4.6 Article

Massive Clonal Selection and Transiently Contributing Clones During Expansion of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Cultures Revealed by Lentiviral RGB-Barcode Technology

期刊

STEM CELLS TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 5, 期 5, 页码 591-601

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.5966/sctm.2015-0176

关键词

Mesenchymal stem cells; Umbilical cord; Clonal evolution; DNA barcoding; Reproducibility of results; Stem cell niche

资金

  1. European Union Seventh Framework Project CELL-PID
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Grants [FE568/11-2]
  3. Cluster of Excellence REBIRTH [Exc 62/1]
  4. [SFB 738]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mesenchymal stem (or stromal) cells (MSCs) have been used in more than 400 clinical trials for the treatment of various diseases. The clinical benefit and reproducibility of results, however, remain extremely variable. During the in vitro expansion phase, which is necessary to achieve clinically relevant cell numbers, MSCs show signs of aging accompanied by different contributions of single clones to the mass culture. Here we used multicolor lentiviral barcode labeling to follow the clonal dynamics during in vitro MSC expansion from whole umbilical cord pieces (UCPs). The clonal composition was analyzed by a combination of flow cytometry, fluorescence microscopy, and deep sequencing. Starting with highly complex cell populations, we observed a massive reduction in diversity, transiently dominating populations, and a selection of single clones over time. Importantly, the first wave of clonal constriction already occurred in the early passages during MSC expansion. Consecutive MSC cultures from the same UCP implied the existence of more primitive, MSC culture-initiating cells. Our results show that microscopically homogenous MSC mass cultures consist of many subpopulations, which undergo clonal selection and have different capabilities. Among other factors, the clonal composition of the graft might have an impact on the functional properties of MSCs in experimental and clinical settings.

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