4.2 Article

Modifiers of mesenchymal stem cell quantity and quality

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 58, 期 6, 页码 1434-1440

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.14597

关键词

-

资金

  1. Mayo Clinic Center for Regenerative Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUNDClinical trials involving mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy have variable outcomes. We hypothesize this is largely attributed to donor-to-donor variability and tissue of origin. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSWe examined proliferation rates, cytokine secretion profiles, and differentiation capability of seven bone marrow-derived MSCs (BM-MSCs) and 16 adipose tissue-derived MSCs (AD-MSCs) from 23 donors. RESULTSAD-MSCs had the capacity to undergo more than 40 population doublings, while the BM-MSC proliferation rate was found to be considerably slower. We observed more donor-to-donor variability in proliferation rates of BM-MSCs than with AD-MSCs. Cytokine analysis revealed that secretion of eight cytokines was significantly increased by AD-MSCs at Passage (P)3 compared with P1, while for BM-MSCs at P3 relative to P1, only interleukin-8 and RANTES secretion was significantly increased. By P5, secretion of all cytokines by AD-MSCs was either decreased or unchanged relative to P1. In contrast, cytokine secretion by BM-MSCs at P5 was mostly unchanged, although secretion of six cytokines was significantly increased relative to P1. When we compared cytokine secretion between AD-MSCs and BM-MSCs at P3, AD-MSCs significantly secreted higher concentrations of cytokines than BM-MSCs while the opposite was observed at P5. This suggests that BM-MSCs are relatively more potent at P5 while AD-MSCs are relatively more potent at P3. AD-MSCs and BM-MSCs exhibited the capacity for chondrogenic differentiation. AD-MSCs and BM-MSCs appeared to display a more enhanced inclination toward adipogenic and osteogenic differentiation, respectively. CONCLUSIONMSC physiology is significantly influenced by donor variability and tissue of origin and this should be considered when designing clinical trials.

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

4.2
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