4.8 Article

Differential alkaline phosphatase responses of rat and human bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells to 45S5 bloactive glass

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 28, Issue 28, Pages 4091-4097

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.05.038

Keywords

alkaline phosphatase; bioactive glass; bone tissue engineering; cell viability; mesenchymal stem cell; simulated body fluids (SBF)

Funding

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01 DE013800-01, R01 DE13800, R01 DE013800] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bioactive glass is used as both a bone filler and as a coating on implants, and has been advocated as a potential osteogenic scaffold for tissue engineering. Rat-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) show elevated levels of alkaline phosphatase activity when grown on 45S5 bioactive glass as compared to standard tissue culture plastic. Similarly, exposure to the dissolution products of 45S5 elevates alkaline phosphatase activity and other osteogenic markers in these cells. We investigated whether human MSCs grown under the same laboratory conditions as rat MSCs would exhibit similar responses. In general, human MSCs produce markedly less alkaline phosphatase activity than rat MSCs, regardless of cell culture conditions, and do not respond to the growth factor BMP-2 in the same way as rat MSCs. In our experiments there was no difference in alkaline phosphatase activity between human MSCs grown on 45S5 bioactive glass or tissue culture plastic, in samples from five different orthopaedic patients, regardless of culture media composition. Neither was there any consistent effect of 45S5 dissolution products on human MSCs from three different donors. These results suggest that the positive effects of bioactive glass on bone growth in human patients are not mediated by accelerated differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available