4.3 Article

Comparison of mouse, rat and rabbit models for adipose - Derived stem cells (ASC) research

Journal

CURRENT RESEARCH IN TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
Volume 68, Issue 4, Pages 205-210

Publisher

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.retram.2020.07.001

Keywords

Animal model; Regenerative medicine; Cellular therapy; Adipose-derived stem cells; Mesenchymal stem cells; Tissue engineering

Funding

  1. National Centre for Research and Development, Poland [PBS3/A7/22/2015MioCell, 1/233224/10/NCBR/2014]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of the study: Cellular therapies are becoming more popular and there is a big demand for suitable animal model for research in field of tissue engineering. Both the small (rodents) and large animals have their advantages for cellular therapy experiments. Appropriate animal research model would be a bridge between basic research and clinical medicine. The aim of this study was to compare mouse, rat and rabbit as animal models useful for adipose - derived stem cell research. Materials and methods: Quantity, phenotype, clonogenic and differentiation potential of cells isolated from different localizations of adipose tissue from WAG and LEW/W rat strains, rabbit and mouse were analysed. Results: The highest number of cells from 1 g of tissue were isolated from cervical white fat of LEW/W rat. ASCs isolated from rat had also the highest clonogenic potential. Phenotype and capability to differentiate into osteogenic, adipogenic and chondrogenic lineages are at the same level for rat and rabbit. Conclusions: Rat as a research model can be a rational solution between large animal models and typical laboratory mice because of their size, genetic homogenity, availability of genetically modified stains and possibility to perform research mimicking clinical applications. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available