| Literature DB >> 22309371 |
Tomomasa Nakamura1, Ichiro Sekiya, Takeshi Muneta, Daisuke Hatsushika, Masafumi Horie, Kunikazu Tsuji, Tatsuo Kawarasaki, Atsuya Watanabe, Shuji Hishikawa, Yasuhiro Fujimoto, Hozumi Tanaka, Eiji Kobayashi.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AIMS: Transplantation of synovial mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may induce repair of cartilage defects. We transplanted synovial MSCs into cartilage defects using a simple method and investigated its usefulness and repair process in a pig model.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22309371 PMCID: PMC3296518 DOI: 10.3109/14653249.2011.638912
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cytotherapy ISSN: 1465-3249 Impact factor: 5.414
Figure 2Experimental set-up and local adherent technique for MSCs transplantation. (A) Schematic drawing for arthroscopic transplantation and detection of GFP MSCs. (B) Synovial MSCs from the transgenic GFP pig used to visualize delivery and adhesion of cells in the defect under phase–contrast and fluorescent illumination. (C) Arthroscopic view during transplantation of GFP MSCs into the cartilage defect. Arrows indicate the MSCs suspension leaving the needle. Arrowheads indicate the margin of the cartilage defect. (D) Schematic drawing for histological, MRI and other arthroscopic analyses. (E) Full-thickness cartilage defect (left) and DiI-labeled MSC suspension dropped into the defect (right). (F) Fluorescent images of cartilage defect sections 7 days after transplantation of DiI-labeled MSCs.
Figure 1Characteristics of porcine synovial MSCs. (A) Colony formation. (B) Proliferation. (C) In vitro chondrogenesis, adipogenesis and calcification. (D) Comparison of the chondrogenic potential among MSCs derived from various mesenchymal tissues. *P< 0.05 (n = 5) between synovium and each of the other tissues by Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Figure 3Arthroscopic and macroscopic analyses of cartilage defects with and without transplanted MSC. (A) Sequential arthroscopic view at 1, 2 and 3 months. (B) Quantification of arthroscopic view of cartilage defect. *P< 0.05 by Wilcoxon rank-sum test. (C) Representative macroscopic features. (D) Quantification of macroscopic features of cartilage defect. *P< 0.05 by Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Figure 4Histological analyses of cartilage defect transplanted with MSCs. (A) Representative sections stained with Safranin O at 1 month. Red indicates extracellular matrix, and blue indicates cancellous bone. (B) Example sections of the best, representative and worst outcomes in the MSC-treated knees at 3 months and in the control from the opposite sides. Borders of the original defect are shown by both arrowheads. (C) Magnified histology of the indicated area. (D) High magnification of the indicated area. (E) Quantification of histologies of cartilage defect. *P< 0.05 by Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Figure 5Evaluation with dGEMRIC. (A) Representative images. Arrows indicate the bottoms of the repair tissue. (B) ROI for repaired cartilage (solid-line area) and for native cartilage (dotted-line areas). (C) Quantification of R1 values at 3 months. *P< 0.05 by paired t-test.
Figure 6Diagram of the process of cartilage repair. At about 1 month, a membranous layer formed over the defect, and by 3 months cartilage had formed to repair the defect.