Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMedOpen access

Alterations in Immunomodulatory Potential of ADSCs Undergoing Osteogenic Differentiation in the Context of Future Therapeutic Applications.

Szabłowska-Gadomska I., Rudziński S., Mroczko A., Mrozikiewicz-Rakowska B., Cysewski D., Gasperowicz P.

Laboratory Study on Chronic Inflammation, Immune Modulation, published in Cells (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Cells (2026)
Country
Switzerland
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
41972704
PMCID
PMC13072153
DOI
10.3390/cells15070614

Abstract (original English)

Background Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (ADSCs) are gaining recognition in regenerative medicine for their potential for adipogenic, osteogenic, and chondrogenic differentiation, as well as their immunomodulatory properties. However, ADSC-based therapies focus either on differentiation for tissue replacement or on counteracting unrestrained inflammation to prevent tissue destruction and initiate regeneration. Here, we aim to examine the immunomodulatory potential of osteogenically differentiated ADSCs by analyzing their proteomic profile. Methods Using LC-MS/MS, we generated the proteomic profiles of differentiated and undifferentiated ADSCs and compared them with the Reactome database. Transcriptomic analysis was also performed and compared with the proteomic profile. Results Comparison of the proteomic (499 up-regulated; 355 down-regulated) and transcriptomic (212 up-regulated; 232 down-regulated) profiles showed 60.1% concordance-both proteins and transcripts showed the same trend. Significantly upregulated proteins in differentiating ADSCs (-log 10 p > 5 and >10) were grouped into four categories: propensity for osteogenic differentiation; immunomodulation/immune/inflammatory response; cell senescence; and cell cycle regulation. Among those proteins, thirteen were reported to play roles in processes such as immunomodulation, inflammatory signaling, or tran

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
OsteogenesisMesenchymal Stem CellsCell DifferentiationHumansImmunomodulationProteomicsAdipose Tissue

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research