4.5 Article

Comparison of the osteogenic capacity of minipig and human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 7, 页码 1019-1025

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jor.22049

关键词

mesenchymal stem cell; differentiation; osteogenesis; dexamethasone; minipig; human

资金

  1. EU [NMP3-CT-2007-026279]
  2. Finska Lakaresallskapet (Einar och Karin Stroems stiftelse)
  3. Paulo Foundation
  4. Finnish Cultural Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Minipigs are a recommended large animal model for preclinical testing of human orthopedic implants. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are the key repair cells in bone healing and implant osseointegration, but the osteogenic capacity of minipig MSCs is incompletely known. The aim of this study was to isolate and characterize minipig bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB) MSCs in comparison to human BM-MSCs. BM sample was aspirated from posterior iliac crest of five male Gottingen minipigs (age 15 +/- 1 months). PB sample was drawn for isolation of circulating MSCs. MSCs were selected by plastic-adherence as originally described by Friedenstein. Cell morphology, colony formation, proliferation, surface marker expression, and differentiation were examined. Human BM-MSCs were isolated and cultured from adult fracture patients (n?=?13, age 1960 years) using identical techniques. MSCs were found in all minipig BM samples, but no circulating MSCs could be detected. Minipig BM-MSCs had similar morphology, proliferation, and colony formation capacities as human BM-MSCs. Unexpectedly, minipig BM-MSCs had a significantly lower ability than human BM-MSCs to form differentiated and functional osteoblasts. This observation emphasizes the need for species-specific optimization of MSC culture protocol before direct systematic comparison of MSCs between human and various preclinical large animal models can be made. (C) 2012 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 30:10191025, 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