4.4 Article

Characterization and comparison of adipose tissue-derived cells from human subcutaneous and omental adipose tissues

Journal

CELL BIOCHEMISTRY AND FUNCTION
Volume 27, Issue 7, Pages 440-447

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/cbf.1591

Keywords

adipose tissue-derived cells; adipose derived stem cells; subcutaneous adipose tissue; omental adipose tissue; metabolic function

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Different fat depots contribute differently to disease and function. These differences may be due to the regional variation ill cell types and inherent properties of fat cell progenitors. To address the differences of cell types in the adipose tissue from different depots, the phenotypes of freshly isolated adipose tissue-derived cells (ATDCs) from subcutaneous (SC) and omental (OM) adipose tissues were compared using flow cytometry. Our results showed that CD31(-)CD34(+)CD45(-)CD90(-)CD105(-)CD146(+) population, containing vascular smooth muscle cells and pericytes, was specifically defined in the SC adipose tissue while no such population was observed in OM adipose tissue. On the other hand, CD31(-)CD34(+)CD45(-)CD90(-)CD105(-)CD146(-) population, which is an undefined cell population, were found solely in OM adipose tissue. Overall, the SC adipose tissue contained more ATDCs than OM adipose tissue, while OM adipose tissue contained more blood-derived cells. Regarding to the inherent properties of fat cell progenitors from the two depots, adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) from SC had higher capacity to differentiate into both adipogenic and osteogenic lineages than those from OM, regardless of that the proliferation rates of ADSCs from both depots were similar. The higher differentiation capacity of ADSCs from SC adipose tissue suggests that SC tissue is more Suitable cell source for regenerative medicine than OM adipose tissue. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available