Elizabeth Vinod1,2, Roshni Parameswaran1, Boopalan Ramasamy3, Upasana Kachroo1. 1. Department of Physiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India. 2. Centre for Stem Cell Research (a unit of InStem, Bengaluru), Christian Medical College, Vellore, India. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, Royal Darwin Hospital, Tiwi, Northern Territory, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chondroprogenitors have recently gained prominence due to promising results seen in in vitro and animal studies as a potential contender in cell-based therapy for cartilage repair. Lack of consensus regarding nomenclature, isolation techniques, and expansion protocols create substantial limitations for translational research, especially given the absence of distinct markers of identification. The objective of this systematic review was to identify and collate information pertaining to hyaline cartilage-derived chondroprogenitors, with regard to their isolation, culture, and outcome measures. DESIGN: As per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a web-based search of Scopus and PubMed databases was performed from January 2000 to May 2020, which yielded 509 studies. A total of 65 studies were identified that met the standardized inclusion criteria which comprised of, but was not limited to, progenitors derived from fibronectin adhesion, migrated subpopulation from explant cultures, and single-cell sorting. RESULT: Literature search revealed that progenitors demonstrated inherent chondrogenesis and minimal tendency for hypertrophy. Multiple sources also demonstrated significantly better outcomes that bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells and comparable results to chondrocytes. With regard to progenitor subgroups, collated evidence points to better and consistent outcomes with the use of migratory progenitors when compared to fibronectin adhesion assay-derived progenitors, although a direct comparison between the two cell populations is warranted. CONCLUSION: Since chondroprogenitors exhibit favorable properties for cartilage repair, efficient characterization of progenitors is imperative, to complete their phenotypic profile, so as to optimize their use in translational research for neocartilage formation.
OBJECTIVE: Chondroprogenitors have recently gained prominence due to promising results seen in in vitro and animal studies as a potential contender in cell-based therapy for cartilage repair. Lack of consensus regarding nomenclature, isolation techniques, and expansion protocols create substantial limitations for translational research, especially given the absence of distinct markers of identification. The objective of this systematic review was to identify and collate information pertaining to hyaline cartilage-derived chondroprogenitors, with regard to their isolation, culture, and outcome measures. DESIGN: As per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a web-based search of Scopus and PubMed databases was performed from January 2000 to May 2020, which yielded 509 studies. A total of 65 studies were identified that met the standardized inclusion criteria which comprised of, but was not limited to, progenitors derived from fibronectin adhesion, migrated subpopulation from explant cultures, and single-cell sorting. RESULT: Literature search revealed that progenitors demonstrated inherent chondrogenesis and minimal tendency for hypertrophy. Multiple sources also demonstrated significantly better outcomes that bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells and comparable results to chondrocytes. With regard to progenitor subgroups, collated evidence points to better and consistent outcomes with the use of migratory progenitors when compared to fibronectin adhesion assay-derived progenitors, although a direct comparison between the two cell populations is warranted. CONCLUSION: Since chondroprogenitors exhibit favorable properties for cartilage repair, efficient characterization of progenitors is imperative, to complete their phenotypic profile, so as to optimize their use in translational research for neocartilage formation.
Authors: Jose Diaz-Romero; Jean Philippe Gaillard; Shawn Patrick Grogan; Dobrila Nesic; Thomas Trub; Pierre Mainil-Varlet Journal: J Cell Physiol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 6.384
Authors: Dongrim Seol; Daniel J McCabe; Hyeonghun Choe; Hongjun Zheng; Yin Yu; Keewoong Jang; Morgan W Walter; Abigail D Lehman; Lei Ding; Joseph A Buckwalter; James A Martin Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2012-11
Authors: David D Frisbie; Helen E McCarthy; Charles W Archer; Myra F Barrett; C Wayne McIlwraith Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Rebecca Williams; Ilyas M Khan; Kirsty Richardson; Larissa Nelson; Helen E McCarthy; Talal Analbelsi; Sim K Singhrao; Gary P Dowthwaite; Rhiannon E Jones; Duncan M Baird; Holly Lewis; Selwyn Roberts; Hannah M Shaw; Jayesh Dudhia; John Fairclough; Timothy Briggs; Charles W Archer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-10-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: X Zhao; Y Dong; J Zhang; D Li; G Hu; J Yao; Y Li; P Huang; M Zhang; J Zhang; Z Huang; Y Zhang; Y Miao; Q Xu; H Li Journal: Cell Death Dis Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 8.469
Authors: Chathuraka T Jayasuriya; John Twomey-Kozak; Jake Newberry; Salomi Desai; Peter Feltman; Jonathan R Franco; Neill Li; Richard Terek; Michael G Ehrlich; Brett D Owens Journal: Stem Cells Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 6.277