Stem Cells
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


First published online August 9, 2007
Stem Cells Vol. 25 No. 11 November 2007, pp. 2886 -2895
doi:10.1634/stemcells.2007-0417; www.StemCells.com
© 2007 AlphaMed Press

OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE
This Article
Free via Open Access: OA
Right arrow OA Abstract
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrowOA All Versions of this Article:
2007-0417v1
25/11/2886    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Can, A.
Right arrow Articles by Karahuseyinoglu, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Can, A.
Right arrow Articles by Karahuseyinoglu, S.

TRANSLATIONAL AND CLINICAL RESEARCH: MESENCHYMAL STEM CELLS SERIES

Concise Review: Human Umbilical Cord Stroma with Regard to the Source of Fetus-Derived Stem Cells

Alp Can, Sercin Karahuseyinoglu

Laboratory for Stem Cell Research, Department of Histology and Embryology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Sihhiye, Ankara, Turkey

Key Words. Umbilical cord • Mesenchymal stem cell • Differentiation • Stroma • Wharton's jelly

Correspondence: Alp Can, M.D., Department of Histology and Embryology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Sihhiye, Ankara 06100, Turkey. Telephone: +90 533 7136967; Fax: +90 312 3106370; e-mail: alpcan{at}medicine.ankara.edu.tr

Received on June 5, 2007; accepted for publication on July 27, 2007.

First published online in STEM CELLS EXPRESS  August 9, 2007.

    ABSTRACT
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Cellular and Extracellular...
 Isolation and Culture of...
 In Vitro Differentiation...
 In Vivo Transplantation...
 Conclusion and Future...
 Disclosure of Potential...
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Human umbilical cord (UC) has been a tissue of increasing interest in recent years. Many groups have shown the stem cell potency of stromal cells isolated from the human UC mesenchymal tissue, namely, Wharton's jelly. Since UC is a postnatal organ discarded after birth, the collection of cells does not require an invasive procedure with ethical concerns. Stromal cells, as the dominant cells of this fetus-derived tissue, possess multipotent properties between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. They bear a relatively higher proliferation rate and self-renewal capacity. Although they share common surface markers with bone marrow-derived MSCs, they also express certain embryonic stem cell markers, albeit in low levels. Without any spontaneous differentiation, they can be successfully differentiated into mature adipocytes, osteoblasts, chondrocytes, skeletal myocytes, cardiomyocytes, neurons, and endothelial cells. While causing no immunorejection reaction, they effectively function in vivo as dopaminergic neurons, myocytes, and endothelial cells. Given these characteristics, particularly the plasticity and developmental flexibility, UC stromal cells are now considered an alternative source of stem cells and deserve to be examined in long-term clinical trials. This review first aims to document the published findings so far regarding the nature of human UC stroma with special emphasis on the spatial distribution and functional structure of stromal cells and matrix, which serves as a niche for residing cells, and, secondly, to assess the in vitro and in vivo experiments in which differential stem cell potencies were evaluated.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is found at the end of this article.


    INTRODUCTION
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Cellular and Extracellular...
 Isolation and Culture of...
 In Vitro Differentiation...
 In Vivo Transplantation...
 Conclusion and Future...
 Disclosure of Potential...
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
The umbilical cord (UC) represents the link between mother and fetus during pregnancy. It is composed of a special embryonic mucous connective tissue, called Wharton's jelly, lying between the covering amniotic epithelium and the umbilical vessels. The main role of this jelly-like material is to prevent the compression, torsion, and bending of the enclosed vessels, which provide bidirectional blood flow between fetal and maternal circulation.

The UC did not gain enough attention in the 70s and 80s, most probably because of being a discarded material after delivery. Two main questions drove scientists to re-examine the Wharton's jelly stromal cells and extracellular matrix (ECM) composition in the 90s. One was the search for a possible reason and consecutive structural alterations in pre-eclampsia cases. A series of ECM components were found altered in pre-eclamptic patients associated with the "premature ageing" of this tissue [1, 2]. The second reason was the cellular identification of UC stromal cells, which basically resemble mesenchymal fibroblasts found elsewhere during in utero development. Ultrastructural studies indicated that their intrinsic properties were also similar to smooth muscle cells [35], and they are therefore considered myofibroblasts.

In recent years, in parallel to the enormous effort to explore novel and alternative sources of stem cells in the human body, the UC appeared as a promising reservoir of fetal cells that could be readily used as multipotent stem cells. Following the year 2003, a steep increase was noted in studies examining the stem cell potency of these myofibroblastic cells. The published articles in peer-reviewed journals written in English by July 2007 are listed in Table 1. It is very likely that many more will come in the near future, since in vivo tests of in vitro differentiated or undifferentiated UC-derived stem cells are just starting to be examined in several disease models and in regenerative medicine.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 1. Studies concerning the cellular and extracellular matrix components of the human umbilical cord in a historical perspective

 

    CELLULAR AND EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX COMPONENTS OF UMBILICAL CORD
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Cellular and Extracellular...
 Isolation and Culture of...
 In Vitro Differentiation...
 In Vivo Transplantation...
 Conclusion and Future...
 Disclosure of Potential...
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
General Overview
The human UC weighs approximately 40 g, its length reaches to approximately 60–65 cm, and it has a mean diameter of 1.5 cm at term [6, 7]. It is covered by a single/multiple layer(s) of squamous-cubic epithelial cells [8, 9] called umbilical epithelium, which is generally thought to be derived from amniotic epithelium. Those epithelial cells display ultrastructural and functional characteristics to those seen in keratinocytes [10] and were recently shown to possess stem cell characteristics [11].

The inner tissue architecture is composed of a set of two arteries and one vein and a surrounding matrix of mucous connective tissue comprised of specialized fibroblast-like cells and occasional mast cells embedded in an amorphous ground substance rich in proteoglycans, mainly hyaluronic acid. Neither capillaries nor lymphatics are found in the UC. Vessels are normally organized as left spiral (counter clockwise) turns. In clinical practice, determining the "umbilical coiling index" (number of complete coils divided by the length of the cord; average 0.24 coils per centimeter) may identify the fetus at risk [12, 13].

Wharton's jelly appears to serve the function of adventitia, which the UC vessels lack, binding and encasing the umbilical vessels. It has been speculated that the stromal cells of Wharton's jelly may participate in the regulation of UC blood flow and that, at least in some cases, the reduction in fetal growth could be the consequence of stromal diminution leading to hypoplasia of umbilical vessels [14, 15]. Due to many reports and careful examination of cellular and ECM components, human UC shows a tissue compartmentalization in which cellular characteristics and ECM elements differ from each other. At least six distinctive zones are now recognized based on the structural and functional studies, from outer to inner: (a) surface epithelium (amniotic epithelium, UC epithelium), (b) subamniotic stroma, (c) clefts, (d) intervascular stroma (named classically as Wharton's jelly), (e) perivascular stroma, and (f) vessels. Fine structural, immunohistochemical [3, 4, 16, 17], and in vitro functional studies [16, 18] represented that there are significant differences in the number and nature of cells among subamniotic, intervascular, and perivascular regions, which leads to the hypothesis that those regions might be originating from different pre-existing formations. For instance, myofibroblastic cells of the intervascular stroma might have derived from adjacent vascular smooth muscle cells or, alternatively, from pre-existing fibroblasts.

Stromal Cells and Their Spatial Organization
Since structural features and main functions of UC stromal cells resemble those of fibroblasts, they were first recognized as "unusual fibroblasts" [19] and were demonstrated to be structurally responsive to the distension of cord [19]. Moderate quantities of intracytoplasmic glycogen, lipid droplets, and procollagen secretion granules, the presence of a well-developed endoplasmic reticulum with dilated cisternae, and well-developed Golgi complexes with numerous mitochondria [3, 20] directly indicated active protein synthesis and secretion. These findings, together with the demonstration of prolyl-4-hydroxylase, an enzyme involved in collagen synthesis, eventually supported the idea that UC stromal cells are primarily responsible for the synthesis of collagen and other matrix components.

The presence of an extraordinary number of 10-nm-thick intracytoplasmic filaments and gap junction type intercellular communications, as commonly observed at the interface of long cellular processes, was helpful in understanding their nature and validated their classification as "unusual" smooth muscle cells having some kind of contractile properties. Cell surfaces are partially covered by an external lamina [35] mainly composed of collagen type IV, laminin (Fig. 1), and heparan-sulfated proteoglycan [4]. They contain both subplasmalemmal and intracytoplasmic focal dense plaques as typically found in smooth muscle cells [17, 20], whereas no Z discs or striated-muscle filaments are observed. Membranous caveolae [4], pinocytic vesicles beneath the plasma membrane [3], and numerous dense bodies differentially located in the peripheral cytoplasm intermingled with 10-nm-thick filaments [35, 21] were also reported. Those studies also demonstrated the expression of some muscle-specific cytoskeletal filaments in stromal cells, a finding that supports the notion that, rather than fibroblasts or smooth muscle cells, they are true "myofibroblasts," a term that was firstly used by Majno et al. [22] to define cells that exhibit some of the ultrastructural features of both smooth muscle cells and fibroblasts. Specifically, contractile proteins such as actin, nonmuscle myosin, desmin, and {alpha}-smooth muscle actin, a marker for myofibroblasts [23], are differentially expressed in stromal cells [35, 16, 21], whereas muscle-myosin is lacking [3]. Depending on the above findings, it was suggested that these cells possibly display specific functions related to both fiber synthesis and organized cell communication and contraction. Supporting evidence was the fact that those cells also express vimentin [3, 4, 16, 24], an intermediate filament protein specifically expressed in mesenchyme-derived cells, such as fibroblasts, and not expressed in smooth muscle cells [25]. The coexistence of vimentin and desmin in these cells supports the hypothesis that they are intrinsically myofibroblasts. Another interesting intermediate filament expressed by the stromal cells is cytokeratin [4, 16, 24], which is basically expressed in endoderm and ectoderm originated epithelial cells [25]. Although Nanaev et al. [4] did not find any significant expression of cytokeratins in stromal cells but in subamniotic epithelium, Karahuseyinoglu et al. [16] have demonstrated that cells of the perivascular region were strongly positive for cytokeratin filaments.


Figure 1
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Figure 1. Laminin distribution (green signal) in human umbilical cord stromal cells (nuclei in red). (A): Laminin is predominantly found in the basal lamina underlying the amnion epithelium. Tiny laminin foci corresponds to loosely arranged subamniotic stromal cells. (B): A stronger laminin expression is observed around the cells of the intervascular stroma, in which many cross-sectional cellular processes were also viewed. (C): Laminin is predominantly found in the perivascular stroma ensheathing the entire cells. (D): Smooth muscle cells of the vascular wall are intensively positive for laminin; scale bar = 50 µm. Human cord samples were obtained from term deliveries (n = 26), frozen, cut 8 µm in thickness, and labeled with anti-laminin mouse monoclonal antibody (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, http://www.sigmaaldrich.com) (1:100, 90 minutes at 37°C) and fluorescein isothiocyanate-conjugated IgG. Nuclei were labeled with anti-human nuclei antibody (Chemicon, Temecula, CA, http://www.chemicon.com) (1:200, 60 minutes at 37°C) and Cy3-conjugated IgG.

 
The next question was whether these myofibroblasts are derived from adjacent vascular smooth muscle cells based on their morphological similarity, contractile properties, similar responses to some reagents that contract or relax smooth muscle cells, and immunopositive reaction to anti-smooth muscle antibodies. To date, no direct evidence has been published to support this assumption. However, after recognizing that stromal cells vary in structure and display differential localization within the UC, a regional approach to study and explain the differences and origins of stromal cells would be mandatory to answer this question. A gradual change in morphological and probably functional properties of cells during the course of pregnancy was also noted [4, 5]. For instance, the number of {alpha}-smooth muscle actin increases with increasing weeks of pregnancy. In fact, the density of cells in a given section differs among subamniotic, intervascular, and perivascular areas. Cell frequency is considerably low in subamniotic regions, whereas perivascular areas possess the highest cell density [3, 4, 16]. Intervascular cells possess longer and more numerous cytoplasmic processes than do perivascular cells [3]. Further analyses revealed a clearly defined spatial differentiation gradient with increasing cytoskeletal complexity in human UC stromal cells from the superficial layers toward the blood vessels [4, 5]. In parallel to this increasing differentiation status, a gradual decrease from outer to inner cells was noted in the proliferation rate of stromal cells [4]. Conclusively, the immature cells retaining the ability to proliferate are located close to the amniotic surface, whereas highly differentiated perivascular cells are found in closer proximity to the umbilical vessels.

Extracellular Matrix
Since the UC is the vital and exclusive connection providing the bidirectional blood flow between maternal and fetal sites, mechanical property of this tissue is extremely important. The consistency that prevents UC vessels from bending and occluding is mainly associated with the structure of the ECM, which has a unique tissue structure in terms of the compositions of connective tissue fibers and related soluble proteins. The first observations of the ECM in the 50s and 60s reporting the collagen skeleton in close association with the amorphous ground substance [19, 26, 27] were confirmed by later studies. The most abundant fibrillar component of the intercellular stroma as arranged in wavy thick bundles is definitely collagen fibers, whereas elastic fibers are absent [28]. Although it is a minor collagen form, the first type to be demonstrated by both immunohistochemistry and PCR was type VII collagen, found predominantly in the basal portion of the umbilical epithelium and in cultured stromal cells [29]. The extremely low solubility of collagen by chemical or organic substances [1, 30] implied that they build strong ionic bonds with glycosaminoglycans and proteoglycans, therefore providing the stroma with an extraordinary strength [30]. The spongy network of interlacing collagen fibers in a continuous soft skeleton enclosing a wide system of interconnected cavities and canaliculi-like structures, collectively defined as clefts, was thought to have a mechanical role that allowed consistency of the ground substance during twisting or compression as reported by Vizza et al. [31]. A regional distribution of collagen fibers was first noted by Nanaev et al. [4], who showed collagen types I, III, and VI in the subamniotic and intervascular regions as well as in the vessel walls. Type IV was found in both the umbilical epithelium basement membrane and external lamina of subamniotic stromal cells, whereas type VII was restricted to the epithelial basement membrane in term cord. More quantitative studies by Sobolewski et al. [30] regarding the amount of collagen showed that collagen comprised 50% of defatted, dry tissue of UC. Type I and type III collagens were found to be the most abundant forms in the intervascular region and arterial wall, that is, the amount of collagen in the stroma was reported as four times higher than in the artery wall [30]. Moreover, the ratio of type I/III was reported to be almost twice as much in arterial wall as compared with intervascular stroma [30]. Therefore, it was concluded that the resistance of collagen in the intervascular stroma to the action of collagen-solubilizing solutions may be related to the high amount of type III collagen. Another constituent of the microfibrillar network was found as typical 100-nm periodic filaments of type VI collagen [32].

A second major component of the ECM of Wharton's jelly is the ground substance, mainly composed of glycosaminoglycans (GAGs). The total amount of GAGs in Wharton's jelly is twice as high as that contained in the arteries [30]. A certain amount of GAGs is derived from the mast cells that are predominantly localized in close proximity to blood vessels [33]. Hyaluronic acid (HA), being 70% of all the GAGs, is the most abundant form; the amount of sulfated GAGs (keratin, heparan, dermatan, chondroitin-4, and chondroitin-6 sulfate) is very low, whereas heparin is found only in traceable amounts [30]. The extracellular matrix of the UC is one of the highest hyaluronic acid-containing tissues in humans [34]. However, abnormal amounts of HA in the UC are also linked to the pathogenesis of some structural defects. HA was shown to be synthesized higher than normal levels in the UCs of Down syndrome cases than in euploid UCs [34]. The mobility of HA in the intercellular stroma is reduced both by the collagen network and by the presence of proteoglycan(s) and/or microfibrils [35]. Therefore, reduction in HA mobility due to physical entanglements may play a major role in UC tissue remodeling, since a certain degree of HA mobility is vital to permeate the extracellular space.

The fibrillar component of artificially formed tissue pellets and constructs using UC stroma-derived cells showed that, under certain cultures, conditioned cells tend to accumulate and secrete a reasonable amount of collagen I and II [16, 36] when induced for chondrogenic purposes. Heparin, heparan sulfate, and aggrecan have also been found to synthesize by cultured stromal cells [36].


    ISOLATION AND CULTURE OF STROMAL CELLS
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Cellular and Extracellular...
 Isolation and Culture of...
 In Vitro Differentiation...
 In Vivo Transplantation...
 Conclusion and Future...
 Disclosure of Potential...
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
After delivery, freshly obliterated 15–20-cm-long UC obtained in the operating room should be immediately transported to the laboratory in a sterile and cooled transfer medium such as Hanks' balanced salt solution or Earle's balanced salt solution. If the aim is to retrieve the stroma cells, arteries and veins should be removed under sterile conditions prior to tissue processing (Fig. 2). Removal of vessels is usually accomplished by simply stripping them off the surrounding tissue. Mechanical chopping of the cord is an essential step before enzymatic digestion, since the highly woven intercellular fiber pattern obscures the stromal cells and increases the interacting surface area of digestion reagents. It must be noted that the isolation of cells other than stromal ones generally requires different approaches as described elsewhere [9, 10, 37, 38].


Figure 2
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Figure 2. Isolation of umbilical cord stromal cells is achieved by a severe digestion of intercellular collagen fibers and glycosaminoglycan molecules after removal of blood vessels by a blunt dissection. The entire procedure takes approximately 2–4 hours.

 
The common point of isolation-digestion protocols applied by different investigators is the use of collagenase-containing solutions, which contain strong collagenase activity as well as caseinase, clostripain, and tryptic activities. Type I collagenase is widely used for the isolation of stromal cells [18, 36, 3941]. A combination of collagenase with hyaluronidase facilitates the degradation of matrix ground substance and shortens the time required for isolation process [36, 39, 41]. However, duration of collagenase treatment is critically important, especially if collagenase/hyaluronidase cocktails are used (Can and Karahuseyinoglu, unpublished observations), since there is always a risk of degradation of cellular external lamina, a phenomenon preventing cells from adhering to the culture substrate after isolation and even causing severe cellular damage. Type II collagenase, which is stronger for its clostripain activity, or collagenase type B, which is more efficient in solubilizing the UC microfibrils than other types of collagenases [28], are also preferable [16, 42]. The time required to reach a tissue homogenate ranges from 30 minutes [39] to 16 hours [43] depending on the dose and duration of treatment with digesting reagents. Filtering the digested material through 70–100-µm pore sized sieves usually facilitates the removal of any unwanted tissue debris [44]. Enzymatic digestion may be skipped if obtaining an explant culture is targeted [4547].

Cell harvesting by a tissue digestion procedure should follow a further isolation of stromal cells that would characterize stromal subpopulations depending on their specific cell surface markers. Fluorescence-activated cell sorting and magnetic immunobead separation techniques are generally used to sort and count the interested cells in a relatively short period of time. UC stromal cells have some genetic and surface markers that are also common in MSCs. Table 2 summarizes all of the cell surface markers tested so far by means of PCR, real-time PCR, microarray, and immunocytochemistry techniques. Among these, CD105, CD73, and CD90, which are known to characterize MSCs [48], were consistently found to be positive in UC stromal cells. They do not express hematopoietic stem cell markers such as CD45, CD34, and human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DR, which are also lacking in MSCs [48]. However, some discrepancies among groups were reported. Sarugaser et al. [18] found that HLA-1 expression is only stable up to five passages and is lost after cryopreservation, whereas Weiss et al. [41] did not find any change throughout the passages. These and similar findings (Table 2) are most likely due to the epigenetic factors caused by varying culture conditions. Nonetheless, UC stromal cells are generally considered MSC-like cells, a hypothesis that is supported by many studies regarding the in vitro and in vivo differentiation potentials (see below). Stromal cells were also found to express low levels of some transcriptional factors that are mainly expressed in embryonic stem cells such as Oct-4 [41] and Nanog [46], both at the mRNA and protein levels. Additionally, these cells were found to express a low amount of Wnt-signaling pathway molecules; however, they do possess the canonical Wnt transduction mechanisms [49]. Given that these factors are among the key regulators of self-renewal and pluripotency in stem cells [50, 51], it is therefore possible to assume that UC stromal cells use similar regulatory mechanisms as embryonic stem cells, especially when dissociated from the microenvironment that can be considered their niche. Further characterization of these MSC-like cells and their niche is inevitable to fully estimate their responses due to varying differentiation recipes.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 2. Cell surface markers of stromal cells in the human (reference [55] in porcine) UC detected by either protein, mRNA, or gene expression assays

 
Freshly isolated and plated cells principally display a fibroblast-like appearance over the first culture period that lasts approximately 10–15 days until the first passage. However, some groups reported that there is more than one phenotype of cells grown in cultures and continued up to later passages [16, 18]. Population doubling time, which was found to be approximately 60–85 hours in early passages [16, 18], dramatically declines as the passage number proceeds [16, 18], and the number of population doublings varies among different groups [16, 41, 44, 47], ranging from 20–60 until cells reach a replicative senescence without any sign of abnormal karyotype. Given these relatively high variations among laboratories, it is realistic to suppose that isolated UC stromal cells contain more than one set of stem cell populations or, more likely, they contain a subset of primitive stem cells, a hypothesis that is our current task to unravel.

An important issue of interest in adult stem cell studies is the availability of the source and the efficacy of isolation techniques to yield a reasonable amount of viable cells to expand. Therefore, the expansion efficiency of UC stromal cells without spontaneous differentiation is critical before they are induced to differentiate. Although the frequency of bone marrow stromal cells is often reported to range from 1–10 MSCs in a total of 106 bone marrow mononuclear cells [52, 53], the harvesting ratio of stromal cells in cord stroma is found to be relatively high (4 x 105 cells per sample, 10 x 103–5 cells per centimeter of cord) [16, 41, 42]. UC stromal cells successfully served as a feeder layer during expansion of equine embryonic stem cells derived from the inner cell mass for more than 350 divisions without any supplementation of leukemia inhibitory factor [54].

Telomerase activity (TA) in proliferating cells is an active area of research since, unlike embryonic stem cells and tumorigenic cells, somatic cells display low levels of TA [55]. Few studies dealing with the TA of human UC stromal cells revealed that TA in those cells is higher than in somatic cells of the body. Mitchell et al. [45] showed that TA in isolated porcine UC stroma cells is 10% of carcinoma cells lines, whereas Weiss et al. [41] found that telomerase reverse transcriptase gene expression is elevated in cultured human UC stromal cells. Karahuseyinoglu et al. [16] demonstrated a stable but higher than normal TA in those cells during early passages, which then decreased and reached a level below control HeLa cell lines. Since the transplanted UC stromal cells did not develop any tumorigenic formation [47], it is possible to conclude that UC-derived stem cells have a certain limit of TA that provide cells with the ability to proliferate up to 30–60 divisions but never to a level of tumorigenic state.

In view of the fact that the therapeutic use of stem cells would require freezing of cells in order to store them until thawing whenever needed, freezing conditions of isolated UC stromal cells and viability rates after thawing have to be evaluated. Most researchers prefer to use defined culture media supplemented with high amounts of fetal bovine serum and 7%–10% dimethyl sulfoxide [16, 41] or glycerol [41] and freeze the cells gradually and keep them between –135°C and –196°C [16, 18, 41]. After rapid thawing at 37°C, both viability and expansion of cells were found to be satisfactory, with viability rates over 50% [18]. The use of higher levels of fetal bovine serum especially during the first week after the thaw substantially increased growth rates [16]. Certainly, more controlled studies are needed to maximize the freeze-thaw efficiency, especially when their routine use is concerned in clinical trials.


    IN VITRO DIFFERENTIATION POTENTIAL OF UC STROMAL CELLS
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Cellular and Extracellular...
 Isolation and Culture of...
 In Vitro Differentiation...
 In Vivo Transplantation...
 Conclusion and Future...
 Disclosure of Potential...
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Since a growing body of evidence suggests that human UC stromal cells share a substantial amount of common properties with MSCs (see above), it would be reasonable to examine their differentiation potency in conditioned cultures specifically designed to differentiate MSCs and many other embryonic and adult stem cells into certain lineages. Table 3 summarizes the successfully differentiated lineages using a variety of cell culture techniques and reagents that will not be given here in detail.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 3. In vitro and in vivo differentiation competence of the human umbilical cord stromal cells

 
As the UC stromal cells originated from extraembryonic mesoderm, adipogenic, chondrogenic, osteogenic, cardiomyogenic, and skeletal myogenic inductions have been the most studied cell lineages. Compared with bone marrow MSCs, Karahuseyinoglu et al. [16] demonstrated that UC stromal cells are capable of forming premature adipocytes bearing smaller multilocular lipid droplets. In contrast, Baksh et al. [49] found that UC stromal cells generated significantly more fat-containing cells than bone marrow MSCs by day 21, whereas Lu et al. [42] did not report any significant adipogenic differences between these two cell types. Adipogenically induced cells specifically express adipocyte-specific genes, lipoprotein lipase [42], and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 [16], which suggests that the culture conditions used could mimic the in vivo differentiation and initiate the adipogenic pathways.

Chondrogenic induction was investigated in a few studies using pellet cultures in conditioned media to form three-dimensional cell spheres [16, 43] or polyglycolic scaffolds [36], in which collagen fiber formation, GAG accumulation, and chondrocyte differentiation were examined. One–two-millimeter shiny-surfaced cell spheres resembling articular cartilage were formed within 3 weeks containing many chondrocytes embedded in a mucopolysaccharide-rich stroma [16]. Type II collagen was found to be most abundant [16, 36] as detected by hydroxyproline assays [36] or by immunohistochemistry [16], although type I collagen fibers were also detected, especially in the peripheral area of cell spheres, implying a capsule formation [16]. De novo synthesis of type II collagen fibers, which are normally synthesized by chondroblasts [56], indicates the functional differentiation of UC stromal cells in a cohort behavior.

Osteogenic potency was first demonstrated in 2004 by Wang et al. [43] as the formation of alkaline phosphatase-positive aggregates and von Kossa stained nodules with an associated expression of osteopontin, an osteospecific matricellular protein. Later, Karahuseyinoglu et al. [16] showed that calcium deposition and osteoid formation gradually increased up to 4 weeks, during which bone sialoprotein-2, osteonectin, and osteocalcin appeared during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th weeks, respectively. More specifically, Sarugaser et al. [18] used perivascular cells to build mineralized bone nodules of 300–800 µm in diameter containing a collagenous ECM in their inner structure. Baksh et al. [49] showed that perivascular cells generate a greater extent of mineralization than bone marrow-derived MSCs.

Differentiation into cardiomyocytes or skeletal myocytes of UC stromal cells was less examined. Five-azacytidine, a chemical analogue of the cytosine nucleoside in the DNA and RNA helix, is currently used as a key chemical initiator of myogenic differentiation. Rat cardiac myocyte culture supernatant was added to culture media to differentiate UC stromal cells to cardiac myocytes [43]. Although cardiomyogenically induced cells synthesize {alpha}-sarcomeric actinin and troponin I and T, all of which are cardiac muscle-specific proteins, and N-cadherin, a calcium dependent cell adhesion molecule [43], they did not form any sarcomeres, although Z discs between cells did form as naturally found in mature cardiac myocytes. In many studies examining the regenerative potency of transplanted MSCs, it has been directly or indirectly demonstrated that undifferentiated cells could incorporate into the myocardium and could somehow repair the injured tissue [57]. Therefore, these partly differentiated cells may hold the potency to differentiate into cardiomyocytes when appropriate in vivo signals are received. Recently, differentiation of UC stromal cells into skeletal myocytes has been successfully achieved both in vitro and in vivo (see below) [47].

Obviously, after the pioneering studies published in the late 90s and early 2000s [58, 59], differentiation of MSCs and MSC-like cells into neuronal lineages has been an interesting experimental phenomenon. Initial findings relevant to the in vitro neuron formation of porcine UC matrix cells were published in 2003 [45] in that a relatively complex and multistep neuronal induction procedure, as previously defined by Woodbury et al. [59], was used to transform the cells into a neuronal phenotype within a few days. Consequently, differentiated cells expressed tuj-1 (β-III tubulin), neurofilament (NF), neuron-specific enolase, tyrosine hydroxylase (TH), and growth-associated protein-43. Mitchell et al. [45] also demonstrated that some of the cells in the same cultures exhibited glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and CNPase positivity, indicating that a portion of cells are capable of differentiating into glial cells. Similarly, human UC cells were partially differentiated in vitro into neurons and glia in later studies [16, 41, 42, 60] in which neuronal formation was confirmed by early expressions of NeuN, NF, and GFAP and then later by the expression of functional mRNA responsible for the synthesis of subunits of the kainate receptor and glutamate decarboxylase [60]. More recently, Karahuseyinoglu et al. [16] demonstrated that only a portion of stromal cells is responsive to neuronal induction and suggested that this may be due to the presence of heterogeneous cells populations derived from the UC stroma. Supporting evidence for this came from the study of Sarugaser et al. [18], who showed that perivascular cells could not be differentiated into neurons. Recently, Baksh et al. [49] demonstrated that perivascular cells express elevated levels of CD146. Interestingly, a subpopulation of perivascular cells with no CD146 expression could not be differentiated into mesenchymal lineages.

Ma et al. [61] used a different reagent, a medicinal herb, to induce human stromal cells into neuronal lineages. Whether related or not, they found that when treated with the herb extract, human UC stromal cells were found to express pleiotrophin, a secreted growth factor that induces neurite outgrowth and is mitogenic for fibroblasts and epithelial and endothelial cells [62]. In addition to pleiotrophin, human UC stromal cells were found to secrete several neurotrophic factors, like fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-2 and brain-derived neurotrophic factor [44]. Therefore, the tendency of UC-derived stromal cells to differentiate into neuronal cells may be explained by these intrinsic properties, a hypothesis that is also consistent with the idea that these cells might function by delivery of neurotrophic agents.


    IN VIVO TRANSPLANTATION EXPERIMENTS
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Cellular and Extracellular...
 Isolation and Culture of...
 In Vitro Differentiation...
 In Vivo Transplantation...
 Conclusion and Future...
 Disclosure of Potential...
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
One of the main aims lying behind all studies concerning stem cells is to achieve the capability to use them in regenerative treatment of cell-based diseases. Since UC is one of the most easily reached stem cell sources both ethically and technically, in vivo studies definitely would be worth trying. Compared with other sources of stem cells, especially hematopoietic and nonhematopoietic ones in bone marrow, in vivo studies concerning UC matrix cells are very few in number, although all can be regarded to be quite promising (Table 3). The first attempts involved the xenotransplantation of porcine UC stroma cells into rat brain, in which donor cells were tracked 2–8 weeks after transplantation [63, 64]. It was interesting to note that neither immune rejection nor teratoma formation due to transplanted material was reported. Second, transplanted undifferentiated stromal cells were stained positively with a neurofilament antibody [63] and showed TH positivity [64], which together indicated that donor cells could transform into neurons or neuron precursors in vivo.

Following the above findings, engraftment of human or rat UC cells into rodents was tested to assess whether donor cells could adapt to the recipient organism and function. Two fundamental approaches were applied after isolation and expansion of cells: transplantation of cells into animal tissues in undifferentiated [41, 47] or, rarely, in differentiated forms [40]. Experimental Parkinsonian models were used to examine the recovery effects of transplanted cells in the 6-hydroxydopamine-induced brains. Weiss et al. [41] and Fu et al. [40] demonstrated that a significant decrease was noted in amphetamine-induced rotation of Parkinsonian rats by transplantation of undifferentiated UC stroma cells. Both groups also managed to induce human UC stromal cells into TH (+) dopaminergic neurons in vitro. Prior to transplantation, Fu et al. [40] induced them by a combination of sonic hedgehog protein and FGF-8 and developed TH (+), glutamate decarboxylase (+), and dopamine β-hydroxylase (+) neurons. In vitro differentiated dopaminergic cells were then transplanted into rat striatum, which had previously been damaged by 6-hydroxydopamine. Weiss et al. [41] used a similar method to transplant undifferentiated human UC stromal cells to rat striatum. Detailed work for characterization of human UC stroma cells before transplantation revealed the expression of genes related to morphogenesis, extracellular adhesion molecules, neurotrophic factors, and three germ layer derivatives. An interesting finding was that, although cells were recovered 2 days following transplantation, none were found at 6 or 12 weeks after transplantation [41]. In contrast, in a study by Fu et al. [40], transplanted TH (+) cells were detected 20 weeks after transplantation and were found to have migrated from the engraftment site. The efficacy of the stem cell treatment was determined by a decrease in the rotation behavior of transplanted animals; therefore, both groups reported a significant improvement in the behavioral recovery in a relatively long-term post-transplantation period. Although rat UC stroma was used as a stem cell source, it would be reasonable to mention the study by Jomura et al. [39], who demonstrated a decrease in neuronal loss in global cerebral ischemia when pretreated with UC stromal cells. Therefore, besides the catecholamine-synthesizing neuronal recovery attempts, studies concerning the rescue of ischemic areas in animal models also seem promising. Lund et al. [44], on the other hand, used human UC cells and human placenta-derived stromal cells to treat retinal nerve denervation in rats. Comparative results revealed a higher rescue of photoreceptor neurons obtained by UC stroma cells relative to placenta-derived cells.

In a recent study by Wu et al. [65], human UC stromal cells were differentiated into endothelial cells both in vitro and in vivo. They were induced to form endothelial cells by basic FGF and vascular endothelial growth factor and transplanted into the hind limb ischemia model of nude mice, where they differentiated into endothelial-lineage cells in vivo and subsequently became involved in the vessel network.

Cells with limited regenerative capacity, such as skeletal myocytes, are also of interest, since musculoskeletal injuries are very common. Conconi et al. [47] showed the in vitro differentiation of CD105 (+) human UC cells into skeletal myocytes, which were used to treat the bupivacaine-injured tibialis anterior muscle of rats. A striking common aspect emerging from in vivo studies is the absence of any graft rejection, which strongly gives credence to the safe use of those cells for treatment purposes, even in xenotransplantation trials.


    CONCLUSION AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Cellular and Extracellular...
 Isolation and Culture of...
 In Vitro Differentiation...
 In Vivo Transplantation...
 Conclusion and Future...
 Disclosure of Potential...
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Over the past 5 years, we have witnessed growing evidence clearly indicating that the microenvironment of mammalian UC and the intrinsic properties of residing cells have to be considered as a valuable source of stem cells to be used in the future for both autologous and allogeneic transplantations. They can be harvested after birth with low cost, cryogenically stored, thawed, and efficiently expanded for therapeutic purposes. In many lineages tested so far, they seem to give promising results in regenerative therapeutic applications, especially in orthopedic and cartilaginous interventions. It was recently demonstrated that they display a tremendous cell growth rate on bioabsorbable polymer constructs [66]. They were seeded onto pulmonary blood vessel conduits fabricated from rapidly bioabsorbable polymers and were successfully grown in vitro in a pulse duplicator bioreactor [67]. Recently, living patches engineered from UC-derived stromal cells and cord-derived endothelial precursor cells have been tested for potential use in human pediatric cardiovascular tissue engineering [68].

It was also shown by several experiments that UC-derived stromal cells are more efficient in terms of stem cell potency as compared with bone-marrow derived MSCs. Additionally, the shorter doubling time of cultured UC-derived stem cells compared with bone marrow MSCs [69] would give an easier and rapid propagation of these cells. Also, they do not require feeder layers or high serum concentrations to be expanded. Together with the distinct advantages of the UC, such as accessibility with little or no ethical concerns and painless procedures to donors with lower risk of viral contamination, it is generally accepted that the UC should be considered as an alternative to bone marrow. The ability to introduce exogenous DNA into the perivascular cells of UC stroma [49] makes them potent stem cells for gene therapies similar to bone marrow-derived MSCs [70]. Most recently, interferon-β expressing UC stromal cells were targeted to experimentally developed lung tumors by i.v. and subcutaneous injections and were found to significantly reduce the tumor burden [71], which indicated the usability of UC stromal cells in cancer gene therapy.

There has been a great interest in the search for novel and potent stem cell sources in the human body. As a result, a huge number of publications and meeting abstracts emerged presented by scientists, physicians, and all professionals of the relevant sectors in recent years. However, it is becoming clear that all of us need to be more cautious than ever in elucidating and interpolating our results and hopes for the future, especially for therapeutic solutions. Looking at ongoing clinical trials, it is too soon to tell whether all therapies based on stem cells will prove to be clinically effective. Nevertheless, following a sufficient number of animal experiments and clinical studies, the use of UC-derived stromal cells should be technically and ethically approved to test their ultimate potency in such diverse disease models. All we need to do as researchers in the field of UC-derived stem cells is to organize and reach a consensus on the characterization, freezing/thawing, and expansion of clinical grade cells for therapies and tissue engineering, as also suggested by Weiss and Troyer [72].


    DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Cellular and Extracellular...
 Isolation and Culture of...
 In Vitro Differentiation...
 In Vivo Transplantation...
 Conclusion and Future...
 Disclosure of Potential...
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
The authors indicate no potential conflicts of interest.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Cellular and Extracellular...
 Isolation and Culture of...
 In Vitro Differentiation...
 In Vivo Transplantation...
 Conclusion and Future...
 Disclosure of Potential...
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Due to space limitations, the authors apologize if any related study has not been cited here. We thank Dr. Fadil Kara for generously providing human UCs obtained from cesarean sections. This and related laboratory work has been financially supported by Ankara University Biotechnology Institute project number 2005-180 and TUBITAK-106S036-95. S.K. is currently affiliated with Suleymaniye Maternity Hospital IVF Clinics, Eminonu, Istanbul, Turkey.


    REFERENCES
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Cellular and Extracellular...
 Isolation and Culture of...
 In Vitro Differentiation...
 In Vivo Transplantation...
 Conclusion and Future...
 Disclosure of Potential...
 Acknowledgments
 References
 

  1. Bankowski E, Sobolewski K, Romanowicz L et al. Collagen and glycosaminoglycans of Wharton's jelly and their alterations in EPH-gestosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996;66:109–117.[CrossRef][Medline]

  2. Bankowski E, Sobolewski K, Palka J et al. Decreased expression of the insulin-like growth factor-I-binding protein-1 (IGFBP-1) phosphoisoform in pre-eclamptic Wharton's jelly and its role in the regulation of collagen biosynthesis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004;42:175–181.[CrossRef][Medline]

  3. Takechi K, Kuwabara Y, Mizuno M. Ultrastructural and immunohistochemical studies of Wharton's jelly umbilical cord cells. Placenta 1993;14:235–245.[CrossRef][Medline]

  4. Nanaev AK, Kohnen G, Milovanov AP et al. Stromal differentiation and architecture of the human umbilical cord. Placenta 1997;18:53–64.[Medline]

  5. Kobayashi K, Kubota T, Aso T. Study on myofibroblast differentiation in the stromal cells of Wharton's jelly: Expression and localization of alpha-smooth muscle actin. Early Hum Dev 1998;51:223–233.[CrossRef][Medline]

  6. Raio L, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E et al. Sonographic measurement of the umbilical cord and fetal anthropometric parameters. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1999;83:131–135.[CrossRef][Medline]

  7. Di Naro E, Ghezzi F, Raio L et al. Umbilical cord morphology and pregnancy outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001;96:150–157.[CrossRef][Medline]

  8. Copland IB, Adamson SL, Post M et al. TGF-beta 3 expression during umbilical cord development and its alteration in pre-eclampsia. Placenta 2002;23:311–321.[CrossRef][Medline]

  9. Mizoguchi M, Suga Y, Sanmano B et al. Organotypic culture and surface plantation using umbilical cord epithelial cells: Morphogenesis and expression of differentiation markers mimicking cutaneous epidermis. J Dermatol Sci 2004;35:199–206.[CrossRef][Medline]

  10. Sanmano B, Mizoguchi M, Suga Y et al. Engraftment of umbilical cord epithelial cells in athymic mice: In an attempt to improve reconstructed skin equivalents used as epithelial composite. J Dermatol Sci 2005;37:29–39.[CrossRef][Medline]

  11. Miki T, Lehmann T, Cai H et al. Stem cell characteristics of amniotic epithelial cells. STEM CELLS 2005;23:1549–1559.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  12. Peng HQ, Levitin-Smith M, Rochelson B et al. Umbilical cord stricture and overcoiling are common causes of fetal demise. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2006;9:14–19.[CrossRef][Medline]

  13. Trevisanuto D, Doglioni N, Zanardo V et al. Overcoiling of the umbilical cord. J Pediatr 2007;150:112.[CrossRef][Medline]

  14. Bruch JF, Sibony O, Benali K et al. Computerized microscope morphometry of umbilical vessels from pregnancies with intrauterine growth retardation and abnormal umbilical artery Doppler. Hum Pathol 1997;28:1139–1145.[CrossRef][Medline]

  15. Weissman A, Jakobi P, Bronshtein M et al. Sonographic measurements of the umbilical cord and vessels during normal pregnancies. J Ultrasound Med 1994;13:11–14.[Abstract]

  16. Karahuseyinoglu S, Cinar O, Kilic E et al. Biology of stem cells in human umbilical cord stroma: In situ and in vitro surveys. STEM CELLS 2007;25:319–331.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  17. Akerman F, Lei ZM, Rao CV. Human umbilical cord and fetal membranes co-express leptin and its receptor genes. Gynecol Endocrinol 2002;16:299–306.[Medline]

  18. Sarugaser R, Lickorish D, Baksh D et al. Human umbilical cord perivascular (HUCPV) cells: A source of mesenchymal progenitors. STEM CELLS 2005;23:220–229.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  19. Parry EW. Some electron microscope observations on the mesenchymal structures of full-term umbilical cord. J Anat 1970;107:505–518.[Medline]

  20. Eyden BP, Ponting J, Davies H et al. Defining the myofibroblast: Normal tissues, with special reference to the stromal cells of Wharton's jelly in human umbilical cord. J Submicrosc Cytol Pathol 1994;26:347–355.[Medline]

  21. Ghadially F. Ultrastructural Pathology of the Cell and Matrix. 2nd ed. London: Butterworths,1982;658.

  22. Majno G, Gabbiani G, Hirschel BJ et al. Contraction of granulation tissue in vitro: Similarity to smooth muscle. Science 1971;173:548–550.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  23. Chou YH, Skalli O, Goldman RD. Intermediate filaments and cytoplasmic networking: New connections and more functions. Curr Opin Cell Biol 1997;9:49–53.[CrossRef][Medline]

  24. Kasper M, Stosiek P, Karsten U. Coexpression of cytokeratins and vimentin in hyaluronic acid-rich tissues. Acta Histochem 1988;84:107–108.[Medline]

  25. Kreis T, Vale R. Guidebook to the Cytoskeletal and Motor Proteins. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1999;324–326.

  26. Schoenberg MD, Moore RD. Studies on connective tissue. III. Enzymatic studies on the formation and nature of the carbohydrate intermediate of the connective tissue polysaccharides in the human umbilical cord. AMA Arch Pathol 1958;65:115–124.[Medline]

  27. Schoenberg MD, Hinman A, Moore RD. Studies on connective tissue. V. Fiber formation in Wharton's jelly. Lab Invest 1960;9:350–355.[Medline]

  28. Meyer FA, Laver-Rudich Z, Tanenbaum R. Evidence for a mechanical coupling of glycoprotein microfibrils with collagen fibrils in Wharton's jelly. Biochim Biophys Acta 1983;755:376–387.[Medline]

  29. Ryynanen J, Tan EM, Hoffren J et al. Type VII collagen gene expression in human umbilical tissue and cells. Lab Invest 1993;69:300–304.[Medline]

  30. Sobolewski K, Bankowski E, Chyczewski L et al. Collagen and glycosaminoglycans of Wharton's jelly. Biol Neonate 1997;71:11–21.[Medline]

  31. Vizza E, Correr S, Goranova V et al. The collagen skeleton of the human umbilical cord at term. A scanning electron microscopy study after 2N-NaOH maceration. Reprod Fertil Dev 1996;8:885–894.[CrossRef][Medline]

  32. Franc S, Rousseau JC, Garrone R et al. Microfibrillar composition of umbilical cord matrix: Characterization of fibrillin, collagen VI and intact collagen V. Placenta 1998;19:95–104.[CrossRef][Medline]

  33. Engberg Damsgaard TM, Windelborg Nielsen B, Sorensen FB et al. Estimation of the total number of mast cells in the human umbilical cord. A methodological study. APMIS 1992;100:845–850.[Medline]

  34. Raio L, Cromi A, Ghezzi F et al. Hyaluronan content of Wharton's jelly in healthy and Down syndrome fetuses. Matrix Biol 2005;24:166–174.[CrossRef][Medline]

  35. Klein J, Meyer FA. Tissue structure and macromolecular diffusion in umbilical cord. Immobilization of endogenous hyaluronic acid. Biochim Biophys Acta 1983;755:400–411.[Medline]

  36. Bailey MM, Wang L, Bode CJ et al. A comparison of human umbilical cord matrix stem cells and temporomandibular joint condylar chondrocytes for tissue engineering temporomandibular joint condylar cartilage. Tissue Eng 2007;13:2003–2010.[CrossRef][Medline]

  37. Kadivar M, Khatami S, Mortazavi Y et al. In vitro cardiomyogenic potential of human umbilical vein-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2006;340:639–647.[CrossRef][Medline]

  38. Romanov YA, Svintsitskaya VA, Smirnov VN. Searching for alternative sources of postnatal human mesenchymal stem cells: Candidate MSC-like cells from umbilical cord. STEM CELLS 2003;21:105–110.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  39. Jomura S, Uy M, Mitchell K et al. Potential treatment of cerebral global ischemia with Oct-4+ umbilical cord matrix cells. STEM CELLS 2007;25:98–106.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  40. Fu YS, Cheng YC, Lin MY et al. Conversion of human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells in Wharton's jelly to dopaminergic neurons in vitro: Potential therapeutic application for Parkinsonism. STEM CELLS 2006;24:115–124.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  41. Weiss ML, Medicetty S, Bledsoe AR et al. Human umbilical cord matrix stem cells: Preliminary characterization and effect of transplantation in a rodent model of Parkinson's disease. STEM CELLS 2006;24:781–792.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  42. Lu LL, Liu YJ, Yang SG et al. Isolation and characterization of human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells with hematopoiesis-supportive function and other potentials. Haematologica 2006;91:1017–1026.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  43. Wang HS, Hung SC, Peng ST et al. Mesenchymal stem cells in the Wharton's jelly of the human umbilical cord. STEM CELLS 2004;22:1330–1337.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  44. Lund RD, Wang S, Lu B et al. Cells isolated from umbilical cord tissue rescue photoreceptors and visual functions in a rodent model of retinal disease. STEM CELLS 2007;25:602–611.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  45. Mitchell KE, Weiss ML, Mitchell BM et al. Matrix cells from Wharton's jelly form neurons and glia. STEM CELLS 2003;21:50–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  46. Carlin R, Davis D, Weiss M et al. Expression of early transcription factors Oct4, Sox2 and Nanog by porcine umbilical cord (PUC) matrix cells. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2006;4:8.[CrossRef][Medline]

  47. Conconi MT, Burra P, Di Liddo R et al. CD105(+) cells from Wharton's jelly show in vitro and in vivo myogenic differentiative potential. Int J Mol Med 2006;18:1089–1096.[Medline]

  48. Dominici M, Le Blanc K, Mueller I et al. Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy 2006;8:315–317.[CrossRef][Medline]

  49. Baksh D, Yao R, Tuan RS. Comparison of proliferative and multilineage differentiation potential of human mesenchymal stem cells derived from umbilical cord and bone marrow. STEM CELLS 2007;25:1384–1392.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  50. Scholer HR, Ruppert S, Suzuki N et al. New type of POU domain in germ line-specific protein Oct-4. Nature 1990;344:435–439.[CrossRef][Medline]

  51. Chambers I, Colby D, Robertson M et al. Functional expression cloning of Nanog, a pluripotency sustaining factor in embryonic stem cells. Cell 2003;113:643–655.[CrossRef][Medline]

  52. Castro-Malaspina H, Gay RE, Resnick G et al. Characterization of human bone marrow fibroblast colony-forming cells (CFU-F) and their progeny. Blood 1980;56:289–301.[Free Full Text]

  53. Lazarus HM, Haynesworth SE, Gerson SL et al. Ex vivo expansion and subsequent infusion of human bone marrow-derived stromal progenitor cells (mesenchymal progenitor cells): Implications for therapeutic use. Bone Marrow Transplant 1995;16:557–564.[Medline]

  54. Saito S, Ugai H, Sawai K et al. Isolation of embryonic stem-like cells from equine blastocysts and their differentiation in vitro. FEBS Lett 2002;531:389–396.[CrossRef][Medline]

  55. Greider CW. Telomerase activity, cell proliferation, and cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998;95:90–92.[Free Full Text]

  56. Wachsmuth L, Soder S, Fan Z et al. Immunolocalization of matrix proteins in different human cartilage subtypes. Histol Histopathol 2006;21:477–485.[Medline]

  57. Giordano A, Galderisi U, Marino IR. From the laboratory bench to the patient's bedside: An update on clinical trials with mesenchymal stem cells. J Cell Physiol 2007;211:27–35.[CrossRef][Medline]

  58. Pittenger MF, Mackay AM, Beck SC et al. Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science 1999;284:143–147.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  59. Woodbury D, Schwarz EJ, Prockop DJ et al. Adult rat and human bone marrow stromal cells differentiate into neurons. J Neurosci Res 2000;61:364–370.[CrossRef][Medline]

  60. Fu YS, Shih YT, Cheng YC et al. Transformation of human umbilical mesenchymal cells into neurons in vitro. J Biomed Sci 2004;11:652–660.[Medline]

  61. Ma L, Feng XY, Cui BL et al. Human umbilical cord Wharton's Jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells differentiation into nerve-like cells. Chin Med J (Engl) 2005;118:1987–1993.[Medline]

  62. Li YS, Milner PG, Chauhan AK et al. Cloning and expression of a developmentally regulated protein that induces mitogenic and neurite outgrowth activity. Science 1990;250:1690–1694.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  63. Weiss ML, Mitchell KE, Hix JE et al. Transplantation of porcine umbilical cord matrix cells into the rat brain. Exp Neurol 2003;182:288–299.[CrossRef][Medline]

  64. Medicetty S, Bledsoe AR, Fahrenholtz CB et al. Transplantation of pig stem cells into rat brain: Proliferation during the first 8 weeks. Exp Neurol 2004;190:32–41.[CrossRef][Medline]

  65. Wu KH, Zhou B, Lu SH et al. In vitro and in vivo differentiation of human umbilical cord derived stem cells into endothelial cells. J Cell Biochem 2007;100:608–616.[CrossRef][Medline]

  66. Kadner A, Zund G, Maurus C et al. Human umbilical cord cells for cardiovascular tissue engineering: A comparative study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:635–641.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  67. Hoerstrup SP, Kadner A, Breymann C et al. Living, autologous pulmonary artery conduits tissue engineered from human umbilical cord cells. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:46–52.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  68. Schmidt D, Mol A, Neuenschwander S et al. Living patches engineered from human umbilical cord derived fibroblasts and endothelial progenitor cells. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005;27:795–800.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  69. Suva D, Garavaglia G, Menetrey J et al. Non-hematopoietic human bone marrow contains long-lasting, pluripotential mesenchymal stem cells. J Cell Physiol 2004;198:110–118.[CrossRef][Medline]

  70. Hamada H, Kobune M, Nakamura K et al. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) as therapeutic cytoreagents for gene therapy. Cancer Sci 2005;96:149–156.[CrossRef][Medline]

  71. Rachakatla RS, Marini F, Weiss ML et al. Development of human umbilical cord matrix stem cell-based gene therapy for experimental lung tumors. Cancer Gene Ther 2007; [Epub ahead of print].

  72. Weiss ML, Troyer DL. Stem cells in the umbilical cord. Stem Cell Rev 2006;2:155–162.[Medline]

  73. Reynolds SR. The proportion of Wharton's jelly in the umbilical cord in relation to distention of the umbilical arteries and vein, with observations on the folds of Hoboken. Anat Rec 1952;113:365–377.[CrossRef][Medline]

  74. Sundberg RD, Schaar FE, Powell MJ et al. Tissue mast cells in human umbilical cord, and the anticoagulant activity of dried extracts of cords and placentae. Anat Rec 1954;118:35–56.[Medline]

  75. Moore RD. Mast cells of the human umbilical cord. Am J Pathol 1956;32:1179–1183.[Medline]

  76. Moore RD, Schoenberg MD. Studies on connective tissue. I. The polysaccharides of the human umbilical cord. AMA Arch Pathol 1957;64:39–45.[Medline]

  77. Moore RD, Schoenberg MD. Studies on connective tissue. IV. The mast cell and its relation to the ground substance polysaccharides of the human umbilical cord. Lab Invest 1958;7:418–425.[Medline]

  78. Schoenberg MD, Moore RD. Studies on connective tissue. II. Histochemical differences in the connective tissue polysaccharides of the mature and immature human umbilical cord. AMA Arch Pathol 1957;64:167–170.[Medline]

  79. McElreavey KD, Irvine AI, Ennis KT et al. Isolation, culture and characterisation of fibroblast-like cells derived from the Wharton's jelly portion of human umbilical cord. Biochem Soc Trans 1991;19:29S.[Medline]

  80. Nanaev AK, Rukosuev VS, Shirinsky VP et al. Confocal and conventional immunofluorescent and immunogold electron microscopic localization of collagen types III and IV in human placenta. Placenta 1991;12:573–595.[Medline]

  81. Rao CV, Li X, Toth P et al. Expression of epidermal growth factor, transforming growth factor-alpha, and their common receptor genes in human umbilical cords. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1995;80:1012–1020.[Abstract]

  82. Palka J, Banikowski E, Jaworski S. An accumulation of IGF-I and IGF-binding proteins in human umbilical cord. Mol Cell Biochem 2000;206:133–139.[CrossRef][Medline]

  83. Sgambati E, Brizzi E, Marini M et al. Lectin binding in the human umbilical cord from normally grown pregnancies and from pregnancies complicated by intra-uterine growth retardation with absent or reversed diastolic flow. Biol Neonate 2003;84:119–134.[CrossRef][Medline]

  84. Valiyaveettil M, Achur RN, Muthusamy A et al. Characterization of chondroitin sulfate and dermatan sulfate proteoglycans of extracellular matrices of human umbilical cord blood vessels and Wharton's jelly. Glycoconj J 2004;21:361–375.[CrossRef][Medline]

  85. Sobolewski K, Malkowski A, Bankowski E et al. Wharton's jelly as a reservoir of peptide growth factors. Placenta 2005;26:747–752.[CrossRef][Medline]

  86. Lupatov AY, Karalkin PA, Suzdal'tseva YG et al. Cytofluorometric analysis of phenotypes of human bone marrow and umbilical fibroblast-like cells. Bull Exp Biol Med 2006;142:521–526.[CrossRef][Medline]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Stem CellsHome page
S. Karahuseyinoglu, C. Kocaefe, D. Balci, E. Erdemli, and A. Can
Functional Structure of Adipocytes Differentiated from Human Umbilical Cord Stroma-Derived Stem Cells
Stem Cells, March 1, 2008; 26(3): 682 - 691.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Free via Open Access: OA
Right arrow OA Abstract
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrowOA All Versions of this Article:
2007-0417v1
25/11/2886    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Can, A.
Right arrow Articles by Karahuseyinoglu, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Can, A.
Right arrow Articles by Karahuseyinoglu, S.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
STEM CELLS THE ONCOLOGIST CME ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS