4.7 Article

Thawed cryopreserved synovial mesenchymal stem cells show comparable effects to cultured cells in the inhibition of osteoarthritis progression in rats

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-89239-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) [JP20bk0104103]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that thawed MSCs show comparable inhibitory effects on OA progression in rats to cultured MSCs. Additionally, in the rat OA model, the thawed MSC group had significantly lower gross finding and histological scores compared to the cryopreservation fluid group.
Intra-articular injections of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) can inhibit the progression of osteoarthritis (OA). Previous reports have used cultured MSCs, but the ability to use thawed cryopreserved MSC stocks would be highly advantageous. Our purpose was to elucidate whether thawed cryopreserved MSCs show comparable inhibitory effects on OA progression in rats to those obtained with cultured MSCs. Cultured rat synovial MSCs or thawed MSCs were compared for in vitro viability and properties. The inhibitory effect of thawed MSCs on OA progression was evaluated by injecting cryopreservation fluid and thawed MSCs in meniscectomized rats. Cartilage degeneration was assessed using gross finding and histological scores. Cultured MSCs were then injected into one knee and thawed MSCs into the contralateral knee of the same individual to compare their effects. Cultured MSCs and MSCs thawed after cryopreservation had comparable in vitro colony formation and chondrogenic potentials. In the rat OA model, the gross finding and histological scores were significantly lower in the thawed MSC group than in the cryopreservation fluid group at 8 weeks. Finally, cartilage degeneration did not differ significantly after injection of cultured and thawed MSCs. In conclusion, thawed MSCs showed comparable inhibitory effects on OA progression to cultured MSCs.

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

4.7
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