4.7 Article

Comparative analysis of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, or adipose tissue

Journal

STEM CELLS
Volume 24, Issue 5, Pages 1294-1301

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1634/stemcells.2005-0342

Keywords

mesenchymal stem cells; bone marrow; umbilical cord blood; adipose tissue; comparative analysis; multilineage differentiation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) represent a promising tool for new clinical concepts in supporting cellular therapy. Bone marrow (BM) was the first source reported to contain MSCs. However, for clinical use, BM may be detrimental due to the highly invasive donation procedure and the decline in MSC number and differentiation potential with increasing age. More recently, umbilical cord blood (UCB), attainable by a less invasive method, was introduced as an alternative source for MSCs. Another promising source is adipose tissue (AT). We compared MSCs derived from these sources regarding morphology, the success rate of isolating MSCs, colony frequency, expansion potential, multiple differentiation capacity, and immune phenotype. No significant differences concerning the morphology and immune phenotype of the MSCs derived from these sources were obvious. Differences could be observed concerning the success rate of isolating MSCs, which was 100% for BM and AT, but only 63% for UCB. The colony frequency was lowest in UCB, whereas it was highest in AT. However, UCB-MSCs could be cultured longest and showed the highest proliferation capacity, whereas BM-MSCs possessed the shortest culture period and the lowest proliferation capacity. Most strikingly, UCB-MSCs showed no adipogenic differentiation capacity, in contrast to BM- and AT-MSCs. Both UCB and AT are attractive alternatives to BM in isolating MSC: AT as it contains MSCs at the highest frequency and UCB as it seems to be expandable to higher numbers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available