| Literature DB >> 35511745 |
Junzhi Yi1,2,3, Jiayan Zhang1,2,3, Qin Zhang1,2,3,4, Xuri Chen1,2,3, Rujie Qi1,2,3, Renjie Liang1,2,3, Ying Wang1,2,3, Fei Wang1,2,3, Yuliang Zhong1,2,3, Xianzhu Zhang1,2,3, Grace Chin1,2,3, Qi Liu1,2,3, Wenyan Zhou1,2,3, Hua Liu1,2,3, Jiansong Chen5, Hongwei Ouyang1,2,3,6.
Abstract
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been widely used as functional components in tissue engineering. However, the immunogenicity and limited pro-angiogenic efficacy of MSCs greatly limited their pro-regenerative ability in allogenic treatment. Herein, utilizing a chemically defined cocktail in the culture system, including cytokines, small molecules, structural protein, and other essential components, we generated the immunoprivileged and pro-angiogenic cells (IACs) derived from human adipose tissues. Conventional adipose-derived MSCs (cADSCs) were used as a control in all the experiments. IACs show typical MSC properties with enhanced stemness capacity and a robust safety profile. IACs induce a significantly milder immune response of allogenic peripheral blood mononuclear cells in an H3K27me3-HLA axis-dependent manner. IACs, through superior paracrine effects, further promote nitric oxide production, anti-apoptotic ability, and the tube formation of human vein endothelial cells. Embedded in a photo-reactive hydrogel (Gel) termed as GelMA/HA-NB/LAP for tissue engineering treatment, IACs promote faster tissue regeneration in a xenogeneic full-thickness skin defect model, eliciting a milder immune response and enhanced blood vessel formation in IACs-treated defect areas. Together with its excellent pro-regenerative potential and robust safety, our findings suggest that IACs may be a promising candidate for clinically relevant stem cell and tissue engineering therapeutics.Entities:
Keywords: angiogenesis; immunogenicity; mesenchymal stem cells; tissue engineering
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35511745 PMCID: PMC9154331 DOI: 10.1093/stcltm/szac016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med ISSN: 2157-6564 Impact factor: 7.655
Figure 1.Screening of culture factors. (A) Screening of essential components (n = 4). (B) Screening of growth factors. “E” represents essential components including Insulin-Transferrin-Selenium (ITS) and NaCO3 (n = 4). (C and D) Screening of small molecules. “G” represents growth factors including bFGF, TGF-β1, PDGF-AB, and PDGF-BB. S1 represents part of small molecules including lipid concentrate (lipid), hydrocortisone (hycort), and progesterone (prog) (n = 4). (E) Screening of adhesive factors. S2 represents other parts of small molecules including putrescine (put), vitamin C (Vit C), and heparin sodium (heparin). FN represents fibronectin (n = 4). **P < .01.
Figure 2.The typical properties of IACs. (A) Schematic illustration of the generation of IACs. (B) Population doubling time (PDT) for IACs and cADSCs (n = 3). (C and D) Surface marker analysis of IAC and cADSC by flow cytometry. The gray peaks indicate the isotype control. (E) Representative morphology of cADSCs and IACs in the light field (right panel) and IF staining of Phalloidin and DAPI (left panel). Scale bar = 120 μm (left panel), scale bar = 50 μm (right panel). (F–H) Alizarin red (F), Alcian blue (G), and oil red (H) staining of osteogenic cells, chondrogenic pellets, and adipogenic cells. Quantification is respectively showed at corresponding right panel (n = 4), scale bar = 150 μm in F and H. (I) Colony formation assay of cADSCs and IACs in 6-well plate. A relative number of clones is counted at the right panel (n = 4). (J) Representative images of IF staining and corresponding quantification of C-Myc protein level for cADSCs and IACs (n = 4). Scale bar = 30 μm. *P < .05, **P < .01.
Figure 3.RNA-seq analysis of cADSCs and IACs. (A and B) KEGG analysis of the upregulated pathways of IACs at P3 (A) and P5 (B). (C–E) WB validation for the upregulation of PI3K-Akt pathway (C), FAK pathway (D), and PPAR pathway (E) by testing the key proteins in these pathways. Quantification is shown at the corresponding right panel (n = 4). (F) The expression levels of key genes that related to immunogenicity from RNA-seq data (n = 3). (G) The logic flow of our inference about the advantages of IACs according to RNA-seq data. *P < .05, **P < .01.
Figure 4.The immunoprivilege of IACs compared with cADSCs. (A and B) Representative images and quantification of IF staining of HLA-ABC (A) and HLA-G (B) in IACs and cADSCs (n = 3). Scale bar = 50 μm. (C and D) RT-qPCR evaluating the mRNA levels of HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, B2M (C), and HLA-G (D) in cADSC and IACs (n = 3). (E) Schematic illustration of the co-culture experiments. (F) ELISA assay of secreted IFN-γ and TNF-α content in supernatants relative to PBMCs alone group (n = 3). (G) CCK8 analysis of the cell viability of nADSC and IACs (n = 3). (H) WB analysis of H3K27me3 protein expression in cADSCs and IACs with or without the inhibitor of H3K27me3 (H3K27me3i). (I and J) Flow cytometry analysis of HLA-ABC expression in cADSCs and IACs with or without H3K27me3i (I) and corresponding quantification (J) (n = 3). (K) Secreted IFN-γ and TNF-α content and the cell viability assay after co-culture with PBMCs (n = 3). *P < .05, **P < .01.
Figure 5.The enhanced pro-angiogenic effect of IACs compared with cADSCs. (A) Schematic illustration of the analysis of secreted factors (Aa), the effect of conditioned media (CM) toward HUVEC tube formation (Ab), and the effects of CM toward the eNOS expression, NO production and apoptosis of aHUVECs (Ac). (B) Heatmap illustrating the upregulated pro-angiogenic genes of IACs. (C, D, and E) The expressions of pro-angiogenic cytokines, HGF (C) and MMP13 (D), and antiangiogenesis-related cytokines PAl1 (E) of IACs and cADSCs (n = 4). (F) Tube formation of HUVECs in control medium, cADSCs-CM, and the IACs-CM. The right panel is the quantification (n = 4). Scale bar = 250 μm. (G) Representative images of IF staining and the quantification of eNOS protein expression in aHUVECs treated with control medium, cADSCs-CM and IACs-CM (n = 3). Scale bar = 50 μm. (H) Flow cytometry analysis of NO production in aHUVECs. (I) Western blot illustrating the Bcl2 and cleaved caspase-3 expression in aHUVECs. The quantification is presented at the right panel (n = 4). *P < .05, **P < .01.
Figure 6.Xeno-transplantation of IACs with Gel further promotes skin repair. (A) A schematic protocol for skin repair by the cells incorporated in the Gel. (B) Gross view illustrating the skin regeneration in control, Gel, Gel + cADSCs, and Gel + IACs group at day 0, 7, and 21. Scale bar = 2 mm. (C and D) Quantified skin wound area at day 7 (C) and scar area at day 21 (D) for the 4 groups (n = 4). (E and F) Quantification of relative re-epithelialization area at day 7 (E) and relative appendage number at day 21 (F) according to histological HaE staining (n = 4). (G) Histological evaluation of the repaired skin by HE staining. Low magnifications: scale bar = 500 μm. High magnifications: scale bar = 125 μm. Arrowheads indicate the border between normal and regenerated tissues. Arrows indicate the terminal point of re-epithelialization. *P < .05, **P < .01.
Figure 7.The immune microenvironment and angiogenic microenvironment of wound area at day 7. (A) A schematic illustration of the content of Fig. 8. (B) IF staining of human nuclear antigen (HNA) (n = 4). Scale bar = 50 μm. Inner scale bar = 12 μm. (C–F) RT-qPCR analyzing the markers of CD3 (C), MPO (D), CD206 (E), CD11c (E), CD34 (F) and CD133 (F) at mRNA levels for control, Gel, Gel+ADSCs and Gel + IACs group (n = 4). (G and H) IF staining of CD3 (G) and MPO (H) for the 4 groups. Scale bar = 50 μm. (I and J) Immunochemistry staining of CD206 (I), CD11c (I), CD34 (J), and CD133 (J) for the 4 groups. Scale bar = 50 μm. (K) Quantification of protein levels of CD3, MPO, CD206, CD11c, CD133, and CD34 (n = 3). *P < .05, **P < .01.