4.3 Article

Human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Express CD14 Cross-Reactive Epitopes

Journal

CYTOMETRY PART A
Volume 79A, Issue 8, Pages 635-645

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/cyto.a.21073

Keywords

mesenchymal stromal cells; cell surface antigen; CD14; monocytes

Funding

  1. BMBF [313755]
  2. DFG [Ai16/10-3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) do not express a unique definite epitope or marker gene. As such, minimal criteria were recently established for defining multipotent MSC. These criteria include expression of CD73, CD90, CD105, and a lack of hematopoietic marker expression. However, we detected binding of a CD14 antibody on bone marrow- and placenta-derived MSC and investigated the staining of CD14 antibodies on these MSC in more detail. The MSC were isolated from human bone marrow and placenta tissue, expanded, characterized by quantitative RT-PCR, flow cytometry, and immunocytochemistry and differentiated to generate osteoblasts, chondrocytes, and adipocytes. The CD14-cross-reactive MSCs were enriched by cell sorting. Human peripheral blood mononuclear cells, fibroblasts, and hematopoietic cell lines served as controls. Utilizing four different clones of CD14 monoclonal antibodies, we found that three CD14 reagents stained the MSC. Two CD14 antibodies (HCD14 and M5E2) clearly marked the CD90(+) MSC population with distinct intensities, clone 134 620 generated a shift in flow cytometry histograms, but clone M Phi P9 did not stain MSC. Transcripts encoding CD14 or the CD14 protein were not detected in MSC. We confirm that bone marrow- and placenta-derived MSC do not express CD14 and that the CD14 antibody M Phi P9 discriminates between monocytes and MSC more efficiently than the other antibodies employed here. This investigation does not contradict previous work but provides a more accurate characterization of MSC. (C) 2011 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry

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