4.5 Article

Comparison of chondral defects repair with in vitro and in vivo differentiated mesenchymal stem cells

Journal

CELL TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 16, Issue 8, Pages 823-832

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.3727/000000007783465181

Keywords

differentiation; cartilage; tissue engineering; mesenchymal stem cells

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to compare chondral defects repair with in vitro and in vivo differentiated mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). A novel PLGA-gelatin/chondroitin/hyaluronate (PLGA-GCH) hybrid scaffold with transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-beta 1)-impregnated microspheres (MS-TGF) was fabricated to mimic the extracellular matrix. MS-TGF showed an initial burst release (22.5%) and a subsequent moderate one that achieved 85.1% on day 21. MSCs seeded on PLGA-GCH/MS-TGF or PLGA-GCH were incubated in vitro and showed that PLGA-GCH/MS-TGF significantly augmented proliferation of MSCs and glycosaminoglycan synthesis compared with PLGA-GCH. Then MSCs seeded on PLGA-GCH/MS-TGF were implanted and differentiated in vivo to repair chondral defect on the right knee of rabbit (in vivo differentiation repair group), while the contralateral defect was repaired with in vitro differentiated MSCs seeded on PLGA-GCH (in vitro differentiation repair group). The histology observation demonstrated that in vivo differentiation repair showed better chondrocyte morphology, integration, and subchondral bone formation compared with in vitro differentiation repair 12 and 24 weeks postoperatively, although there was no significant difference after 6 weeks. The histology grading score comparison also demonstrated the same results. The present study implies that in vivo differentiation induced by PLGA-GCH/MS-TGF and the host microenviroment could keep chondral phenotype and enhance repair. It might serve as another way to induce and expand seed cells in cartilage tissue engineering.

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