4.1 Article

Isolation and Characterization of Mouse Mesenchymal Stem Cells

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 40, Issue 8, Pages 2649-2654

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2008.08.009

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. IN-SUNG Foundation for Medical Research, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been studied in regenerative medicine because of their unique immunologic characteristics. However, before clinical application in humans, animal models are needed to confirm their safety and efficacy. To date, appropriate methods and sources to obtain mouse MSCs have not been identified. Therefore, we investigated MSCs isolated from 3 strains of mice and 3 sources for the development of MSCs in a mouse model. Materials and Methods. Male BALB/c, C3H and C57BL/6 mice were used to isolate MSCs from various tissues including bone marrow (BM), compact bone, and adipose tissue. The MSCs were maintained in StemXVivo medium. Immunophenotypes of the MSCs were analyzed by FACS and their growth potential estimated by the number of colony-forming unit fibroblasts. Results. All MSCs that were isolated from BM, compact bone, and adipose tissue showed plastic-adherent, fibroblastic-like morphologic characteristics regardless of the mouse strain or cell source. However, culture of BM MSCs was less successful than the other tissue types. The FACS phenotype analysis revealed that the MSCs were positive for CD29, CD44, CD 105, and Sca-1, but negative for CD34, TER-119, CD45, and CD11b. According to the results of the characterization, the adipose tissue MSCs showed higher growth potential than did other MSCs. Conclusion. The results of this study showed that culture of adipose tissue and compact bone-MSCs was easier than BM MSCs. Based on the results of immunophenotype and growth potential, C57BL/6 AT-MSCs might be a suitable source to establish a mouse model of MSCs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available