BACKGROUND: Stem cell-based bone tissue engineering with adipose-derived stromal cells (ASCs) has shown great promise for revolutionizing treatment of large bone deficits. However, there is still a lack of consensus on cell surface markers identifying osteoprogenitors. Fluorescence-activated cell sorting has identified a subpopulation of CD105(low) cells with enhanced osteogenic differentiation. The purpose of the present study was to compare the ability of CD90 (Thy-1) to identify osteoprogenitors relative to CD(105). METHODS: Unsorted cells, CD90(+), CD90(-), CD105(high), and CD105(low) cells were treated with an osteogenic differentiation medium. For evaluation of in vitro osteogenesis, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) staining and alizarin red staining were performed at 7 days and 14 days, respectively. RNA was harvested after 7 and 14 days of differentiation, and osteogenic gene expression was examined by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. For evaluation of in vivo osteogenesis, critical-sized (4-mm) calvarial defects in nude mice were treated with the hydroxyapatite-poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) scaffold seeded with the above-mentioned subpopulations. Healing was followed using micro-CT scans for 8 weeks. Calvaria were harvested at 8 weeks postoperatively, and sections were stained with Movat's Pentachrome. RESULTS: Transcriptional analysis revealed that the CD90(+) subpopulation was enriched for a more osteogenic subtype relative to the CD105(low) subpopulation. Staining at day 7 for ALP was greatest in the CD90(+) cells, followed by the CD105(low) cells. Staining at day 14 for alizarin red demonstrated the greatest amount of mineralized extracellular matrix in the CD90(+) cells, again followed by the CD105(low) cells. Quantification of in vivo healing at 2, 4, 6, and 8weeks postoperatively demonstrated increased bone formation in defects treated with CD90(+) ASCs relative to all other groups. On Movat's Pentachrome-stained sections, defects treated with CD90(+) cells showed the most robust bony regeneration. Defects treated with CD90(-) cells, CD105(high) cells, and CD105(low) cells demonstrated some bone formation, but to a lesser degree when compared with the CD90(+) group. CONCLUSIONS: While CD105(low) cells have previously been shown to possess an enhanced osteogenic potential, we found that CD90(+) cells are more capable of forming bone both in vitro and in vivo. These data therefore suggest that CD90 may be a more effective marker than CD105 to isolate a highly osteogenic subpopulation for bone tissue engineering.
BACKGROUND: Stem cell-based bone tissue engineering with adipose-derived stromal cells (ASCs) has shown great promise for revolutionizing treatment of large bone deficits. However, there is still a lack of consensus on cell surface markers identifying osteoprogenitors. Fluorescence-activated cell sorting has identified a subpopulation of CD105(low) cells with enhanced osteogenic differentiation. The purpose of the present study was to compare the ability of CD90 (Thy-1) to identify osteoprogenitors relative to CD(105). METHODS: Unsorted cells, CD90(+), CD90(-), CD105(high), and CD105(low) cells were treated with an osteogenic differentiation medium. For evaluation of in vitro osteogenesis, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) staining and alizarin red staining were performed at 7 days and 14 days, respectively. RNA was harvested after 7 and 14 days of differentiation, and osteogenic gene expression was examined by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. For evaluation of in vivo osteogenesis, critical-sized (4-mm) calvarial defects in nude mice were treated with the hydroxyapatite-poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) scaffold seeded with the above-mentioned subpopulations. Healing was followed using micro-CT scans for 8 weeks. Calvaria were harvested at 8 weeks postoperatively, and sections were stained with Movat's Pentachrome. RESULTS: Transcriptional analysis revealed that the CD90(+) subpopulation was enriched for a more osteogenic subtype relative to the CD105(low) subpopulation. Staining at day 7 for ALP was greatest in the CD90(+) cells, followed by the CD105(low) cells. Staining at day 14 for alizarin red demonstrated the greatest amount of mineralized extracellular matrix in the CD90(+) cells, again followed by the CD105(low) cells. Quantification of in vivo healing at 2, 4, 6, and 8weeks postoperatively demonstrated increased bone formation in defects treated with CD90(+) ASCs relative to all other groups. On Movat's Pentachrome-stained sections, defects treated with CD90(+) cells showed the most robust bony regeneration. Defects treated with CD90(-) cells, CD105(high) cells, and CD105(low) cells demonstrated some bone formation, but to a lesser degree when compared with the CD90(+) group. CONCLUSIONS: While CD105(low) cells have previously been shown to possess an enhanced osteogenic potential, we found that CD90(+) cells are more capable of forming bone both in vitro and in vivo. These data therefore suggest that CD90 may be a more effective marker than CD105 to isolate a highly osteogenic subpopulation for bone tissue engineering.
Authors: Patricia A Zuk; Min Zhu; Peter Ashjian; Daniel A De Ugarte; Jerry I Huang; Hiroshi Mizuno; Zeni C Alfonso; John K Fraser; Prosper Benhaim; Marc H Hedrick Journal: Mol Biol Cell Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 4.138
Authors: Deepak M Gupta; Matthew D Kwan; Bethany J Slater; Derrick C Wan; Michael T Longaker Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Woo Young Sim; Sin Wook Park; Sang Hyug Park; Byoung Hyun Min; So Ra Park; Sang Sik Yang Journal: Lab Chip Date: 2007-09-28 Impact factor: 6.799
Authors: L Aust; B Devlin; S J Foster; Y D C Halvorsen; K Hicok; T du Laney; A Sen; G D Willingmyre; J M Gimble Journal: Cytotherapy Date: 2004 Impact factor: 5.414
Authors: Adrian McArdle; Michael T Chung; Kevin J Paik; Chris Duldulao; Charles Chan; Robert Rennert; Graham G Walmsley; Kshemendra Senarath-Yapa; Michael Hu; Elly Seo; Min Lee; Derrick C Wan; Michael T Longaker Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Ananta Paine; Collynn F Woeller; Hengwei Zhang; Maria de la Luz Garcia-Hernandez; Nelson Huertas; Lianping Xing; Richard P Phipps; Christopher T Ritchlin Journal: FASEB J Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Elizabeth Brett; Natalie Chung; William Tripp Leavitt; Arash Momeni; Michael T Longaker; Derrick C Wan Journal: Tissue Eng Part B Rev Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 6.389
Authors: Graham G Walmsley; Kshemendra Senarath-Yapa; Taylor L Wearda; Siddharth Menon; Michael S Hu; Dominik Duscher; Zeshaan N Maan; Jonathan M Tsai; Elizabeth R Zielins; Irving L Weissman; Geoffrey C Gurtner; H Peter Lorenz; Michael T Longaker Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 3.845