| Literature DB >> 19957104 |
Dana Foudah1, Serena Redaelli, Elisabetta Donzelli, Angela Bentivegna, Mariarosaria Miloso, Leda Dalprà, Giovanni Tredici.
Abstract
Bone-marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are multipotent cells capable of self-renewal and differentiation into multiple cell types. Accumulating preclinical and clinical evidence indicates that MSCs are good candidates to use as cell therapy in many degenerative diseases. For MSC clinical applications, an adequate number of cells are necessary so an extensive expansion is required. However, spontaneous immortalization and malignant transformation of MSCs after culture expansion have been reported in human and mouse, while very few data are present for rat MSCs (rMSCs). In this study, we monitored the chromosomal status of rMSCs at several passages in vitro, also testing the influence of four different cell culture conditions. We first used the conventional traditional cytogenetic techniques, in order to have the opportunity to observe even minor structural abnormalities and to identify low-degree mosaic conditions. Then, a more detailed genomic analysis was conducted by array comparative genomic hybridization. We demonstrated that, irrespective of culture conditions, rMSCs manifested a markedly aneuploid karyotype and a progressive chromosomal instability in all the passages we analyzed and that they are anything but stable during in vitro culture. Despite the fact that the risk of neoplastic transformation associated with this genomic instability needs to be further addressed and considering the apparent genomic stability reported for in vitro cultured human MSCs (hMSCs), our findings underline the fact that rMSCs may not in fact be a good model for effectively exploring the full clinical therapeutic potential of hMSCs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19957104 PMCID: PMC2793379 DOI: 10.1007/s10577-009-9090-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chromosome Res ISSN: 0967-3849 Impact factor: 5.239
Fig. 1Selected metaphase Q-banded spreads with chromosomal anomalies. a Trisomy for chromosome 6, [43,XX,+6]; b functional trisomy for chromosome 6, [42,XX,der(6;6)]; c trisomy for chromosome 13, [43,XX,+13]. The chromosomal anomalies are indicated by arrows
Fig. 2rMSC differentiation. Osteogenic differentiation. Alizarin red staining of rMSCs cultured for 28 days in α-MEM supplemented with 10% defined FBS (control, a) or in OS medium. (b) Adipogenic differentiation. Oil Red O staining of rMSCs cultured for 28 days in α-MEM (4.5 g/l glucose) supplemented with 10% defined FBS (control, c) or in adipogenic induction medium (d). Bars 50 μm. Chondrogenic differentiation. Safranin O staining of paraffin-embedded sections of rMSCs cultured in pellets for 6 weeks in α-MEM supplemented with 15% defined FBS (control, e) or with chondrogenic induction medium (f). Bars 50 μm
Fig. 3rMSC cultures. rMSC cultures displayed different morphology according to the passage number: at P1 rMSC cultures were still heterogenous; at P2, they became homogenous, characterized by the presence of cells with a fibroblast-like phenotype; at P16, they were already morphologically homogenous, but cells seemed to be smaller in size with respect to previous passages; at P48, cells lost their fibroblastic-like shape, appearing more rounded and forming a homogenous monolayer film. Bars 100 μm
Fig. 4rMSC differentiation quantitative assessment. rMSC at different passages were treated for a osteogenic differentiation (osteo); b adipogenic differentiation (adipo); c chondrogenic differentiation (chondro) for 14 or 28 days, and quantitative assessment of differentiation was performed. For each treatment, rMSCs cultured in culture medium without any differentiating agents were used as a control (ct). Experiments were performed in triplicate and results are expressed as mean ± SD. *p < 0.05: **p < 0.01
Karyotype in vitro evolution of rMSCs from four rats cultured in four different media
| Medium | Culture passage | Animal | % normal | % with clonal numeric aberration | % with structural aberration | % with random loss/gain |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| αMEM 20% FBS | 1° | 3 | 67.3 | 6.1 (41,XX,−20) | 0 | 26.6 |
| 4 | 51.7 | 5 (41,XX,−20) | 0 | 43.3 | ||
| 4° | 1 | 67.2 | 8.2 (43 ~ 44,XX,+13,+13,cp[4]) | 0 | 24.6 | |
| 4 | 77.8 | 0 | 0 | 22.2 | ||
| 8° | 1 | 9.2 | 66.7 (43 ~ 44,XX,+13,+13,cp[33]) | 0 | 24.1 | |
| 2 | 67.5 | 15 (43 ~ 44,XX,+13,+13,cp[8]) | 0 | 17.5 | ||
| 3 | 56.8 | 27 (43,XX,+13) | 0 | 16.2 | ||
| 4 | 76 | 0 | 0 | 24 | ||
| 16° | 1 | 1.7 | 54.2 (43,XX,+13) | 37.3 (42,XX,der(2;15)) | 6.8 | |
| 2 | 28 | 40 (43 ~ 44,XX,+11,+13,cp[20]) | 0 | 32 | ||
| 3 | 29.6 | 42.6 (43,XX,+10,+13,cp[23]) | 1.8 (44,XX,+13,t(3;11),der3p);1.8 (42,XX,+13,−16,t(3;4)) | 24.2 | ||
| 4 | 69 | 5.8 (41,XX,−20) | 0 | 25.2 | ||
| 24° | 1 | 0 | 91.7 (43 ~ 44,XX,+13,+13,cp[46]) | 2.7 (42,XX,der(2;15)) | 5.6 | |
| 3 | 0 | 92.2 (43,XX,+13) | 0 | 7.8 | ||
| 4 | 3.8 | 26.4 (41 ~ 85,XXXX,−20,+10,+13,cp[14]) | 0 | 69.8 | ||
| 48° | 1 | 1.8 | 96.4 (43 ~ 44,XX,+13,+13,cp[48]) | 0 | 1.8 | |
| αMEM 10% FBS | 1° | 3 | 60 | 8.2 (41,XX,−20) | 2 (42,XX,der(6;6)) | 29.8 |
| 4 | 76 | 0 | 0 | 24 | ||
| 4° | 3 | 73.6 | 11.1 (43,XX,+13) | 0 | 15.3 | |
| 4 | 66.8 | 0 | 0 | 33.2 | ||
| 8° | 3 | 30.6 | 27 (43,XX,+13) | 9.4 (42,XX,der(6;6)) | 33 | |
| 4 | 60 | 6.65 (43,XX,+18) | 6.65 (43,XX,+mar) | 26.7 | ||
| 16° | 3 | 0 | 5.6 (41,XX,der(6;6),-20) | 92.6 (42,XX,der(6;6)) | 1.8 | |
| 4 | 0 | 45.7 (79 ~ 88,XXXX,−20,+4,+5,+6,+7,+10,+11,+12,cp[16]) | 37.1 (85 ~ 87,XXXX,+mar1,+mar2, cp[13]) | 17.2 | ||
| 24° | 3 | 0 | 15.7 (43 ~ 46,XX,der(6;6), +3,+6,+12,+13, cp[8]) | 80.4 (42,XX,der(6;6)) | 3.9 | |
| DMEM 20% FBS | 1° | 4 | 80.4 | 0 | 0 | 19.6 |
| 4° | 4 | 78.3 | 4.3 (43,XX,+13) | 0 | 17.4 | |
| 8° | 4 | 50 | 0 | 10 (42,XX,1dicen) | 40 | |
| 16° | 4 | 1.8 | 0 | 76 (42,XX,5p+) | 22.2 | |
| DMEM 10% FBS | 1° | 3 | 69 | 10.3 (41,XX,−20) | 1.7 (42,XX,der(5;18)) | 19 |
| 4 | 33.3 | 0 | 0 | 66.7 | ||
| 4° | 3 | 79.5 | 0 | 0 | 20.5 | |
| 4 | 6.7 | 76.6 (43 ~ 44,XX,+6,+13,cp[23]) | 3.3 (45,XX,+11,+13,+14,1dicen) | 13.4 | ||
| 8° | 3 | 32.4 | 38.2 (43,XX,+6,+7,cp[26]) | 13.2 (42,XX,2p+) | 16.2 | |
| 4 | 2 | 68 (43 ~ 48,XX,+3,+7,+12,+13,+14,cp[34]) | 0 | 30 | ||
| 16° | 4 | 0 | 73.2 (46 ~ 48,XX,+3,+4,+6,+7,+12,+13,+14,cp[38]) | 0 | 26.8 | |
| 24° | 3 | 2 | 92 (43 ~ 44,XX,+3,+7,+13,cp[46]) | 0 | 6 |
The percentages refer to the total number of metaphases analyzed; at least 50 metaphases were analyzed for each passage. For some culture passages, a great karyotypic heterogeneity was observed and composite karyotypes (cp) were created. These cp contained all clonally observed abnormalities and gave the range of chromosome numbers in the cells containing the clonal aberrations. The number of cells in which the clonal changes were observed was given in square brackets after the karyotype
Karyotype of rMSCs from control rats at P0 cultured in four different media
| Medium | Days after isolation | Animal | % normal | % with clonal numeric aberration | % with structural aberration | % with random loss/gain |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| αMEM 20% FBS | 1 | 5.09 | 96 | 0 | 0 | 4/0 |
| 6.09 | 88 | 0 | 0 | 12/0 | ||
| 7.09 | 85.3 | 0 | 0 | 11.8/2.9 | ||
| 8.09 | 82.4 | 0 | 0 | 17.6/0 | ||
| 9.09 | 82.4 | 0 | 0 | 17.6/0 | ||
| 10.09 | 86.3 | 0 | 0 | 11.8/1.9 | ||
| 15 | 5 | 44.4 | 0 | 0 | 48.1/7.5 | |
| 6 | 81.5 | 0 | 0 | 14.8/3.7 | ||
| 7 | 78.4 | 0 | 0 | 19.6/2 | ||
| 5.09 | 85 | 0 | 0 | 7.5/7.5 | ||
| 6.09 | 76 | 0 | 0 | 22/2 | ||
| 7.09 | 86.8 | 0 | 0 | 7.5/5.7 | ||
| 8.09 | 76.5 | 0 | 0 | 23.5/0 | ||
| 9.09 | 63.7 | 0 | 0 | 33.3/3 | ||
| 10.09 | 78 | 0 | 0 | 16/6 | ||
| α-MEM 10% FBS | 15 | 5 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 25/0 |
| 6 | 72.5 | 0 | 0 | 25.2/2 | ||
| 7 | 52.9 | 0 | 0 | 43.1/4 | ||
| DMEM 20% FBS | 15 | 5 | 69 | 0 | 0 | 27.6/3.4 |
| 6 | 48.1 | 0 | 0 | 50/1.9 | ||
| 7 | 72.5 | 0 | 0 | 25.4/2.1 | ||
| DMEM 10% FBS | 15 | 5 | 83.3 | 0 | 0 | 16.7/0 |
| 6 | 44.2 | 5.8 (41,X); 5.8 (41,XX,-20) | 0 | 44.2/0 | ||
| 7 | 68 | 0 | 2 (43,XX,+mar)a | 20/10 |
aNot clonal
Micronuclei counting of rMSCs of four rats cultured in four different media
| Animal | Medium | Culture passage | % normal nuclei | % micronuclei |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | αMEM 20% FBS | 4° | 54.5 | 45.5 |
| 8° | 80.4 | 19.6 | ||
| 16° | 86.8 | 13.2 | ||
| 24° | 88 | 12 | ||
| 48° | 91.2 | 8.8 | ||
| 2 | αMEM 20% FBS | 4° | 69.7 | 30.3 |
| 8° | 85 | 15 | ||
| 1° | 83.4 | 16.6 | ||
| 8° | 65.8 | 34.2 | ||
| 16° | 30.6 | 60.4 | ||
| 24° | 49.3 | 50.7 | ||
| 3 | αMEM 10% FBS | 1° | 80.7 | – |
| 5° | 43.9 | 56.1 | ||
| 8° | 29.4 | 70.6 | ||
| 16° | 19.8 | 80.2 | ||
| 24° | 30.2 | 69.8 | ||
| DMEM 10% FBS | 1° | 82.2 | 17.8 | |
| 5° | 64.2 | 35.8 | ||
| 8° | 76 | 24 | ||
| 24° | 66.9 | 33.1 | ||
| 4 | αMEM 20% FBS | 1° | 41.4 | 58.6 |
| 4° | 31.1 | 68.9 | ||
| 8° | 38.3 | 61.7 | ||
| 16° | 59 | 41 | ||
| 24° | 47.2 | 52.8 | ||
| αMEM 10% FBS | 1° | 34.3 | 65.7 | |
| 4° | 27.1 | 72.9 | ||
| 8° | 44.4 | 55.6 | ||
| 16° | 37.8 | 62.2 | ||
| DMEM 20% FBS | 1° | 45.8 | 54.2 | |
| 4° | 63.1 | 36.9 | ||
| 8° | 46.1 | 53.9 | ||
| 16° | 70.5 | 29.5 | ||
| DMEM 10% FBS | 1° | 38.6 | 61.4 | |
| 4° | 44.1 | 55.9 | ||
| 8° | 49.4 | 50.6 | ||
| 16° | 66.4 | 33.6 |
At least 1,000 nuclei were analyzed for each passage
Fig. 5Percentage of metaphases with clonal chromosomal anomalies (both aneuploidies and structural aberrations) versus passage progression. a Rats 1–2–3–4 in α-MEM 20%FBS; b rat 3 in α-MEM 20% FBS, α-MEM 10%FBS, DMEM 10% FBS; c Rat 4 in all the culture conditions used in this study
Fig. 6Chromosomal distribution of CNV regions detected by array comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) on rMSCs of a rat 1 at P4 (top) and P24 (bottom); b rat 8 freshly isolated cells (top) and 2 weeks culture (bottom). Colors represent the type of chromosomal aberration: red (region with gain compared to reference); green (region with loss compared to reference). See Table S1 in Supplementary material and the text for more details