| Literature DB >> 34266496 |
Chijimatsu Ryota1, Miwa Satoshi2, Okamura Gensuke3, Miyahara Junya2, Tachibana Naohiro2, Ishikura Hisatoshi2, Higuchi Junya2, Maenohara Yuji2, Tsuji Shinsaku4, Sameshima Shin2, Takagi Kentaro2, Nakazato Keiu2, Kawaguchi Kohei2, Yamagami Ryota2, Inui Hiroshi2, Taketomi Shuji2, Sakae Tanaka2, Taku Saito2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Somatic stem cell transplantation has been performed for cartilage injury, but the reparative mechanisms are still conflicting. The chondrogenic potential of stem cells are thought as promising features for cartilage therapy; however, the correlation between their potential for chondrogenesis in vitro and in vivo remains undefined. The purpose of this study was to investigate the intrinsic chondrogenic condition depends on cell types and explore an indicator to select useful stem cells for cartilage regeneration.Entities:
Keywords: Adipose stem cells; Chondrogenesis; Somatic stem cells; Stem cell transplantation,; Synovial stem cells; Transforming growth factor β (TGF-β)
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34266496 PMCID: PMC8281654 DOI: 10.1186/s13287-021-02485-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther ISSN: 1757-6512 Impact factor: 6.832
Fig. 1Chondrogenic potential of mASCs and mSSCs in the supplementation with BMP2 and/or TGFβ1. A, C Macroscopic view and histological images for chondrogenic pellet of cultured with BMP2 and/or TGFβ1 for 14 days. Representative data are shown (N = from over three lots). Scale bars = 1 mm (macro view and low-magnification histology) and 100 μm (high-magnification histology). B, D Quantification of IHC positive stained area expressed as a box plot with a dot plot. Significance was assessed using one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey honestly significant (HSD) difference test (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01)
Fig. 2In vivo chondrogenic differentiation of mASCs and mSSCs. A–C Mouse osteochondral model of non-transplanted, mASCs-transplanted, and mSSCs-transplanted group at day 21. Micro CT and histological images with the qualification for their positive stained area in the region of approximately 0.5 mm width and 0.4 mm depth are shown. Scale bars = 1 mm (μCT), 500 μm (Saf-O), and 100 μm (IHC images). Significance was assessed using one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey HSD test (a, p < 0.05 compared with defect; b, p < 0.05 compared with mASCs; c, p < 0.05 compared with mSSCs). D IHC for GFP counterstained with Alcian blue. Arrow heads indicate host derived cells. Representative data are shown (N = 5 for the GFP-mSSC transplantation group and N = 4 for the WT-mSSC transplantation). Scale bars = 50 μm. E Representative images for Saf-O and IHC for COL10 of the specimens of mSSC-transplanted group at 6 weeks. Break line indicates the area for neo-cartilaginous tissue. Scale bars = 50 μm. Significance of COL10-positive area between 3 and 6 weeks was assessed using Student’s unpaired t test (**, p < 0.01). F Micro CT images and their analysis for bone volume of total volume (approximately 0.5 mm width and 0.4 mm depth) and bone maturity calculated according to bone mineral component in bone volume. Scale bars = 1 mm. Significance was assessed using one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey honestly significant (HSD) difference test (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01)
Fig. 3TGFβ superfamily receptors and ligands in mASCs and mSSCs during chondrogenic culture. A, D Gene expression levels for TGFβ superfamily receptors and ligands in day 0 pellet of mSSCs and mASCs. Data are collected from over three independent lots and presented as a box plot with dot plot. Significance was assessed using Student’s unpaired t test (**, p < 0.01). B Western blot analysis of Smads in mSSCs and mASCs in chondrogenic culture. Representative images from two or three lots are shown. Signal intensity of pSmad1/5 and pSmad2 relative to GAPDH are shown as line graph which shape of points represent individual cell lots. C Saf-O images with the box plot for their positive stained area of histology from mSSCs and mASCs cultured with BMP2, TGFβ1, SB-431542 (SB), and/or LDN-193189 (LDN) for 14 days. Scale bars = 500 μm. Significance was assessed using one-way ANOVA with Dunnet test (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01)
Fig. 4Chondrogenic potential of hASCs and hSSCs in the supplementation with BMP2 and/or TGFβ1. A, C Macroscopic view and histological images for chondrogenic pellet of cultured with BMP2, TGFβ1, or BMP2+ TGFβ1 (B + T) for 28 days. Representative data from six donors are shown. Scale bars = 1 mm (low magnified histology shown as inbox) and 500 μm (macro view and histological images). B, D Quantification of histological images. Data are expressed as a bar plot with a dot plot. Significance among chondrogenic factors was assessed using two-way ANOVA with post hoc Turkey HSD test (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01)
Fig. 5Gene profiling of hASCs and hSSCs before chondrogenic culture. A, B Principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster dendrogram based on gene profile. C Heatmap plotted with log2(TPM + 1) value of TGFβ superfamily receptors and ligands
Fig. 6In vivo chondrogenic potential of hASCs and hSSCs in SCID mice osteochondral model. A, B Micro CT images and histological images with the qualification for their positive stained area in new formed tissues at day 28 after cell transplantation. Representative images are shown (N = 4 knees for each cells). Values are expressed as a bar plot with a dot plot. Scale bars = 1 mm (μCT) and 100 μm (histological images)