China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Human organs, tissues and biological materials
Published in Gary Chan Kok Yew, Health Law and Medical Ethics in Singapore, 2020
Research institutions are allowed to operate tissue banks that carry out tissue banking activity.5 The tissue banks would have to submit reports, implement standards, policies and procedures, take appropriate remedial measures, ensure compliance with requirements for the export or removal of human tissues with respect to tissue banking activity under their supervision and control,6 and abide by specific regulations.7
From Bench to Bedside
Published in Ornella Parolini, Antonietta Silini, Placenta, 2016
Tissue banking or tissue engineering is a not a medical specialty nestled within a hospital facility, for example, like a blood bank. Generally, a tissue bank is located in a clinical unit that is directly using its products. For example, eye banks are commonly part of an ophthalmological department. Placental tissues and cells, however, are harvested at an obstetrical department that itself hardly has any clinical case to use these tissues. A variety of clinicians are potential users of these placental tissues and cells and need variable types of the same tissue, which in contrast to eye, heart valve, or bone banks, is derived from living donors. The location of a facility for placental cells and tissues, as well as its affiliation to a clinical unit, may vary to a wide degree and quite often is a spinoff from a university. Thus, comprehensive knowledge and standards for placental cells or tissue production are seldom available. This may pose a major constraint at the time of introduction and requires a fine-tuned adaption to clinical needs and close interaction with clinicians. Getting approval and support from clinicians is inevitable, as resources have to be directed to a facility that has no imminent benefit for patients.
Commodifying tissues and cells
Published in Julie Kent, Regenerating Bodies, 2012
The social world of tissue banking is relatively unexplored. The history of tissue collection in the United Kingdom and the United States has been the focus of a recent study that illustrates the importance of tissue banks in processing and distributing cadaveric tissues such as skin, corneas and pituitary glands (Pfeffer 2009a). Other tissues, such as heart valves, bone and tendons, are also collected, stored and distributed. A central function of the tissue bank is to co-ordinate collection and to develop standardized procedures for ensuring the quality and utility of the tissues. The process whereby the tissues become standardized scientific objects or are produced as ‘standardized therapeutic tools’ is a complex social and technical process (Hogle 1995, 1996). Tissue banks are centrally concerned with the collection and distribution of human tissues and are important institutional structures within tissue economies. Their structure and function, however, are changing, and, although previously set up to distribute ‘traditional tissues’ from cadavers, their role has widened to include the processing and development of a wide range of ‘products’, including newer tissue- and cell-based technologies requiring greater degrees of manipulation or ‘engineering’.5 Moreover, the very concept of a ‘tissue bank’ has been redefined within the European Union to include both not-for-profit and for-profit ‘tissue establishments’, as we shall see later, in Chapter 3. Such transformations reflect wider changes in these ‘tissue economies’ and the exchange relationships that characterize them. The social worlds of tissue banking and the emergence of a commercialized TE industry can be seen as converging but also in tension. These tissue economies are shaped by, on the one hand, the history of tissue banking and, on the other, by the forging of new market relations and new forms of ‘biocapital’ (Rajan 2006).
OX40 and 4-1BB delineate distinct immune profiles in sarcoma
Published in OncoImmunology, 2022
MJ Melake, HG Smith, D Mansfield, E Davies, MT Dillon, AC Wilkins, EC Patin, M Pedersen, R Buus, AA Melcher, K Thway, AB Miah, SH Zaidi, AJ Hayes, TR Fenton, KJ Harrington, M McLaughlin
Archival histopathological samples were retrieved from our institution’s tissue bank. These were restricted to patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of UPS or MLPS occurring in the extremities who received neoadjuvant radiotherapy prior to surgical resection. A number of MFS samples were included in some but not all analyses. Due to distinct clinical outcomes due to radiotherapy, and potentially differing immunological differences we did not pool UPS and MFS as a molecularly similar spectrum of disease as described in TCGA analyses.13 All samples were biopsies taken before the start of therapy. Tumor characteristics of the 27 samples included are outlined in Table 1. UPS patients receiving radiotherapy had a higher rate of progression (Figure 1(a)), the shortest time to progression (Figure 1(b)), and the highest proportion of progression attributed to distant metastasis (Figure 1(c)). These data are in keeping with previous findings from analyses of 556 ESTS patients.4 2/11 UPS patients in our cohort did not receive radiotherapy and are not included in Figure 1(a-c).
LncRNA ENSG00000254615 Modulates Proliferation and 5-FU Resistance by Regulating p21 and Cyclin D1 in Colorectal Cancer
Published in Cancer Investigation, 2021
Yang Fu, Runqing Huang, Jianxia Li, Xiaoyu Xie, Yanhong Deng
Seventeen cases of 5-FU-resistant and -sensitive CRC tissue specimens, 63 cases of CRC tissue specimens for prognostic analysis were collected from stage III CRC patients who were treated with adjuvant 5-FU-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX or XELOX) after surgery between 2015 and 2019 at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University with follow-up information until 2019. No patients received preoperative chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Patients with treatment via 5-FU-based chemotherapy and follow-up showing recurrence or metastasis in 18 months were defined as resistant group, or with disease-free for at least 36 months were defined as sensitive group (15). CRC tissue specimens for prognostic analysis were divided into two cohorts including good and bad prognostic cohorts. The cutoff to defined good (DFS time > 16 months) and bad prognosis cohort (DFS time ≤ 16 months) was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve predicting high and low expression of lncRNA ENSG00000254615. CRC tissue specimens were stored in Tissue Bank, the Six Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University. All clinical samples were collected with written informed consent from patients, and the ethical approval was granted from the Committees for Ethical Review of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University.
Plasma PrPC and ADAM-10 as novel biomarkers for traumatic brain injury and concussion: a pilot study
Published in Brain Injury, 2021
Amit Persad, Nam Pham, Farzad Moien-Afshari, William Gormley, Sandra Yan, Rebekah Mannix, Changiz Taghibiglou
This study has several limitations. We used samples from a biobank and not prospectively collected samples, with no guarantee as to the collection method of the given samples (ie, convenience vs consecutive). The samples were not age- or gender-matched to the patient with TBI samples and the sample sizes were small. As such we cannot adequately assess details such as the relation of PrPC and ADAM10 to GCS or to neurological deficit. We collected samples for a mean of 3–4 days post-injury, making it difficult to adequately delineate timeline of biomarker concentration. In addition, sample collection data after injury were quite variable and makes analysis difficult, especially in the context of limited sample size. We used tissue bank plasma samples as opposed to freshly collected samples. Our comparison was performed using commercial control plasma as opposed to locally collected control samples. While we handled all specimens the same, there is no guarantee beyond that of the company with regard to quality control. We collected only peripheral plasma with no central venous or CSF sampling. We did not compare the results with PrPC and ADAM10 to established biomarkers such as GFAP. This was in part due to limitations in sample volumes available. A control biomarker comparison will be useful for further assessment in larger studies of these potential biomarkers. In addition, control groups with no head injury but with other, trauma-related injuries (ie, orthopedic) may help to specify the utility of these biomarkers as specific to neurological injury.