Literature DB >> 23305812

Lineage mapping and characterization of the native progenitor population in cellular allograft.

Mike Chen1, Rahul Jandial1, Josh Neman1, Vincent Duenas1, Claudia Kowolik2, Amanda Hambrecht3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The gold standard for bone grafting remains the autograft. However, the attractiveness of autograft is counterbalanced by donor site morbidity. To mimic autograft-and its fundamental properties of osteoconductivity, osteoinductivity, and osteogenicity-novel bone grafting materials such as cellular allograft (Osteocel Plus) are composed of allograft in which the progenitor cells are preserved. However, the true identity of these cells remains obscure largely due to the lack of specific bona fide antigenic markers for stem versus progenitor cells.
PURPOSE: To characterize the stem and progenitor population in cellular allograft, Osteocel Plus. STUDY
DESIGN: To determine whether cells endogenous to a cellular allograft undergo extensive self-renewal (a functional hallmark of stem cells), we employed a novel use of lineage mapping using a modern and refined replication incompetent lentiviral library with high complexity to uniquely label single cells with indelible genetic tags faithfully passed on to all progeny, allowing identification of highly proliferative clones. We used genetic and proteomic profiling as well as functional assays to show that these cells are capable of multipotential differentiation (the second functional hallmark of stem cells). Use of these two functional hallmarks enabled us to establish the existence of a stem and progenitor cell population in cellular allografts.
METHODS: Specifically, we employed (1) cellular dissociation and (2) in vitro expansion and differentiation capacity of cells released from cellular allograft. We determined differential gene expression profiling of a bona fide human mesenchymal stem cell line and cells from cellular allograft using focused PCR arrays mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) and osteogenesis associated. Proteomic profiling of cells from cellular allograft was performed using (1) immunofluorescence for BMP-2, Runx2 SMADs, CD44, Stro-1, Collagen, RANKL, Osterix Osteocalcin, and Ki67; (2) flow cytometry for Ki67, CD44, Stro-1, Thy1, CD146, and Osteocalcin; and (3) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) for BMP-2, Osteocalcin, RANKL, Osteoprotegrin, and Osteocalcin. Clonal analysis of cells from cellular allograft was performed utilizing advance lentivirus lineage mapping techniques and massive parallel sequencing. Alizarin Red, Alcian Blue, and Oil red O staining assessed tripotential differentiation capacity.
RESULTS: Serial trypsinization of allograft cellular bone matrix yielded approximately 1×105 cells per mL with viability greater than 90%. Cells expressed a panel of 84 MSC-associated genes in a pattern similar to but not identical to pure MSCs; specifically, 59 of 84 genes showed less than a 2.5-fold change in both cell types. Protein analysis showed that cellular allograft -derived cells maintained in nondifferentiation media expressed the early osteo-progenitor markers BMP-2, SMADs, and Runx2. Corresponding flow cytometry data for MSC markers revealed the presence of Stro-1 (49%), CD44 (99%), CD90 (42%), and CD146 (97%). Lineage mapping indicated that 62% of clones persisted and generated progeny through 10 passages, strongly suggesting the presence of bona fide stem cells. Passage 10 clones also exhibited tri-lineage differentiation capacity into osteogenic (Alizarin Red with H&E counterstain), chondrogenic (Alcian Blue), and adipogenic (Oil red O). Cells that did not proliferate through 10 passages presumably differentiated along an osteo-progenitor lineage.
CONCLUSION: These data indicate that cellular allograft (Osteocel Plus) contains a heterogeneous population of cells with most cells demonstrating the capacity for extensive self-renewal and multipotential differentiation, which are hallmarks of stem cells. Whether stem cell-enriched allografts function comparably to autograft will require further studies, and their efficacy in facilitating arthrodesis will depend on randomized clinical studies.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23305812      PMCID: PMC3893135          DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.11.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  38 in total

1.  Lineage analysis with retroviral vectors.

Authors:  C L Cepko; E Ryder; C Austin; J Golden; S Fields-Berry; J Lin
Journal:  Methods Enzymol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.600

2.  Osteogenic activity of the fourteen types of human bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs).

Authors:  Hongwei Cheng; Wei Jiang; Frank M Phillips; Rex C Haydon; Ying Peng; Lan Zhou; Hue H Luu; Naili An; Benjamin Breyer; Pantila Vanichakarn; Jan Paul Szatkowski; Jae Yoon Park; Tong-Chuan He
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Percutaneous autologous bone-marrow grafting for nonunions. Surgical technique.

Authors:  Ph Hernigou; G Mathieu; A Poignard; O Manicom; F Beaujean; H Rouard
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement.

Authors:  M Dominici; K Le Blanc; I Mueller; I Slaper-Cortenbach; Fc Marini; Ds Krause; Rj Deans; A Keating; Dj Prockop; Em Horwitz
Journal:  Cytotherapy       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 5.414

5.  Assignment of the gene(s) involved in the expression of the proliferation-related Ki-67 antigen to human chromosome 10.

Authors:  D M Schonk; H J Kuijpers; E van Drunen; C H van Dalen; A H Geurts van Kessel; R Verheijen; F C Ramaekers
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 4.132

6.  A synthetic porous ceramic as a bone graft substitute in the surgical management of scoliosis: a prospective, randomized study.

Authors:  J Delécrin; S Takahashi; F Gouin; N Passuti
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  Cancer stem cells: lessons from leukemia.

Authors:  Jean C Y Wang; John E Dick
Journal:  Trends Cell Biol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 20.808

8.  Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells.

Authors:  Muhammad Al-Hajj; Max S Wicha; Adalberto Benito-Hernandez; Sean J Morrison; Michael F Clarke
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-03-10       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells.

Authors:  M F Pittenger; A M Mackay; S C Beck; R K Jaiswal; R Douglas; J D Mosca; M A Moorman; D W Simonetti; S Craig; D R Marshak
Journal:  Science       Date:  1999-04-02       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Ex vivo expansion and in vivo infusion of bone marrow-derived Flk-1+CD31-CD34- mesenchymal stem cells: feasibility and safety from monkey to human.

Authors:  Lihui Liu; Zhao Sun; Bin Chen; Qin Han; Lianmin Liao; Mingyue Jia; Ying Cao; Jie Ma; Qiyun Sun; Mei Guo; Zeyuan Liu; Huisheng Ai; Robert Chunhua Zhao
Journal:  Stem Cells Dev       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.272

View more
  6 in total

1.  Multipotential stromal cell abundance in cellular bone allograft: comparison with fresh age-matched iliac crest bone and bone marrow aspirate.

Authors:  Thomas G Baboolal; Sally A Boxall; Yasser M El-Sherbiny; Timothy A Moseley; Richard J Cuthbert; Peter V Giannoudis; Dennis McGonagle; Elena Jones
Journal:  Regen Med       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 3.806

2.  Dioscin stimulates differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells towards hypertrophic chondrocytes in vitro and endochondral ossification in vivo.

Authors:  Murong You; Juehua Jing; Dasheng Tian; Jun Qian; Guangrong Yu
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 4.060

3.  Comparative Efficacy of Commonly Available Human Bone Graft Substitutes as Tested for Posterolateral Fusion in an Athymic Rat Model.

Authors:  Neil Bhamb; Linda E A Kanim; Susan Drapeau; Suneeth Mohan; Erick Vasquez; Dan Shimko; William McKAY; Hyun W Bae
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-10-31

Review 4.  Ordinary and Activated Bone Grafts: Applied Classification and the Main Features.

Authors:  R V Deev; A Y Drobyshev; I Y Bozo; A A Isaev
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-11-15       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 5.  Methods of Cryoprotectant Preservation: Allogeneic Cellular Bone Grafts and Potential Effects.

Authors:  W Blake Martin; Renaud Sicard; Shabnam M Namin; Timothy Ganey
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Allogeneic morphogenetic protein vs. recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in lumbar interbody fusion procedures: a radiographic and economic analysis.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Roh; Christopher A Yeung; Justin S Field; R Trigg McClellan
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2013-12-28       Impact factor: 2.359

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.