BACKGROUND AIMS: Adipose stromal cells (ASC) are a promising alternative to progenitor cells from other tissue compartments because of their multipotential and capacity to retrieve significantly more progenitor cells. Initial cell samples are heterogeneous, containing a collection of cells that may contribute to tissue repair, but the sample becomes more homogeneous with each passage. Therefore, we hypothesized that the osteogenic potential of culture-expanded ASC would differ from uncultured ASC. METHODS: Adipose tissue was collected from a yearling colt, and ASC were isolated and expanded using standard protocols or prepared by a commercial vendor using proprietary technology (proprietary stromal vascular fraction, SVFp). Cells were seeded on collagen sponges and maintained in osteogenic culture conditions for up to 21 days to assess osteogenic potential. The ability of each population to stimulate neovascularization and bone healing was determined upon implanting cell-loaded sponges into a rodent calvarial bone defect. Neovascularization was measured 3 weeks post-implantation, while bone formation was monitored over 12 weeks using in vivo microcomputed tomography (microCT). RESULTS: SVFp exhibited increased intracellular alkaline phosphatase activity compared with cultured ASC but proliferated minimally. Histologic analysis of explanted tissues demonstrated greater vascularization in defects treated with cultured ASC compared with SVFp. We detected increases in bone volume for defects treated with cultured cells while observing similar values for bone mineral density, regardless of cell type. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that expanded ASC are advantageous for neovascularization and bone healing in this model compared with SVFp, and provide additional evidence of the utility of ASC in bone repair.
BACKGROUND AIMS: Adipose stromal cells (ASC) are a promising alternative to progenitor cells from other tissue compartments because of their multipotential and capacity to retrieve significantly more progenitor cells. Initial cell samples are heterogeneous, containing a collection of cells that may contribute to tissue repair, but the sample becomes more homogeneous with each passage. Therefore, we hypothesized that the osteogenic potential of culture-expanded ASC would differ from uncultured ASC. METHODS: Adipose tissue was collected from a yearling colt, and ASC were isolated and expanded using standard protocols or prepared by a commercial vendor using proprietary technology (proprietary stromal vascular fraction, SVFp). Cells were seeded on collagen sponges and maintained in osteogenic culture conditions for up to 21 days to assess osteogenic potential. The ability of each population to stimulate neovascularization and bone healing was determined upon implanting cell-loaded sponges into a rodent calvarial bone defect. Neovascularization was measured 3 weeks post-implantation, while bone formation was monitored over 12 weeks using in vivo microcomputed tomography (microCT). RESULTS: SVFp exhibited increased intracellular alkaline phosphatase activity compared with cultured ASC but proliferated minimally. Histologic analysis of explanted tissues demonstrated greater vascularization in defects treated with cultured ASC compared with SVFp. We detected increases in bone volume for defects treated with cultured cells while observing similar values for bone mineral density, regardless of cell type. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that expanded ASC are advantageous for neovascularization and bone healing in this model compared with SVFp, and provide additional evidence of the utility of ASC in bone repair.
Authors: Brett Z Fite; Martin Decaris; Yinghua Sun; Yang Sun; Adrian Lam; Clark K L Ho; J Kent Leach; Laura Marcu Journal: Tissue Eng Part C Methods Date: 2011-02-08 Impact factor: 3.056
Authors: Xinli Zhang; Bruno Péault; Weiwei Chen; Weiming Li; Mirko Corselli; Aaron W James; Min Lee; Ronald K Siu; Pang Shen; Zhong Zheng; Jia Shen; Jinny Kwak; Janette N Zara; Feng Chen; Hong Zhang; Zack Yin; Ben Wu; Kang Ting; Chia Soo Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Ben P Hung; Tomas Gonzalez-Fernandez; Jenny B Lin; Takeyah Campbell; Yu Bin Lee; Alyssa Panitch; Eben Alsberg; J Kent Leach Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Asal Askarinam; Aaron W James; Janette N Zara; Raghav Goyal; Mirko Corselli; Angel Pan; Pei Liang; Le Chang; Todd Rackohn; David Stoker; Xinli Zhang; Kang Ting; Bruno Péault; Chia Soo Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Hillary E Davis; Bernard Y K Binder; Phillip Schaecher; Dana D Yakoobinsky; Archana Bhat; J Kent Leach Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Robert F LaPrade; Jason L Dragoo; Jason L Koh; Iain R Murray; Andrew G Geeslin; Constance R Chu Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Aaron W James; Janette N Zara; Xinli Zhang; Asal Askarinam; Raghav Goyal; Michael Chiang; Wei Yuan; Le Chang; Mirko Corselli; Jia Shen; Shen Pang; David Stoker; Ben Wu; Kang Ting; Bruno Péault; Chia Soo Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2012-06-11 Impact factor: 6.940
Authors: Jia Shen; Xuepeng Chen; Haichao Jia; Carolyn A Meyers; Swati Shrestha; Greg Asatrian; Catherine Ding; Rebecca Tsuei; Xinli Zhang; Bruno Peault; Kang Ting; Chia Soo; Aaron W James Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 3.845