4.6 Review

Concise Review: Unraveling Stem Cell Cocultures in Regenerative Medicine: Which Cell Interactions Steer Cartilage Regeneration and How?

期刊

STEM CELLS TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 3, 期 6, 页码 723-733

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.5966/sctm.2013-0207

关键词

Bone marrow stromal cells; Cellular therapy; Chondrogenesis; Clinical translation; Marrow stromal stem cells; Mesenchymal stem cells; Skeleton

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cartilage damage and osteoarthritis (OA) impose an important burden on society, leaving both young, active patients and older patients disabled and affecting quality of life. In particular, cartilage injury not only imparts acute loss of function but also predisposes to OA. The increase in knowledge of the consequences of these diseases and the exponential growth in research of regenerative medicine have given rise to different treatment types. Of these, cell-based treatments are increasingly applied because they have the potential to regenerate cartilage, treat symptoms, and ultimately prevent or delay OA. Although these approaches give promising results, they require a costly in vitro cell culture procedure. The answer may lie in single-stage procedures that, by using cell combinations, render in vitro expansion redundant. In the last two decades, cocultures of cartilage cells and a variety of (mesenchymal) stem cells have shown promising results as different studies report cartilage regeneration in vitro and in vivo. However, there is considerable debate regarding the mechanisms and cellular interactions that lead to chondrogenesis in these models. This review, which included 52 papers, provides a systematic overview of the data presented in the literature and tries to elucidate the mechanisms that lead to chondrogenesis in stem cell cocultures with cartilage cells. It could serve as a basis for research groups and clinicians aiming at designing and implementing combined cellular technologies for single-stage cartilage repair and treatment or prevention of OA.

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

4.6
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