Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Adipose Tissue-Derived Adult Stem Cells
Published in Richard K. Burt, Alberto M. Marmont, Stem Cell Therapy for Autoimmune Disease, 2019
Laura Aust, Lyndon Cooper, Blythe Devlin, Tracey du Laney, Sandra Foster, Jeffrey M. Gimble, Farshid Guilak, Yuan Di C. Halvorsen, Kevin Hicok, Amy Kloster, Henry E. Rice, Anindita Sen, Robert W. Storms, William O. Wilkison
After expansion in culture, the primary isolated human ADAS cells display a distinct phenotype based on cell surface protein expression (characterized by flow cytometric analysis) and cytokine expression (characterized by polymerase chain reaction and ELISA) (Table 2). The profile is similar, but not identical, to that described for human bone marrow stromal cells.10 For example, unlike human bone marrow stromal cells, ADAS cells do not express the STRO-1 (a marker of osteoprogenitor stem cells) surface antigen or the interleukin 1 cytokines.10,21 The ADAS surface protein phenotype is also similar to that described for skeletal muscle derived adult stem cells. 14a,b Both populations express the common acute lymphoblastic leukemia antigen (CD10), aminopeptidase (CD13), and the major histocompatibility antigen class I; however, unlike muscle derived adult stem cells, ADAS cells do not express the neural cell adhesion molecule or N-CAM (CD56).14a,22
Role of STRO-1 sorting of porcine dental germ stem cells in dental stem cell-mediated bone tissue engineering
Published in Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology, 2018
Gorke Gurel Pekozer, Mustafa Ramazanoglu, Karl Andreas Schlegel, Fatma Nese Kok, Gamze Torun Kose
Overall, in this study, STRO-1(+) cells were found clonogenic but did not perform obviously better in osteogenic conditions. In accordance with our studies, STRO-1(+) rat dental stem cells were compared with unsorted cells for their odontogenic capacity by Yang et al. (2007) [29] and STRO-1(+) cells did not exhibit a better performance compared to unsorted cells. Yan et al. (2014) [22] also compared STRO-1(+) and unsorted periodontal ligament stem cells and did not observe any superiority of STRO-1(+) fraction in terms of osteogenic differentiation. Besides, STRO-1(−) pTGSCs also differentiated towards osteogenic lineage as shown in this study by mineralization and expression of osteogenic proteins. Since STRO-1 surface marker distinguishes the cells with the immature stem cell phenotype, the remaining cells present in STRO-1(−) group might contain cells committed to osteogenic lineages. Thus, this situation may account for the comparable osteogenic differentiation of STRO-1(−) and US pTGSCS with STRO-1(+) pTGSCs. On the other hand, several studies showed the superior performance of STRO-1(+) fraction in osteogenic differentiation [10,23,30]. The reason for the differences observed by different researchers can be explained with differences in isolation methods, batch-to-batch variation, and the impurity of cell populations [23].
Osteogenic and odontogenic differentiation potential of dental pulp stem cells isolated from inflamed dental pulp tissues (I-DPSCs) by two different methods
Published in Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 2020
Vellore Kannan Gopinath, S. Soumya, Manju Nidagodu Jayakumar
As suggested by the International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT), if the isolated cells to be confirmed as MSC they should satisfy the minimum requirements such as plastic adherence, expression of positive surface antigens and its multipotent differentiation ability under suitable culture conditions [36]. Herein; both the isolated cells displayed the spindle shaped fibroblastic morphology satisfying the first requirement of plastic adherence. However, further cellular and molecular level characterization is necessary to qualify the cells isolated to be as of the mesenchymal lineage. There are different methods available in literature for cellular and molecular level characterization. This includes immunofluorescence, flow cytometry and immunoblotting. In this particular study, flow cytometry was employed to study the phenotypic characterization of cells isolated [37]. For the positive marker expression studies by flow cytometry, a panel of three positive cluster of differentiation markers such as CD-90, 73 and 105 were selected along with negative haematopoietic markers CD-14 and CD-45. The surface characterization of cells isolated by these methods showed >95% expression for CD-90 and CD-105 in both the cell groups with CD-73 showed only ∼60% positivity. In contrary, the perivascular marker STRO-1 was negative in both the isolated cell groups compared to DPSC positive control. Our results were in accordance with one of the studies wherein, the isolated DPSCs from healthy permanent teeth were negative for STRO-1 [38]. Though STRO-1 is employed nowadays to identify the Mesenchymal stem cell population in tissues, studies suggests that it cannot be considered as a single marker for stem cells as it shows varying degrees of expression in tissues [39]. In one of the studies by Alongi et al. [13], the STRO-1 expression analysed for IDPSCS between different patients showed remarkable differences in expression with one patient tissue showing almost 21% and the other one with ∼2%. Interindividual variation among donors could be one of the reasons for varying expression of STRO-1. The absence of haematopoietic cell markers such as CD-14 and CD-45 proved the cells are having the mesenchymal origin than the haematopoietic origin [40].