| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS |
aDepartment of Surgery, National University of Singapore, Singapore;
bGenome Institute of Singapore, Singapore;
cDepartment of Pathology, National University of Singapore, Singapore;
dDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University of Singapore, Singapore;
eBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;
fDepartment of Biochemistry, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Key Words. Human embryonic stem cells • Mesenchymal stem cells • Cell surface markers • Adipogenesis • Chondrogenesis Osteoprogenitor • Selectable marker • Somatic stem cells
Correspondence: Sai Kiang Lim, Ph.D., Stem Cell and Developmental Biology Group I, Genome Institute of Singapore, 60 Biopolis Street, Singapore 138672. Telephone: 6478-8146; Fax: 6478-9005; e-mail: limsk{at}gis.a-star.edu.sg
Received on July 12, 2006;
accepted for publication on October 11, 2006.
First published online in STEM CELLS EXPRESS October 19, 2006.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionDisclosuresAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionDisclosuresAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
An alternative source for generating MSCs is the infinitely expandable and pluripotent human ESCs (hESCs) that will also eliminate the need for potentially risky invasive techniques. Host immune rejection of hESC-derived MSCs could potentially be circumvented by using either autologous hESCs generated by nuclear transfer or immune compatible allogeneic hESCs when banks of hESC lines become sufficiently large. In addition, MSCs have been shown to have immunomodulatory effects and could potentially induce immune tolerance or suppression in recipients [1–3]. Therefore, the problem of host immune rejection may be less intractable for the transplantation of allogeneic MSCs. Recent reports have also suggested that some of the reparative effects associated with MSC transplantation are not mediated by differentiation of MSCs but by paracrine factors secreted by MSCs [4]. Paracrine secretion by MSC has been postulated to promote arteriogenesis [5], support the stem cell crypt in the intestine [6], protect against renal ischemic injury [7, 8], support and maintain hematopoiesis [9], ameliorate tissue damage in acute myocardial ischemia [10–13] and limb ischemia [14], and support megakaryocyte and proplatelet formation [15]. Therefore, some future applications of MSCs in regenerative medicine may not be cell-based. Instead, MSC-based therapies may involve biologics secreted by MSCs.
Therefore, the issue of immune rejection may be less intractable in MSC-based therapies using either transplantation of cells or secreted paracrine factors In this regard, the use of well-characterized renewable hESC lines to generate identical batches of clinically relevant MSCs will be additionally useful in developing cost-effective, consistent, and qualified production of therapeutic biologics.
Although MSC or MSC-like cells have been derived from hESCs by either transfection of a human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) gene into differentiating hESCs [16] or coculture with mouse OP9 cell line [17], the use of exogenous genetic material and mouse cells in these derivation protocols introduces unacceptable risks of tumorigenicity or infection by xenozootic infectious agents.
Here we describe the development of a protocol that could be used for the derivation of highly identical and clinically compliant MSC cultures from hESCs that circumvents the use of animal products, transfection of genetic material, or coculture with a mouse cell culture by gently trypsinizing and culturing hESCs in a feeder-free condition and a medium supplemented with basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) to encourage proliferation of putative MSCs [18, 19]. Initially, three polyclonal MSC-like cultures, HuES9.E1 and HuES9.E3 and H1.E2 were generated from Hues9 and H1 hESCs, respectively [20, 21]. These hESC-derived MSCs (hESC-MSC) have a bone marrow (BM)-MSC-like surface antigen profile, that is, positive for CD29, CD44, CD49, CD105, and CD166, and negative for CD34 and CD45, a gene expression profile resembling that of BM- and adipose-derived MSCs and a differentiation potential that includes adipogenesis, chondrogenesis, and osteogenesis. Like BM-MSCs, hESC-MSCs have significant proliferative capacity in vitro. By comparing relative gene expression levels between hESC-derived MSCs and hESCs, we identified surface antigens that are either highly expressed in hESC-derived MSCs or their parental hESCs. Using a combination of these markers to sort for putative MSCs and against hESCs, we generated single cell-derived MSC cultures that were highly similar to each other and to the earlier derived hESC-MSCs. Therefore, highly similar batches of MSCs can be reproducibly generated from well-characterized hESC lines.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionDisclosuresAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
Differentiation into adipocytes, chondrocytes, and osteocytes was performed as previously described [17]. Oil red, Alcian Blue, and von Kossa staining were performed using standard techniques. Immunoreactivity for collagen type II was performed on paraformaldehyde-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections using a goat anti-collagen 
1 type II and donkey anti-goat IgG antibody conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (HRP) (Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc., Santa Cruz, CA, http://www.scbt.com).
Karyotyping
Cells were received at approximately 80% confluence in Petri dish. Cells were treated with colcemid for mitotic arrest and harvested by standard hypotonic treatment and methanol:acetic acid (3:1) fixation. Slides were prepared by standard air drying method and hybridized with SKY paint probe (Applied Spectral Imaging, Migclal Ha'Emek, Israel, http://www.spectral-imaging.com). Posthybridization washes were performed according to the protocols provided by the manufacturer and established in our laboratory. Twenty to 30 metaphase cells per culture were analyzed. The karyotype of each culture is representative of >80% metaphase cells.
Transplantation Studies
Two x 106 cells were resuspended in 30 µl of saline and transferred into the renal subcapsular space as previously described [23]. After 4 months, the mice were sacrificed, and the kidneys were removed, fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde, paraffin-embedded, sectioned at 4 µM, and stained with hematoxylin and eosin.
Western Blot Analysis
Standard procedures were used [24]. Briefly, cells were lysed in radioimmune precipitation assay buffer and centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 15 minutes at 4°C. Twenty µg of supernatant was denatured, separated on 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gel, and electroblotted onto a nitrocellulose membrane. The membrane was incubated sequentially with a primary antibody, then either a HRP-conjugated secondary antibody or a biotinylated secondary antibody followed by neutroavidin-HRP, and finally, a HRP-enhanced chemiluminescent substrate, ECS (Pierce, Rockford, IL, http://www.piercenet.com). Primary antibodies used were 1:200 dilution of anti-OCT4, anti-SOX-2, and ß-actin (Santa Cruz Biotechnology). Secondary antibodies were HRP-conjugated goat anti-rabbit, rabbit anti-goat, and rabbit anti-mouse.
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Genomic polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for mouse- and human-specific repeat sequences were performed as previously described [26]. Genomic PCR for mouse- and human-specific repeat sequences were performed as previously described [25]. The PCR primers for mouse c-mos repeat sequences were: 5'-GAATTCAGATTTGTGCATACACAGTGACT-3' and 5'-AACATTTTTCGGGGAATAAAAGTTGAGT-3'. The PCR primers for human alu repeat sequences were: 5'-GGCGCGGTGGCTCACG-3' and 5'-TTTTTTGAGACGGAGTCTCGCTC-3'. Real time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR was performed using Taqman Gene expression assays per the manufacturer's instructions (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, http://www.appliedbiosystems.com). One µg of total RNA was reverse transcribed with a random primer using a High Capacity cDNA Archive Kit. The Taqman primer ID for each gene analyzed were: Sox-2, Hs00602736_s1; Utf-1, Hs00747497_g1; Zfp42, Hs00399279_m1; PPAR
, Hs00602622m_1; Aggrecan, Hs00153936_m1; Collagen, Hs00264051_m1; ALP, Hs00758162_m1; and BSP, Hs00173720_m1.
Surface Antigen Analysis
Cell surface antigens on hESC-MSCs and hESCs were analyzed using fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). The cells were tryspinized for 5 minutes, centrifuged, resuspended in culture medium, and incubated in a bacterial culture dish for 2–3 hours in a 37°C, 5% CO2 incubator. Then the cells were trypsinized for 1 minute, centrifuged, washed with PBS, fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde for 0.5 hour at room temperature, washed again, and blocked in 2% fetal calf serum for 0.5 hour at room temperature with agitation. One and a half x 105 cells were then incubated with each of the following conjugated monoclonal antibodies: CD24-PE, CD29-PE, CD44-FITC, CD49a-PE, CD49e-PE, CD105-FITC, CD166-PE, CD34-FITC, CD45-FITC (PharMingen) for 90 minutes at room temperature. After incubation, cells were washed and resuspended in PBS. Nonspecific fluorescence was determined by incubation of similar cell aliquots with isotype-matched mouse monoclonal antibodies (PharMingen). Data were analyzed by collecting 20,000 events on a Cyan LX (Dako North America, Inc., Carpinteria, CA, http://www.dakousa.com) instrument using WinMDI software. Nonspecific fluorescence was determined by incubation of similar cell aliquots with isotype-matched mouse monoclonal antibodies (PharMingen) or with secondary antibody alone.
Illumina Gene Chip Analysis
Total RNA (2 µg) from three samples each of primary BM and adipose-derived MSCs, from two biological replicates of HuES9.E1, HuES9.E3, H1.E2, and three undifferentiated hESC lines, H1, Hes3, and HuES9, were converted to biotinylated cRNA using the Illumina RNA Amplification Kit (Ambion, Inc., Austin, TX, http://www.ambion.com) according to the manufacturer's directions. Samples were purified using the RNeasy kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, http://www.qiagen.com). Hybridization to the Sentrix HumanRef-8 Expression BeadChip (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, http://www.illumina.com), washing, and scanning were performed according to the Illumina BeadStation 500x manual. The data were extracted, normalized, and analyzed using Illumina BeadStudio provided by the manufacturer. Transcript signals that were below the limit of detection at 99% confidence were eliminated as genes not expressed.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionDisclosuresAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
|
|
mRNA in the hESC-derived MSCs, which was approximately 10–100-fold higher than that in their respective parental ESC lines increased by a further twofold (Fig. 3A). Chondrogenesis or the formation of cartilage was also efficient with >90% of cells producing proteoglycans in extracellular matrix as detected by Alcian Blue staining (Fig. 3B) and approxiamtely 20% of the cells being immunoreactive for collagen II. Transcript level of aggrecan, an cartilage-specific extracellular matrix protein was also increased [30] (Fig. 3B). However, transcript level of collagen II, another cartilage-specific extracellular matrix protein was decreased despite the presence of collagen II immunoreactivity in the matrix. The reason is not known but some mRNAs particularly those with AU-rich elements are known to be destabilized when translated [31, 32]. When HuES9.E1 cells were induced to undergo osteogenesis or the formation of bone, expression of bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and bone sialoprotein (BSP) [33] was upregulated by 2–3-fold (Fig. 3C). However, mineralization, a more advanced stage of bone formation [34] as determined by von Kossa staining was poor (Fig. 3C). There was <1% positive staining in the differentiated culture.
|
Labeled cDNA prepared from total RNA RNA were hybridized to Illumina BeadArray containing approximately 24,000 unique features. Hierarchical clustering of expressed genes in three hESC-MSC cultures, that is, HuES9.E1, HuES9.E3, and H1.E2, three BM-MSC samples, and three adipose-derived (ad)-MSC samples revealed that the gene expression profile of hESC-MSCs was more closely related to that of adult tissue-derived MSCs, namely BM-MSC and ad-MSC, than to their parent hESCs (Fig. 4A). Interestingly, MSCs clustered according to their tissue of origin, and this can be further demarcated into adult versus embryonic tissue as suggested by the clustering of ad-MSCs and BM-MSCs as a distinct group from hESC-MSCs. Differences in MSCs derived from tissues of different developmental stages have also been previously reported [35].
|
To assess the relatedness between each of the three hESC-MSC cultures, HuES9.E1, H1.E2, and HuES9.E3 were each compared to the same reference consisting of HuES9.E1, H1.E2, and HuES9.E3. The correlation coefficients of HuES9.E1, H1.E2, and HuES9.E3 to the same reference were virtually identical, that is, .93, .95, and .93, respectively, suggesting that HuES9.E1, H1.E2, and HuES9.E3 are highly similar (Fig. 4C).
Of 8,699 and 8,505 genes that were expressed above the limit of detection at 99% confidence level in hESC-MSC and BM-MSC, respectively (supplemental data 1: Table 1, 2), 6,376 genes were expressed in both hESC-MSCs and BM-MSCs at <2.0-fold difference (supplemental data 1: Table 3). As these genes are likely to provide insights into the fundamental biology of MSCs, we examine the biological processes that are driven by these genes. Of the 6,376 commonly expressed genes, 4,064 were found in the Panther classified gene list (http://www.pantherdb.org) (supplemental data 1: Table 4). Classification of these genes into different biological processes revealed that the frequency of genes in some of the biological processes were significantly over- or under-represented (p < .01) when compared to the reference list consisting of 23,481 genes in NCBI: Homo sapiens gene database (supplemental data 1: Tables 5, 6). For example, there were an over-representation of genes in metabolic processes that are likely to be important for growth and self-renewal of putative stem cells. These processes include basal metabolic processes for catabolic and anabolic activities, biosynthesis of secretory products that require extensive post-translational modifications, for example, glycosylation and cellular proliferation (Fig. 4D; supplemental data 1: Table 7). Consistent with their mesenchymal potential, there was also an under-representation of genes involved in ectoderm differentiation particularly neural development. The gene expression analysis also suggested that mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase kinase (MAPKKK) signaling is prominent in both BM-MSC and hESC-MSCs. MAPKKK signaling, which consists of at least three subfamilies, namely the classic mitogen-activated protein kinase (also known as ERK), stress-activated protein kinase/c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), and p38 kinase, are associated with proliferation, differentiation, development, regulation of responses to cellular stresses, cell cycle, death, and survival [36–39].
Further analysis of the gene expression profiles of hESC-MSC and BM-MSC revealed that 1,142 and 1,134 genes were expressed at >2.0-fold in hESC-MSC and BM-MSC, respectively (Supplementary data 2: table 1 and 2). Of these, 738 and 880 genes, respectively, were located in Panther classified gene list (http://www.pantherdb.org) (supplemental data 2: Tables 3 and 4) and classified into biological processes (supplemental data 2: Table 5 and 6). Biological processes that were significantly over- or under-represented (p < .01) when compared to the reference list of 23,481 genes in NCBI: H. sapiens gene database were selected (supplementary data 2: Table 7). Genes that were preferentially expressed in BM-MSCs were clustered in biological processes that are involved in metabolic processes, cell structure, differentiation, and signaling, whereas preferentially expressed hESC-MSC genes were clustered in those processes involved in proliferation, differentiation, immunity, and signal transduction (Fig. 4E; supplemental data 2: Table 7). The over-representation of genes in biological processes associated with proliferation was consistent with the higher proliferative capacity of hESC-MSC over BM-MSC. Although highly expressed genes in either hESC-MSC or BM-MSC were over-represented in the general categories of differentiation and signaling, the specific biological processes within each category were differently represented in hESC-MSC and BM-MSC. For example, differentiation processes that are associated with early embryonic development such as embryogenesis and segmentation were over-represented in hESC-MSC, whereas those associated with late embryonic development, for example, skeletal development and muscle development were overrepresented in BM-MSC. Similarly, extracellular matrix protein-mediated signaling and MAPKKK cascade were overrepresented in BM-MSC. Together, these observations suggest that differentiation potential and signaling pathway utilization in hESC-MSC and BM-MSC may not be identical.
Distinguishing Surface Markers for hESCs and hESC-Derived MSCs for Isolating of Single Cell-Derived MSC Population
The genome-wide gene expression was queried for highly expressed genes in either hESC-MSC or hESC that encode for membrane proteins to facilitate the isolation of MSCs from differentiating hESCs. From a list of top 20 highly expressed genes encoding for putative membrane proteins in either hESC-MSCs or hESCs, candidate genes were selected for which antibodies against their gene product was commercially available (Table 1). Among those candidate genes that were highly expressed in hESC-derived MSCs are ENG (CD105), ITGA4 (CD49d), PDGFRA, NT5E (CD73) that are characteristic surface markers of MSCs derived from adult tissues [26–28] and among those candidate genes that were highly expressed in hESC are previously identified as highly expressed hESC-specific genes, ITGB1BP3 and PODXL [40], and CD24, whose expression has not been associated with hESCs. We confirmed that CD24 was highly expressed in hESC versus hESC-MSC (Fig. 5A).
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionDisclosuresAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
hESC-MSCs were remarkably similar to BM-MSCs. These presumptive MSCs satisfied the morphologic, phenotypic, and functional criteria commonly used to identify MSCs [26], that is, adherent monolayer with a fibroblastic phenotype, a surface antigen profile that is CD29+, CD44+, CD49a+ CD49e+, CD105+, CD166+, CD34–, and CD45– [26–28], and a differentiation potential that includes adipogenesis, chondrogenesis, and osteogenesis [26]. We further demonstrated that this differentiation potential is lineage-restricted, and unlike that of their parental hESCs, is not pluripotent. Consistent with the restriction in their differentiation potential, hESC-MSCs do not express any of the pluripotency-associated markers, for example, Sox-2, Oct4, or alkaline phosphatase activity. The loss of pluripotency and reduced differentiation potential possibly promotes the robust and efficient differentiation of hESC-MSCs into adipocytes, chondrocytes, and osteocytes and highlights a distinct advantage of lineage-restricted ESC-derived stem cell lines over their parental ESC lines. In addition, the risk of teratoma formation is minimal as nonpluripotent hESC-MSCs cannot induce formation in SCID mice. In fact, hESC-MSCs failed to survive or differentiate into other cell types at the site of the graft, consistent with previous reports of poor survival and differentiation of transplanted immortalized human MSCs in nonobese diabetic (NOD)/SCID mice [43] possibly through the intact innate immune response of these mice [44]. As an additional evaluation, global gene expression was compared to that of the more traditional BM-MSCs. Despite the genetic variations within and between the different hESC-MSC and BM-MSC samples, pairwise comparison of gene expression between three independently derived hESC-MSC populations, and three individual BM-MSC samples were found to be similar with a correlation coefficient of .72.
hESC-MSCs have a substantial proliferative capacity in vitro and could undergo at least 35 population doublings while maintaining a normal diploid karyotype, and a stable gene expression and surface antigen profile. Random nonclonal chromosomal aberrations and alterations in gene expression become manifested only after 35 population doublings. Although hESC-MSC and BM-MSCs shared many distinctive hallmarks of MSCs, genome-wide gene expression analysis suggest that there were not only substantial similarities but also important differences. Not unexpectedly for stem cells with self-renewal and differentiation potential, the commonly expressed genes in both hESC-MSC and BM-MSCs were over-represented in growth, proliferation, and differentiation and under-represented in nonmesenchymal differentiation processes such as ectoderm differentiation particularly neural development. Of note, MAPKKK signaling, which is associated with proliferation, differentiation, development, regulation of responses to cellular stresses, cell cycle, death, and survival [36–39], was upregulated in both hESC-MSC and BM-MSCs and more so in BM-MSCs than in hESCs. The latter was suggested by the over-representation of MAPKKK-associated genes that were preferentially expressed in BM-MSCs. Therefore, the MAPKKK signaling pathway may be a target for manipulating proliferation and differentiation of MSCs. Consistent with previous reports that MSCs isolated from fetal and adult tissues have different immunomodulatory effects, and fetal MSCs have higher proliferative capacity and are less lineage committed than adult MSCs [35, 41], we also observed that the differences between hESC-MSC and BM-MSCs appear to be reflective of their tissue of origin. Genes that were preferentially expressed in hESC-MSC appeared to be associated with embryonic processes such as proliferation and early developmental processes of embryogenesis and segmentation, whereas those in BM-MSCs were over-represented in biological processes associated with more mature cell types, such as metabolic processes, cell structure, and late developmental processes of skeletal development and muscle development. Differences in gene expression may explain the higher proliferative capacity in hESC-MSCs and their relatively poor osteogenic differentiation in vitro.
In searching for cell surface markers that will facilitate the preparation of a homogenous hESC-MSC population, gene expression analysis was performed to identify candidate genes that encoded for surface antigens and that were preferentially expressed on hESC-MSC and not hESCs. Not unexpectedly, it revealed many candidate surface antigens known to be associated with MSCs, for example, CD105, CD73, ANPEP, ITGA4 (CD49d), and PDGFRA. However, we noted that some of the MSC-associated surface antigens, for example, CD29 and CD49e, were also highly expressed in hESCs, and their expression was verified by FACS analysis. Therefore, the association of a surface antigen with MSCs may not be sufficient to qualify the antigen as a selectable marker for isolating MSCs from hESC. Although CD73 has been used to successfully isolate putative MSCs from hESCs on the basis that it was highly expressed on MSCs [17], it was also fortuitously more highly expressed on hESC-MSCs than on their parental hESCs (Table 1). As both CD73 and CD105 are highly expressed surface antigens in MSCs and are among the top 20 highly expressed surface antigens in hESC-MSCs relative to hESC (Table 1), the use of either CD73 or CD105 in our case as selectable marker for putative MSCs will be equally effective in sorting for putative MSCs generated by differentiating hESCs. To further enhance the stringency of sorting and to reduce possible hESC contamination, we also identified surface antigens that are highly expressed on hESC and not hESC-MSC by comparing the gene expression profiles of hESCs and hESC-MSCs. Some of the top 20 candidates included the previously identified hESC-specific surface antigens MIBP, ITGB1BP3, and PODXL [40] and CD24. CD24 was not previously identified as an hESC-specific surface antigen where gene expression in hESC was compared with that in hESC-derived embryoid bodies [40], suggesting that CD24 may also be expressed in other differentiated hESC-derived cell types. Indeed, CD24 has been reported to be expressed on many different cell types [45]. FACS analysis confirmed the presence of CD24 expression on hESC and its absence on hESC-MSCs. Therefore, CD24 was an ideal negative selection marker such that when used in conjunction with CD105 as a positive selectable marker for isolating putative MSCs from differentiating hESC cultures, it should enhance the selection specificity for MSCs and reduce contamination by hESC and other hESC-derivatives. This would then reduce the risk of teratoma formation and increase the clinical relevance of this protocol.
The incorporation of positive and negative selectable markers into the derivation protocol resulted in the derivation of five monoclonal isolates with a genome-wide expression profile that was almost identical to each other confirmed the specificity of the selection criteria. Global pairwise gene expression comparison between the five isolates reveal a near identical gene expression profile that is comparable to that observed for technical replicates using the same RNA samples. This suggests that sorting for CD105+, CD24– cells from trypsinized hESCs 1 week after feeder-free propagation in a medium supplemented with FGF2 and PDGF AB will generate consistent batches of hESC-MSC cell culture.
In conclusion, this protocol could be used to reproducibly generate clinically compliant and highly similar hESC-MSC cultures and greatly facilitate the production of MSC-based therapeutic biologics that are of uniform and consistent quality. However, until the issue of immune incompatibility between hESC-MSCs and potential recipients is resolved, cell-based therapy using hESC-MSC will not likely be practical. Nonetheless, hESC-derived MSCs will be superior to those derived from BM in developing therapeutics that are based on paracrine factors secreted from MSCs, for example, the use of MSC-conditioned medium to ameliorate tissue damage in acute myocardial ischemia [10–13] and limb ischemia [14]. Specifically, Dzau and his co-workers [12] had demonstrated that the inhibition of ventricular remodeling and restoration of cardiac function in a rodent model of myocardial ischemia by intramyocardial injection of BM-MSCs could be effected through the administration of cultured medium conditioned by BM-MSCs. They further demonstrated that genes, coding for factors (vascular endothelial growth factor, FGF-2, HGF, IGF-I, and TB4) that are potential mediators of the effects exerted by the conditioned medium are significantly up-regulated [11]. Together, their observations support the hypothesis that BM-MSCs promote myocardial protection and functional improvement through paracrine secretions of cytokines or growth factors. Therefore, the MSC-based therapy needs not be cell-based. Instead, cell secretion, which is less immunogenic would be as therapeutically efficacious. As hESC-MSCs are highly similar to BM-MSCs, they are likely to secrete most of the cytokines and growth factors known to be secreted by BM-MSCs. In addition, they can be reproducibly generated from the same renewable hESCs. This reproducible generation of identical MSC cultures will ensure that conditioned media of consistent and uniform quality will be produced on a large scale. In contrast, similar large scale production of media conditioned by BM-MSCs will necessitate the use of multiple BM donors and will inherently be variable from batch to batch. Furthermore, the robust derivation of highly identical MSCs from a defined cell type such as hESC provides a useful model to study and better understand the ontology and biology of MSC that has remain an enigma despite much intense study [26].
|
DISCLOSURES |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionDisclosuresAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionDisclosuresAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionDisclosuresAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  X. Chen, X.-H. Song, Z. Yin, X.-H. Zou, L.-L. Wang, H. Hu, T. Cao, M. Zheng, and H. W. Ouyang Stepwise Differentiation of Human Embryonic Stem Cells Promotes Tendon Regeneration by Secreting Fetal Tendon Matrix and Differentiation Factors Stem Cells, June 1, 2009; 27(6): 1276 - 1287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. L. Yen, C. J. Chang, K.-J. Liu, Y. C. Chen, H.-I Hu, C.-H. Bai, and M.-L. Yen Brief Report--Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Mesenchymal Progenitors Possess Strong Immunosuppressive Effects Toward Natural Killer Cells as Well as T Lymphocytes Stem Cells, February 1, 2009; 27(2): 451 - 456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Tapp, E. N. Hanley Jr., J. C. Patt, and H. E. Gruber Adipose-Derived Stem Cells: Characterization and Current Application in Orthopaedic Tissue Repair Experimental Biology and Medicine, January 1, 2009; 234(1): 1 - 9. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. S. Hwang, S. Varghese, H. J. Lee, Z. Zhang, Z. Ye, J. Bae, L. Cheng, and J. Elisseeff In vivo commitment and functional tissue regeneration using human embryonic stem cell-derived mesenchymal cells PNAS, December 30, 2008; 105(52): 20641 - 20646. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. K. Sze, D. P. V. de Kleijn, R. C. Lai, E. Khia Way Tan, H. Zhao, K. S. Yeo, T. Y. Low, Q. Lian, C. N. Lee, W. Mitchell, et al. Elucidating the Secretion Proteome of Human Embryonic Stem Cell-derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Mol. Cell. Proteomics, October 1, 2007; 6(10): 1680 - 1689. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. S. Toh, Z. Yang, H. Liu, B. C. Heng, E. H. Lee, and T. Cao Effects of Culture Conditions and Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 on Extent of Chondrogenesis from Human Embryonic Stem Cells Stem Cells, April 1, 2007; 25(4): 950 - 960. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| STEM CELLS | THE ONCOLOGIST | CME | ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS |
