Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesAnimal StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Autologous Mesenchymal Stroma Cells Are Superior to Allogeneic Ones in Bone Defect Regeneration

Rapp AE., Bindl R., Erbacher A., Kruchen A., Rojewski M., Schrezenmeier H.

Animal Study on Chronic Wound, published in Int J Mol Sci (2018) — 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
Animal Study
Journal
Int J Mol Sci (2018)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
30149650
PMCID
PMC6163925
DOI
10.3390/ijms19092526
Citations
16

Abstract (original English)

The application of autologous mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) for the treatment of bone defects requires two invasive procedures and several weeks of ex vivo cell expansion. To overcome these limitations, the administration of allogeneic MSC may be attractive, because they are anticipated to be immunoprivileged. Because preclinical studies using various animal models are conflicting with respect to the efficacy of allogeneic MSC, we investigated whether autologous and allogeneic human MSC (hMSC) are equally effective in regenerating bone in a humanized mouse model resembling the human immune system. Applying autologous and allogeneic hMSC in critically sized femoral defects, we found that allogeneic hMSC elicited a mild immune response early after implantation, whereas early angiogenic processes were similar in both treatments. At later healing time points, the transplantation of allogeneic hMSC resulted in less bone formation than autologous hMSC, associated with a reduced expression of the osteogenic factor Runx2 and impaired angiogenesis. We found by species-specific staining for collagen-type-1α2 that MSCs of either source did not synthesize new bone matrix, indicating an indirect contribution of transplanted hMSC to bone regeneration. In conclusion, our data suggest that the application of autologous hMSC is superior to that of allogeneic cells for bone defect treatment.

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
T-Lymphocyte SubsetsMesenchymal Stem CellsAnimalsMice, TransgenicHumansMiceMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationTransplantation, AutologousTransplantation, HomologousBone Regeneration

Browse all related research

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

Related research