3 months, then every 3 months for the first year.27

However, there is still debate in the literature about the standardization of PRP preparation. A split scalp prospective comparative clinical study included 15 females with AGA was performed by intradermal injection of double-spin prepared PRP into the right half of the scalp and single-spin prepared PRP into the left half of the scalp of each patient for three treatment sessions, 3 weeks apart. Results showed clinical improvement in both sides of scalp while hair density measured by trichoscan revealed that the right half of the scalp was significantly higher in median terminal hair density than the left half (P=0.031), which illustrated that double-spin method could yield better results than single-spin method.40 In addition, there was a comparative study demonstrated that patients treated with non-activated PRP were found to have greater increase in hair count and total hair density (31% 2% versus 19% 3%, P= 0.0029) than patients treated with activated-PRP, leading to the conclusion that PRP does not require activation before injection.31

The important factors that affect the effectiveness of PRP is the number of platelets. Higher numbers of platelets have a greater effect than lower numbers of platelets in terms of hair density, follicle diameter, and terminal hair density.41 In AGA, action of dihydrotestosterone on dermal papilla cells suppressed canonical WNT signaling, resulting in defective hair growth and retarding hair cycling. PRP promoting hair growth by activating WNT/-Catenin signaling lead to proliferation and differentiation of hair follicle cells and triggering new hair cycle.42

Some studies have reported ineffectiveness of PRP in AGA treatment, which may be caused by low platelet concentration, low volume of PRP injected, and inadequate frequency of treatment.9 The treatment response to PRP in AGA patients can be predicted by measuring pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-1 polymorphism from peripheral blood. A study has reported significantly higher frequency of C/C genotype of IL-1 in responder (66%) than in non-responder patients (22%) with odds ratio (OR) 6.68, 95% CI 0.9972.95 (p<0.05).43

Evidence from randomized controlled trials of PRP in AGA is summarized in .

Randomized Controlled Trials of PRP in Male Androgenic Alopecia

Female pattern hair loss (FPHL) is the most common cause of hair loss in middle-aged women, characterized by progressive follicular miniaturization and conversion of terminal follicles into vellus-like follicles, leading to a decrease in hair density, thinning of hair and diffuse non scarring alopecia especially in the central, frontal and parietal regions of the scalp. The cause of this problem is unknown, but it is related to genetics, hormones, and environmental conditions.49

A systemic review study evaluating the efficacy of PRP in the treatment of FPHL comprising 92 patients from 6 randomized controlled clinical trials showed that PRP has a positive effect on FPHL treatment by increasing hair thickness and hair density.50 Recently, two meta-analysis studies have confirmed the efficacy of FPHL treatment with PRP. The first study consisted of 776 female participants covering 16 randomized controlled trials and 26 observational trials, demonstrated that PRP has a good therapeutic effect on FPHL in hair density compared to the control groups with OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.522.70, and compared to baseline with OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.861.37.51 The second study from 8 clinical studies and a total of 197 subjects showed a significant increase in hair count and hair diameter in 4 studies after PRP treatment. Moreover, PRP has been shown to produce high levels of satisfaction and improvement in the quality of life in patients affected by FPHL.52

Differences in the treatment efficacy for AGA with PRP between men and women was discovered by a meta-analysis study, which revealed that PRP significantly increased both hair density (N = 250, MD = 25.83, 95% CI: 15.4836.17, P < 0.00001) and hair diameter (N = 123, MD = 6.66, 95% CI: 2.3710.95, P = 0.002) in men while significantly increased hair diameter (N = 95, MD = 31.22, 95% CI: 7.5254.91, P = 0.01), but did not increase hair density (N = 92, MD = 43.54, 95% CI: 1.3588.43, P = 0.06) in women.53 However, PRP effectiveness in the treatment of AGA is influenced by gender is still controversial because of the differences in several reports listed, many of the analyzed studies were non-randomized, uncontrolled, and had small sample size.

Evidence from randomized controlled trials of PRP in FPHL is summarized in .

Randomized Controlled Trials of PRP in Female Pattern Hair Loss

Alopecia areata (AA) is a common autoimmune disorder that causes nonscarring alopecia in males and females at any age. The estimated lifetime risk of AA is around 2% of population, with no difference in incidence between genders. Most patients have only one lesion of alopecia and spontaneous hair regrowth can occur within months to years. However, there are many patients who may develop multiple lesions and turn into chronic hair loss.58

PRP was discovered to have a potent anti-inflammatory effect. It suppresses cytokine release and decreases local tissue inflammation, which makes PRP potentially beneficial in treating inflammatory hair loss such as AA.59,60 PRP was initially tested in patients with AA by a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, half-head study. Forty-five patients with AA were randomized to receive intralesional injections of PRP or triamcinolone acetonide or placebo on one half of their scalp, while the other half was untreated. The results showed that PRP significantly increased hair regrowth and Ki-67 level (marker for cell proliferation) compared with triamcinolone acetonide or placebo injection.61 Collectively, many randomized controlled trials demonstrated that treatment with PRP can stimulate hair regrowth to the same extent as intralesional injection of triamcinolone acetonide in the treatment of AA.6265 Two recent studies compared the therapeutic effect of intralesional injections of PRP with triamcinolone acetonide in AA. One study found that final severity of alopecia tool (SALT) score showed significant lower levels in both groups compared to baseline levels (P = 0.025 and P = 0.008) with no significant difference between both treatment modalities in term of clinical improvement, while final alopecia areata symptom impact scale (AASIS) showed significant decrease in PRP group (P = 0.006) but not in triamcinolone group (P = 0.062).62 Similar results were found in the other study by showing that there was no statistically significant difference in SALT score reduction and hair regrowth scale between these two groups.63

On the contrary, different results were found in three randomized controlled clinical trials which demonstrated that PRP was significantly less effective than intralesional steroid injection based on Mac Donald Hull and Norris grading system, percentage of hair regrowth and reduction in SALT score from baseline, respectively.6668 All these results could explain that steroid is more potent than PRP in terms of having immunosuppressive and strong inhibitory effect on T lymphocyte activation.

A beneficial effect of combination therapy with PRP was reported in a patient with long standing AA treated with a combination of intralesional injection of triamcinolone acetonide and PRP in one half of the scalp while the other half of the scalp was treated with intralesional triamcinolone acetonide only. The half head treated with the combined therapy showed greater hair regrowth and larger hair fiber diameter.69 Furthermore, there was a prospective study on the efficacy of PRP treatment in 20 cases of chronic AA who had not responded to conventional therapy for 2 years, demonstrated that all patients with chronic AA were successfully treated with PRP, only one patient had a relapse after one year of follow-up.70 The successful treatment with PRP was also reported in a patient with corticosteroid-resistant ophiasis AA who experienced hair regrowth after PRP injections71 and a patient who suffering from alopecia areata barbae.72 Hence, PRP can be used as an alternative therapy in patients unresponsive to conventional therapy or patients who do not want to be treated with steroids and can also be used as an adjuvant therapy for alopecia areata.

Evidence from randomized controlled trials of PRP in AA is summarized in .

Randomized Controlled Trials of PRP in Alopecia Areata

Cicatricial alopecia is a type of scarring alopecia, caused by different inflammatory conditions, physical trauma, burn, or severe infections that lead to the destruction of the hair follicles and subsequent scarring. The goal of treatment is to stop the disease progression, prevent further hair loss and scarring by using different anti-inflammatory drugs, such as topical steroid, intralesional triamcinolone acetonide injection and immunomodulating agents. However, there is no effective treatment to stimulate hair regrowth in fibrotic area.73

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA), a variant of lichen planopilaris, is currently the most common type of cicatricial alopecia characterized by progressive recession of the frontal and temporoparietal hairline along with perifollicular erythema and papules leading to band-shaped scarring alopecia in the frontotemporal area.74 The satisfactory treatment outcome with five consecutive PRP injections was reported in a 44-year-old female with FFA, who had a history of unresponsive to conventional intralesional steroid therapy. Only one month after treatment, perifollicular erythema, scaling, and lichenoid papules on the frontotemporal hairline were improved, and no further hair loss was seen after 5 months.75

Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is a chronic inflammatory scarring alopecia characterized by follicular hyperkeratosis, perifollicular erythema, and loss of follicular orifices on vertex and parietal area of the scalp. Bolana et al have reported for the first time the efficacy of PRP therapy in a case of LPP diagnosed by histopathology and unresponsive to any previous treatments. After 3 consecutive treatments of PRP and followed up for 6 months, patients experienced complete regression of scalp itching and hair shedding, confirmed by undetectable perifollicular erythema and scaling on trichoscopic examination.76 Subsequently, two patients with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) and one patient with LPP were reported on the success of PRP treatment, resulting in a significant increase in hair density despite a history of unresponsiveness to conventional therapy before.77,78

Effective treatment of cicatricial alopecia with PRP is possible due to various cytokines and growth factors such as TGF, TGF1 in platelet granules, which have anti-inflammatory and proangiogenic effects.79 Although there is evidence that PRP can be used as an effective treatment for some types of cicatricial alopecia, more clinical trials are needed to produce further evidence.

Several studies have shown a beneficial effect of using PRP in combination with hair transplantation. The first report was an experimental study in a group of 20 patients with male pattern baldness demonstrated a 15% greater hair yield in follicular unit density in areas pretreated the harvested donor with platelet plasma growth factors obtained from the patients autologous plasma as compared with normal saline (18.7 follicular units per cm2 vs 16.4 follicular units per cm2).22 Similar results were found in another two studies, the first was a comparative study showed that transplanted follicular unit grafts in conjunction with platelet lysate (PL) or activated PRP (AAPRP) resume growth faster than normal saline at 4 months after operation, 99%, 75%, and 71% of follicle regeneration had occurred in the PL, AAPRP, and saline treatment areas, respectively.80 The second was a randomized controlled study demonstrated that preserving hair grafts in PRP before implantation enhances the hair density, the graft uptake, and the hair thickness compared with preserving in normal saline.81

Furthermore, PRP can also be used as a combination treatment with the follicular unit extraction (FUE) hair transplantation as shown in a single-blind, prospective randomized study in 40 FUE hair transplant patients. The patients were divided into two groups, PRP was injected intra-operatively immediately after creating slits over the recipient area in PRP group while normal saline was injected in non-PRP group. It was clearly seen that intra-operative PRP therapy is profitable in giving significantly improved density and quality of hair growth, reducing the catagen loss of transplanted hair, early recovery of the skin and faster appearance of new anagen hair in FUE transplant patients.82 Thus, PRP is not only an effective hair loss treatment, but it can also be used as an adjunct to hair transplantation.

More:
Platelet Rich Plasma and Its Use in Hair Regrowth: A Review

How to Stop and Regrow a Receding Hairline – Shine My Crown

Hair loss and thinning typically come with age, but dealing with it can be beyond frustrating, especially when it shows up in areas that are difficult to hide.

While its true that hair loss impacts men more than it does women, over 50% of us gals suffer from it. So, if you think you have a thinning hairline, you are far from alone.

Nevertheless, if youre reading this, chances are you are not in search of some song and dance on self-acceptance at the momentyou want solutions.

Well, friends, youve come to the right place; from quick fixes to long-term help, you have options.

First Things First

Before you develop a regimen to address a thinning hairline, its best to seek the assistance of a board-certified dermatologist, to identify the source of why youre losing your hair. Potential underlying causes vary and will often dictate future courses of action.

The Quick Fixes

1. Camoflage it.

In many cases, the fastest way to treat a thinning hairline is to create the illusion of a fuller one. Sprays, powders and hair fibers are great to use in a pinch and those on todays market are easy to use and offer a natural finish. Theyre also great for covering up grays. Our faves:

2. Tweak your partings.

Small changes like playing with your part (opt for blurred zig-zag partings over clean straight ones) or directing hair to one side to create added weight work wonders for creating lift and fullness at the roots.

3. Ease up on the styling.

Prolonged pulling, tight styling and chemical abuse can cause traction alopecia, one of the main causes of a receding hairline.

Long-Term Options

1. Medication

Cost: prices vary, based on medical plans

If your diagnosis is androgenetic alopecia (male or female pattern baldness) topical treatments such as minoxidil (Rogaine) or spironolactone (offsets the effects of testosterone) can help to encourage hair growth.

In addition, oral contraceptives like Yaz and Yasmine or oral finasteride (Propecia) are recommended by doctors, but they can help you to decide which is right for you.

2. Scalp Botox

Cost: $1000

If you suffer from genetic alopecia, Botox might work for you. Doctors prescribe it to treat receding hairlines and other forms of hair loss for its muscle-relaxing qualities. The injections relax the muscles in the scalp which allows more blood flow and hair growth.

3. Hair Transplantation

Cost: $4,000 to $15,000

A more permanent option, doctors harvest hair from donor areas and move it to a receding scalp. You need not worry about that dreaded plug appearance of years past; todays results are natural-looking.

4. Hairstim

$60.00 per month

When you arent seeing any results with topical hair loss treatments, but do not want to take oral medications, Hairstim is a viable option. Doctors create personalized prescription hair medications, by using ingredients that arent readily available. It is definitely worth exploring with your dermatologist.

5. Platelet-rich Plasma

$500 to $1,200 per treatment

PRP is a hair loss treatment that stimulates hair growth through the use of the patients own blood plasma. The plasma contains white blood cells and platelets, which are rich in what are known as growth factors.

PRP requires regular, ongoing treatments (about every four to six months), so it is a major commitment of time and money, but definitely worth exploring with your doctor if youve got the cash.

There are no one-size-fits-all solutions to treating a receding hairline, so if you notice a change, always check with your board-certified doctor before tackling the issue on your own. If you need a doctor, start here.

Good luck!

More:
How to Stop and Regrow a Receding Hairline - Shine My Crown