Jiachen Sun1, Fei Xing1, Min Zou2, Min Gong3, Lang Li4, Zhou Xiang5. 1. Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Orthopedics, NO. 1 People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610016, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Orthopedics, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610075, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, Hospital of Chengdu Office of People's Government of Tibetan Autonomous Region, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, People's Republic of China. lilang84@126.com. 5. Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, People's Republic of China. xiangzhou15@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stem cells are the main choice for seed cells in tissue engineering, but using most traditional stem cells requires invasive and complicated procedures. Human urine-derived stem cells (hUSCs) are an alternative stem cell source with the advantages of being isolated noninvasively and repetitively from the same individual. The aim of this study was to compare chondrogenesis-related biological behaviors between hUSCs and human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (hBMSCs) from the same individual. METHODS: hUSCs and hBMSCs were isolated from six patients who underwent iliac bone grafting. Cell morphology, proliferation, colony-forming, migration, and multidifferentiation analyses were performed in vitro. Then, acellular cartilage extracellular matrix (ACM) scaffolds were fabricated for in vivo implantation. The comparisons of cell viability, morphology, proliferation, and chondrogenesis between hUSCs and hBMSCs cultured on scaffolds were performed before implantation. The scaffolds loaded with hUSCs or hBMSCs were implanted into a rabbit knee model to repair cartilage defects. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and micro-computed tomography (μCT) Analyses, inflammation and toxicity assays, gross observation, and histological evaluation were performed to evaluate the cartilage repair effects. RESULTS: In in vitro experiments, hUSCs had better capacity for proliferation, colony-forming, and migration compared to hBMSCs in the same passage, while hBMSCs had greater osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic abilities compared to hUSCs in the same passage. Both hUSCs and hBMSCs at passage 3 had the strongest potential for proliferation, colony-forming, and multilineage differentiation compared to cells in other passages. The ACM scaffolds loaded with hUSCs or hBMSCs both significantly promoted the repair of cartilage defects in the rabbit knee model at 12 weeks' postimplantation, and the new tissue was mainly hyaline cartilage. However, there was no significant difference in cartilage repair effects between hUSCs and hBMSCs. CONCLUSIONS: In in vitro experiments, hUSCs presented better capacity for proliferation, while hBMSCs had greater chondrogenic ability. However, hUSCs and hBMSCs had similar cartilage repair effects in vivo. Results indicated that hUSCs can be a stem cell alternative for cartilage regeneration and provide a powerful platform for cartilage tissue engineering and clinical transformation.
BACKGROUND: Stem cells are the main choice for seed cells in tissue engineering, but using most traditional stem cells requires invasive and complicated procedures. Human urine-derived stem cells (hUSCs) are an alternative stem cell source with the advantages of being isolated noninvasively and repetitively from the same individual. The aim of this study was to compare chondrogenesis-related biological behaviors between hUSCs and human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (hBMSCs) from the same individual. METHODS: hUSCs and hBMSCs were isolated from six patients who underwent iliac bone grafting. Cell morphology, proliferation, colony-forming, migration, and multidifferentiation analyses were performed in vitro. Then, acellular cartilage extracellular matrix (ACM) scaffolds were fabricated for in vivo implantation. The comparisons of cell viability, morphology, proliferation, and chondrogenesis between hUSCs and hBMSCs cultured on scaffolds were performed before implantation. The scaffolds loaded with hUSCs or hBMSCs were implanted into a rabbit knee model to repair cartilage defects. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and micro-computed tomography (μCT) Analyses, inflammation and toxicity assays, gross observation, and histological evaluation were performed to evaluate the cartilage repair effects. RESULTS: In in vitro experiments, hUSCs had better capacity for proliferation, colony-forming, and migration compared to hBMSCs in the same passage, while hBMSCs had greater osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic abilities compared to hUSCs in the same passage. Both hUSCs and hBMSCs at passage 3 had the strongest potential for proliferation, colony-forming, and multilineage differentiation compared to cells in other passages. The ACM scaffolds loaded with hUSCs or hBMSCs both significantly promoted the repair of cartilage defects in the rabbit knee model at 12 weeks' postimplantation, and the new tissue was mainly hyaline cartilage. However, there was no significant difference in cartilage repair effects between hUSCs and hBMSCs. CONCLUSIONS: In in vitro experiments, hUSCs presented better capacity for proliferation, while hBMSCs had greater chondrogenic ability. However, hUSCs and hBMSCs had similar cartilage repair effects in vivo. Results indicated that hUSCs can be a stem cell alternative for cartilage regeneration and provide a powerful platform for cartilage tissue engineering and clinical transformation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acellular cartilage extracellular matrix; Cartilage repair; Human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells; Human urine-derived stem cells; Hyaline cartilage regeneration; Stem cells
Authors: Yuanyuan Zhang; Elena McNeill; Hong Tian; Shay Soker; Karl-Erik Andersson; James J Yoo; Anthony Atala Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-09-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Eleftherios A Makris; Andreas H Gomoll; Konstantinos N Malizos; Jerry C Hu; Kyriacos A Athanasiou Journal: Nat Rev Rheumatol Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 20.543
Authors: Ming Pei; Luis A Solchaga; Joachim Seidel; Li Zeng; Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic; Arnold I Caplan; Lisa E Freed Journal: FASEB J Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Giuseppe Filardo; Francesco Perdisa; Alice Roffi; Maurilio Marcacci; Elizaveta Kon Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Yingai Shi; Guihua Liu; Rongpei Wu; David L Mack; Xiuzhi Susan Sun; Joshua Maxwell; Xuan Guan; Anthony Atala; Yuanyuan Zhang Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol Date: 2022-05-23