4.5 Article

Human peripheral blood derived mesenchymal stem cells demonstrate similar characteristics and chondrogenic differentiation potential to bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 634-642

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jor.21556

关键词

orthopedics; tissue engineering; mesenchymal stem cell; cartilage; cell therapy

资金

  1. Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation [FP048/2005D, FP055/2005D]
  2. University of Malaya HIR-MOHE research grant initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for cartilage repair has generated much interest owing to their multipotentiality. However, their significant presence in peripheral blood (PB) has been a matter of much debate. The objectives of this study are to isolate and characterize MSCs derived from PB and, compare their chondrogenic potential to MSC derived from bone marrow (BM). PB and BM derived MSCs from 20 patients were isolated and characterized. From 2ml of PB and BM, 5.4 +/- 0.6 million and 10.5 +/- 0.8 million adherent cells, respectively, were obtained by cell cultures at passage 2. Both PB and BM derived MSCs were able to undergo tri-lineage differentiation and showed negative expression of CD34 and CD45, but positively expressed CD105, CD166, and CD29. Qualitative and quantitative examinations on the chondrogenic potential of PB and BM derived MSCs expressed similar cartilage specific gene (COMP) and proteoglycan levels, respectively. Furthermore, the s-GAG levels expressed by chondrogenic MSCs in cultures were similar to that of native chondrocytes. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that MSCs from PB maintain similar characteristics and have similar chondrogenic differentiation potential to those derived from BM, while producing comparable s-GAG expressions to chondrocytes. (C) 2011 Orthopaedic Research Society. (C) 2011 Orthopaedic Research Society Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 30:634642, 2012

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

4.5
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