Brandon Lloyd1, Boon Ching Tee2, Colwyn Headley3, Hany Emam4, Susan Mallery5, Zongyang Sun6. 1. Division of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. Division of Biosciences, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 3. Biomedical Sciences Graduate Program, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 4. Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 5. Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Radiology, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 6. Division of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. Electronic address: sun.254@osu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Research has shown promise of using bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) for craniofacial bone regeneration; yet little is known about the differences of BMSCs from limb and craniofacial bones. This study compared pig mandibular and tibia BMSCs for their in vitro proliferation, osteogenic differentiation properties and gene expression. DESIGN: Bone marrow was aspirated from the tibia and mandible of 3-4 month-old pigs (n=4), followed by BMSC isolation, culture-expansion and characterization by flow cytometry. Proliferation rates were assessed using population doubling times. Osteogenic differentiation was evaluated by alkaline phosphatase activity. Affymetrix porcine microarray was used to compare gene expressions of tibial and mandibular BMSCs, followed by real-time RT-PCR evaluation of certain genes. RESULTS: Our results showed that BMSCs from both locations expressed MSC markers but not hematopoietic markers. The proliferation and osteogenic differentiation potential of mandibular BMSCs were significantly stronger than those of tibial BMSCs. Microarray analysis identified 404 highly abundant genes, out of which 334 genes were matched between the two locations and annotated into the same functional groups including osteogenesis and angiogenesis, while 70 genes were mismatched and annotated into different functional groups. In addition, 48 genes were differentially expressed by at least 1.5-fold difference between the two locations, including higher expression of cranial neural crest-related gene BMP-4 in mandibular BMSCs, which was confirmed by real-time RT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, these data indicate that despite strong similarities in gene expression between mandibular and tibial BMSCs, mandibular BMSCs express some genes differently than tibial BMSCs and have a phenotypic profile that may make them advantageous for craniofacial bone regeneration.
OBJECTIVE: Research has shown promise of using bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) for craniofacial bone regeneration; yet little is known about the differences of BMSCs from limb and craniofacial bones. This study compared pig mandibular and tibia BMSCs for their in vitro proliferation, osteogenic differentiation properties and gene expression. DESIGN: Bone marrow was aspirated from the tibia and mandible of 3-4 month-old pigs (n=4), followed by BMSC isolation, culture-expansion and characterization by flow cytometry. Proliferation rates were assessed using population doubling times. Osteogenic differentiation was evaluated by alkaline phosphatase activity. Affymetrix porcine microarray was used to compare gene expressions of tibial and mandibular BMSCs, followed by real-time RT-PCR evaluation of certain genes. RESULTS: Our results showed that BMSCs from both locations expressed MSC markers but not hematopoietic markers. The proliferation and osteogenic differentiation potential of mandibular BMSCs were significantly stronger than those of tibial BMSCs. Microarray analysis identified 404 highly abundant genes, out of which 334 genes were matched between the two locations and annotated into the same functional groups including osteogenesis and angiogenesis, while 70 genes were mismatched and annotated into different functional groups. In addition, 48 genes were differentially expressed by at least 1.5-fold difference between the two locations, including higher expression of cranial neural crest-related gene BMP-4 in mandibular BMSCs, which was confirmed by real-time RT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, these data indicate that despite strong similarities in gene expression between mandibular and tibial BMSCs, mandibular BMSCs express some genes differently than tibial BMSCs and have a phenotypic profile that may make them advantageous for craniofacial bone regeneration.
Authors: Jochen Ringe; Christian Kaps; Bernhard Schmitt; Kristina Büscher; Janine Bartel; Heike Smolian; Olaf Schultz; Gerd R Burmester; Thomas Häupl; Michael Sittinger Journal: Cell Tissue Res Date: 2002-02-26 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: S Gronthos; J Brahim; W Li; L W Fisher; N Cherman; A Boyde; P DenBesten; P Gehron Robey; S Shi Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Darnell Kaigler; Giorgio Pagni; Chan Ho Park; Thomas M Braun; Lindsay A Holman; Erica Yi; Susan A Tarle; Ronnda L Bartel; William V Giannobile Journal: Cell Transplant Date: 2013 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Jing Chen; Scott Boyle; Min Zhao; Wei Su; Keiko Takahashi; Linda Davis; Mark Decaestecker; Takamune Takahashi; Matthew D Breyer; Chuan-Ming Hao Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2006-03-29 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Richard N Wang; Jordan Green; Zhongliang Wang; Youlin Deng; Min Qiao; Michael Peabody; Qian Zhang; Jixing Ye; Zhengjian Yan; Sahitya Denduluri; Olumuyiwa Idowu; Melissa Li; Christine Shen; Alan Hu; Rex C Haydon; Richard Kang; James Mok; Michael J Lee; Hue L Luu; Lewis L Shi Journal: Genes Dis Date: 2014-09