4.3 Article

Assessment of umbilical cord tissue as a source of mesenchymal stem cell/endothelial cell mixtures for bone regeneration

期刊

REGENERATIVE MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 569-581

出版社

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/rme.13.47

关键词

bone marrow; bone regeneration; endothelial cells; mesenchymal stem cells; umbilical cord

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust/EPSRC through WELMEC, a Centre of Excellence in Medical Engineering [WT 088908/Z/09/Z]
  2. National Institute of Health Research
  3. NIHR-Leeds Musculoskeletal and Biomedical Research Unit (LMBRU)
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/J017620/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0508-10299] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Versus Arthritis
  7. Cancer Research UK [18475] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. EPSRC [EP/J017620/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To enumerate and characterize mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and endothelial cells (ECs) in umbilical cord (UC) tissue digests. Materials & methods: Cultured UC cells were characterized phenotypically, and functionally by using 48-gene arrays. Native MSCs and ECs were enumerated using flow cytometry. Results: Compared with bone marrow (BM) MSCs, UC MSCs displayed significantly lower (range 4-240-fold) basal levels of bone-related transcripts, but their phenotypes were similar (CD73(+), CD105(+), CD90(+), CD45(-) and CD31(-)). UC MSCs responded well to osteogenic induction, but day 21 postinduction levels remained below those achieved by BM MSCs. The total yield of native UC MSCs (CD90(+), CD45(-) and CD235(-)) and ECs (CD31(+), CD45(-) and CD235(-)) exceeded 150 and 15 million cells/donation, respectively. Both UC MSCs and ECs expressed CD146. Conclusion: While BM MSCs are more predisposed to osteogenesis, UC tissue harbors large numbers of MSCs and ECs; such minimally manipulated off-the-shelf' cellular mixtures can be used for regenerating bone in patients with compromised vascular supply.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据