|Budget Amount *help
¥1,900,000 (Direct Cost : ¥1,900,000)
Fiscal Year 1999 : ¥700,000 (Direct Cost : ¥700,000)
Fiscal Year 1998 : ¥500,000 (Direct Cost : ¥500,000)
Fiscal Year 1997 : ¥700,000 (Direct Cost : ¥700,000)
(1) The cord blood collection method.
Collected cord blood quantity, cell number, mononuclear cell (MNC) number ware 78.5 ± 35.8 ml, 9.0 ± 5.1 x 10e8, 3.8 ± 2.4 ± × 10e8, respectively by Syringe method (cord blood was aspirated into a disposable syringe). And, cell number, MNC number ware, 3.6 ± 3.5 × 10e8, 1.2 ± 1.3 x 10e8, respectively by Perfusion method. The individual difference of which method as well as was big in the blood-collecting quantity blood, the number of the collected cells as well. There weren't any statistically significant differences between the methods. Perfusion method is too complicated for cord blood banking.. And, there were some cases which catheter the umbilical cord artery couldn't be virtually inserted into, too.
(2) The cord blood cell separation method
If the introduction of cord blood bank is thought about, red blood cells removal is necessary, and much cord blood must be kept, and stem cells separation method must be examined because of space for cryo-preservation.
The collection rates of nuclear cells, MNC and CFU-GM ware 29.9 ± 10.0 %, 52.8 ± 16.8 %, 42.2 ± 30.4 %, respectively by Percoll method. And the collection rates of nuclear cells, MNC and CFU-GM ware 66.9 ± 26.6 %, 63.2 ± 19..9 %, 76.1 ± 53.1 %, respectively by HES method. There was statistically significant difference in the nuclear cell collection rate (p < 0.01). But, there were no statistically significant differences in the collection rates of MNC and CFU-GM between the methods. The Percoll method is a little complicated though there are few containing of the poly-nuclear cells and connected with saving space for cryo-preservation.