Mesenchymal Stem Cells as Regulators of the Bone Marrow and Bone Components

Martínez, Laura Moreno; Labovsky, Vivian; Vallone, Valeria Fernández; Choi, Chang-Hyuk; Amorós, Mariana; Phillips, Charlotte L.; Chasseing, Norma Alejandra

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-803102-5.00015-x

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 142 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Osteoblasts develop from the MSCs through a process called osteogenesis. MSCs, give rise to osteo‐chondro progenitors, which develop into osteo‐precursors upon Runx2 (Runt‐related transcription factor 2) activation or chondrocytes if Sox9 (SRY box transcription factor 9) is activated (Martinez et al 2016). Pre‐osteoblasts, the osteogenic precursors, proliferate further and mature to form osteoblasts and, finally, osteocytes (Maes et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Signaling network regulating osteogenesis in mesenchymal stem cells

Thomas

Jaganathan

2021

J. Cell Commun. Signal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osteogenesis is an important developmental event that results in bone formation. Bone forming cells or osteoblasts develop from mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) through a highly controlled process regulated by several signaling pathways. The osteogenic lineage commitment of MSCs is controlled by cell–cell interactions, paracrine factors, mechanical signals, hormones, and cytokines present in their niche, which activate a plethora of signaling molecules belonging to bone morphogenetic proteins, Wnt, Hedgehog, and Notch signaling. These signaling pathways individually as well as in coordination with other signaling molecules, regulate the osteogenic lineage commitment of MSCs by activating several osteo‐lineage specific transcription factors. Here, we discuss the key signaling pathways that regulate osteogenic differentiation of MSCs and the cross‐talk between them during osteogenic differentiation. We also discuss how these signaling pathways can be modified for therapy for bone repair and regeneration.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Signaling network regulating osteogenesis in mesenchymal stem cells

Thomas

Jaganathan

2021

J. Cell Commun. Signal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Type-I collagen (Col1) is one of the major matrix components of the bone [40]. During differentiation, MSCs first give rise to osteoblasts, which progressively express markers concomitant to a mature phenotype including Col1 [41]. Day 14 confocal images indicate an overwhelming Col1 secretion on differentiating hBMSCs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The physicochemical and biomechanical profile of forsterite and its osteogenic potential of mesenchymal stromal cells

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been demonstrated that nanocrystalline forsterite powder synthesised using urea as a fuel in sol-gel combustion method had produced a pure forsterite (FU) and possessed superior bioactive characteristics such as bone apatite formation and antibacterial properties. In the present study, 3D-scaffold was fabricated using nanocrystalline forsterite powder in polymer sponge method. The FU scaffold was used in investigating the physicochemical, biomechanics, cell attachment, in vitro biocompatibility and osteogenic differentiation properties. For physicochemical characterisation, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), Energy dispersive X-ray (EDX), X-ray diffraction (XRD), Raman spectroscopy, X-ray photoemission spectrometer (XPS) and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) were used. FTIR, EDX, XRD peaks and Raman spectroscopy demonstrated correlating to FU. The XPS confirmed the surface chemistry associating to FU. The BET revealed FU scaffold surface area of 12.67 m 2 /g and total pore size of 0.03 cm 3 /g. Compressive strength of the FU scaffold was found to be 27.18 ± 13.4 MPa. The human bone marrow derived mesenchymal stromal cells (hBMSCs) characterisation prior to perform seeding on FU scaffold verified the stromal cell phenotypic and lineage commitments. SEM, confocal images and presto blue viability assay suggested good cell attachment and proliferation of hBMSCs on FU scaffold and comparable to a commercial bone substitutes (cBS). Osteogenic proteins and gene expression from day 7 onward indicated FU scaffold had a significant osteogenic potential ( p <0.05), when compared with day 1 as well as between FU and cBS. These findings suggest that FU scaffold has a greater potential for use in orthopaedic and/or orthodontic applications.

show abstract