4.5 Article

Fluorescence activated enrichment of CD146+cells during expansion of human bone-marrow derived mesenchymal stromal cells augments proliferation and GAG/DNA content in chondrogenic media

期刊

BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-322

关键词

Mesenchymal stromal cells; MSC surface markers; CD146; Sorting; Osteogenic differentiation; Chondrogenic differentiation

资金

  1. state of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: While numerous subpopulations of BM MSCs have been identified, the relevance of these findings regarding the functional properties remains mostly unclear. With regards to attempts of enhancing differentiation results by preselecting certain MSC subtypes, we have evaluated the efficiency of CD146 purification during expansion, and evaluated whether these measures enhanced MSC differentiation results. Methods: Human MSCs were derived from bone marrow of six donors and cultured in two different culture media. After P1, MSCs were purified by either magnetic or fluorescence sorting for CD146, with unsorted cells as controls. Growth characteristics and typical MSC surface markers were assessed from P0 to P3. After P3, chondrogenic, osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation potential were assessed. Results: Despite a high variability of CD146 expression among the donors, fluorescence sorting significantly increased the number of CD146+ cells compared to control MSCs, while magnetic sorting led to a lesser enrichment. Osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation potential was not affected by the sorting process. However, FACS-sorted cells showed significantly increased GAG/DNA content after chondrogenic differentiation compared to control MSCs. Conclusion: FACS sorting of CD146+ cells was more efficient than magnetic sorting. The underlying mechanism of increased GAG/DNA content after enrichment during expansion remains unclear, but may be linked to increased proliferation rates in these cells.

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