Markers Distinguishing Mesenchymal Stem Cells from Fibroblasts Are Downregulated with Passaging

Halfon, Svetlana; Abramov, Natalie; Grinblat, Borislava; Ginis, Irene

doi:10.1089/scd.2010.0040

Cited by 302 publications

(311 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

271

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This makes it impossible to use these markers to label stem cells in vivo. This is also supported by previous studies which showed that lung fibroblasts also expressed CD44, CD73, and CD105 [39][40][41]. Other articles showed that the expression of these markers were defined operationally only aiming at enriching cells that were clonogenic/multi-potent in vitro, and none of them appeared to participate directly in the molecular processes regulating selfrenewal versus differentiation [42,43].…”

Section: Limitations Of This Studysupporting

confidence: 73%

In Vivo Identity of Tendon Stem Cells and the Roles of Stem Cells in Tendon Healing

Tan

Lui

Lee

2013

Stem Cells and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the spatial distribution of stem cells in tendons and the roles of stem cells in early tendon repair. The relationship between tendon-derived stem cells (TDSCs) isolated in vitro and tendon stem cells in vivo was also explored. Iododeoxyuridine (IdU) label-retaining method was used for labeling stem cells in rat patellar tendons with and without injury. Co-localization of label-retaining cells (LRCs) with different markers was done by immunofluorescent staining. TDSCs were isolated from patellar tendon mid-substance after IdU pulsing, and the expression of different markers in fresh and expanded cells was done by immunofluorescent staining. More LRCs were found at the peritenon and tendon-bone junction compared with the mid-substance. Some LRCs at the peritenon were located at the perivascular niche. The LRC number and the expression of proliferative, tendon-related, pluripotency, and pericyte-related markers in LRCs in the window wound increased. Most of the freshly isolated TDSCs expressed IdU, and some TDSCs expressed pericyte-related markers, which were lost during expansion. Both freshly isolated and subcultured TDSCs expressed pluripotency markers, which were absent in LRCs in intact tendons. In conclusion, we identified LRCs at the peritenon, mid-substance, and tendon-bone junction. There were both vascular and non-vascular sources of LRCs at the peritenon, while the source of LRCs at the mid-substance was non-vascular. LRCs participated in tendon repair via migration, proliferation, activation for tenogenesis, and increased pluripotency. Some LRCs in the window wound were pericyte like. Most of the mid-substance TDSCs were LRCs. The pluripotency markers and pericyte-related marker in LRCs might be important for function after injury. Recently, stem/progenitor cells have been isolated from tendon tissues of varies species, including human, horse, rabbit, rat, and mouse [3][4][5][6]. These stem/progenitor cells isolated from tendon tissues exhibited self-renewal and multilineage differentiation potential [3][4][5][6]. Since the origin and identity of these cells were not clear, we called them tendon-derived stem cells (TDSCs) to indicate only the tissue from which the cells were isolated [5].Many studies suggested that the wall of capillaries, small vessels, and large vessels harbored stem/progenitor cells [7][8][9][10][11]. Some studies further suggested that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) were derived from pericytes [9,12].Pericytes/perivascular cells from a variety of tissues were reported to exhibit characteristics that were strikingly similar to those of MSCs [7][8][9][10][11]. For tendons, there was also evidence that the vasculature of tendon tissue might harbor stem cells [13]. However, tendon mid-substance is hypovascular compared with other tissues and receives its blood supply mainly from the endotenon and paratenon [14]. TDSCs isolated from the tendon mid-substance, while positive for alpha smooth muscle actin [5], were not positive for other pericyte-related markers [3,15]. Tend...

show abstract

Section: Limitations Of This Studysupporting

confidence: 73%

In Vivo Identity of Tendon Stem Cells and the Roles of Stem Cells in Tendon Healing

Tan

Lui

Lee

2013

Stem Cells and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…76 In addition, Halfon et al demonstrated that CD106, ITGA11, and MMP1 had robust differences of expression in BMMSC and fibroblasts and could be used for identifying BMMSC. 47 We confirm that these markers can discriminate between BMMSC and normal HAVIC. However, ADMSC expressed a significantly lower level of CD106 when compared with BMMSC, but similar to pHAVIC.…”

supporting

confidence: 70%

“…These results were consistent with previous reports. 47 However, ADMSC expressed the same level of CD106 compared with pHAVIC (Fig. 7A).…”

Section: Expression Of Vic Markers In Admmsc Bmmsc and Havicmentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Source Differentiation Toward Human Pediatric Aortic Valve Interstitial Cells within 3D Engineered Matrices

Duan

Hockaday

Das

et al. 2015

Tissue Engineering Part C: Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…ITGA11 is a member of integrins that binds to collagen and is involved in cell attachment, cell migration and collagen reorganization on mesenchymal nonmuscle cells (12). Halfon S and colleagues (10) showed that only 16.7% of fibroblasts expressed ITGA11 on their surface compared with MSCs of early (51.4%) and late (28.6%) passages. CD106 (also known as vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 VCAM-1) is a member of the Ig superfamily which mediates leukocyte-endothelial cell adhesion and signal transduction during inflammation (13,14).…”

Section: Differences Between Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Fibroblastsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface markers distinguishing mesenchymal stem cells from fibroblasts

Kundrotas¹

2012

AML

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are widely used for treatment of various diseases. Clinical applications require large quantities of MSCs, therefore these cells must be expanded in the culture system. It is believed that contamination of MSC cultures with fibroblasts may lead to the decrease of the stem cell differentiation potential. Moreover, such stem cell preparations are potentially unsafe to use for clinical applications since a few fibroblasts can become tumorigenic. Therefore, there is a need to separate MSCs from fibroblasts. However, studies show that MSCs and fibroblasts have much in common. These two types of cells share such properties as identical spindle-like morphology, plastic adherence and the same expression of most surface antigens. The aim of this review article is to analyze the literature on the similarities and differences between the MSCs and fibroblasts, particularly in the expression of cell surface markers in order to determine which could be used for quick separating of MSCs from fibroblasts. Interestingly, the results of recent studies suggest that the use of CD10, CD26, CD106, CD146 and ITGA11 could be helpful for the discrimination of MSCs from fibroblasts. Identification and elimination of fibroblasts from MSC cultures could improve the MSC yield and differentiation potential and also prevent possible tumor formation after MSC transplantation.

show abstract

Markers Distinguishing Mesenchymal Stem Cells from Fibroblasts Are Downregulated with Passaging

Cited by 302 publications

References 68 publications

In Vivo Identity of Tendon Stem Cells and the Roles of Stem Cells in Tendon Healing

In Vivo Identity of Tendon Stem Cells and the Roles of Stem Cells in Tendon Healing

Comparison of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Source Differentiation Toward Human Pediatric Aortic Valve Interstitial Cells within 3D Engineered Matrices

Surface markers distinguishing mesenchymal stem cells from fibroblasts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About