4.5 Article

The effect of serum on the proliferation of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells from aged donors and donors with or without chronic heart failure

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/term.2394

关键词

bone marrow; mesenchymal stem cells; population doubling time; autologous serum; fetal bovine serum; heart failure

资金

  1. Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants (Japan)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many clinical studies of regenerative medicine using bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been conducted globally. We initiated clinical studies using MSCs in 2001 and have now treated over 100 cases with patients aged 0-92years. In a few cases involving patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), we observed that MSCs proliferated poorly. This contrasts with cell therapy studies wherein MSCs of patients with CHF were used for treatment. The effects of serum on the proliferation of MSCs from donors with normal heart function and with CHF have not been reported. Moreover, whether cell therapy is effective for elderly patients remains uncertain. Therefore, characterization of MSCs from aged donors and/or donors with CHF is urgently required. We retrospectively analysed the population doubling times (PDTs) of MSCs between the first and second passages. Although we had data for many samples of well-expanded MSCs from aged donors, a positive correlation was observed between donor age and PDT. A trend towards reduced variance in PDTs was observed in MSCs supplemented with fetal bovine serum (FBS) compared with those supplemented with autologous serum. When autologous serum was used, the average PDT of MSCs from donors with CHF was significantly longer than that of MSCs from donors without CHF. In contrast, when FBS was used, similar PDTs were observed in MSCs from donors with and without CHF. Thus, FBS promotes MSC expansion even from donors with CHF and MSC-based regenerative medicine might be feasible even for elderly patients. Copyright (C) 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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