4.5 Article

Comparative analysis of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow, cartilage, and adipose tissue

Journal

STEM CELLS AND DEVELOPMENT
Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages 761-773

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/scd.2007.0217

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2001AA2160313]
  2. Peking University [104-4]
  3. Beijing Science and Technology Commission [H020220010490]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) isolated from bone marrow (BM), cartilage, and adipose tissue (AT) possess the capacity for self-renewal and the potential for multilineage differentiation, and are therefore perceived as attractive sources of stem cells for cell therapy. However, MSCs from these different sources have different characteristics. We compared MSCs of adult Sprague Dawley rats derived from these three sources in terms of their immunophenotypic characterization, proliferation capacity, differentiation ability, expression of angiogenic cytokines, and anti-apoptotic ability. According to growth curve, cell cycle, and telomerase activity analyses, MSCs derived from adipose tissue (AT-MSCs) possess the highest proliferation potential, followed by MSCs derived from BM and cartilage (BM-MSCs and C-MSCs). In terms of multilineage differentiation, MSCs from all three sources displayed osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic differentiation potential. The result of real-time RT-PCR indicated that these cells all expressed angiogenic cytokines, with some differences in expression level. Flow cytometry and MTT analysis showed that C-MSCs possess the highest resistance toward hydrogen peroxide-induced apoptosis, while AT-MSCs exhibited high tolerance to serum deprivation-induced apoptosis. Both AT and cartilage are attractive alternatives to BM as sources for isolating MSCs, but these differences must be considered when choosing a stem cell source for clinical application.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available