Higher chondrogenic potential of fibrous synovium– and adipose synovium–derived cells compared with subcutaneous fat–derived cells: Distinguishing properties of mesenchymal stem cells in humans

Abstract

Objective. Mesenchymal stem cells from synovium have a greater proliferation and chondrogenic potential than do those from bone marrow, periosteum, fat, and muscle. This study was undertaken to compare fibrous synovium and adipose synovium (components of the synovium with subsynovium) to determine which is a more suitable source for mesenchymal stem cells, especially for cartilage regeneration, and to examine the features of adipose synovium-derived cells, fibrous synovium-derived cells, and subcutaneous fat-derived cells to determine their similarities.Methods. Human fibrous synovium, adipose synovium, and subcutaneous fat were harvested from 4 young donors and 4 elderly donors. After digestion, the nucleated cells were plated at a density considered proper to expand at a maximum rate without colony-to-colony contact. The surface epitopes, proliferative capacity, cloning efficiency, and chondrogenic, osteogenic, and adipogenic differentiation potentials of the cells were compared.Results. Fibrous synovium-and adipose synovium-derived cells were higher in STRO-1 and CD106 and lower in CD10 compared with subcutaneous fat-derived cells. Cells derived from fibrous and adipose synovium had higher proliferative potential and colonyforming efficiency compared with subcutaneous fatderived cells, both in mixed-population and in singlecell-derived cultures. In chondrogenic assays, pellets from fibrous synovium-and adipose synovium-derived cells produced more cartilage matrix than did cell pellets from subcutaneous fat. Osteogenic ability was also higher in fibrous synovium-and adipose synovium-derived cells, whereas adipogenic potential was nearly indistinguishable among the 3 populations. Differentiation potential of the cells was similar between young and elderly donors.Conclusion. Cells derived from the fibrous synovium and from the adipose synovium demonstrate comparable chondrogenic potential. Adipose synoviumderived cells are more similar to fibrous synoviumderived cells than to subcutaneous fat-derived cells.

Changes in chondrogenic phenotype and gene expression profiles associated with the in vitro expansion of human synovium‐derived cells

“…Some suggest a decrease in differentiation capacity with age or osteoarthritis, 13,43,44 whereas others suggest no such relation. 35,45,46 Therefore, our findings may not relate to MSCs from young healthy donors. However, our result can offer clues for further development of practical protocols for the clinical application of synovium-derived MSCs in osteoarthritic patients.…”

Morphological differences during in vitro chondrogenesis of bone marrow-, synovium-MSCs, and chondrocytes

“…The two MSCs contain common features, but distinguishing properties dependent on their origin are emerging. [6][7][8][9]11,12 Colony-forming efficiency was higher in synovium-MSCs but colony size was larger in bone marrow-MSCs. 7 Expression of PDGF receptor-a was higher in synovium-MSCs based on flow cytometrical analysis.…”

“…[6][7][8] MSCs derived from various mesenchymal tissues contain common features, but distinguishing properties due to their origin are emerging. [9][10][11][12] However, morphological differences of MSCs dependent on the source, especially during chondrogenesis, remain unknown.…”

Expansion in the presence of FGF-2 enhances the functional development of cartilaginous tissues engineered using infrapatellar fat pad derived MSCs

“…MSCs derived from non-cartilaginous knee joint tissues such as the infrapatellar fat pad (IFP) (Dragoo et al 2003;English et al 2007;Jurgens et al 2009;Buckley et al 2010a; Buckley et al 2010b) and synovium (Sakaguchi et al 2005;Yokoyama et al 2005; Mochizuki et al 2006;Pei et al 2008;Pei et al 2009;Sampat et al 2011) have been shown to possess significant chondrogenic potential. One of the key challenges in cartilage tissue engineering is ensuring sufficient functionality of the construct to be implanted which is capable of withstanding the challenging mechanical environment of the joint.…”