Comparative proteomic analysis of human mesenchymal and embryonic stem cells: towards the definition of a mesenchymal stem cell proteomic signature.
Roche S., Delorme B., Oostendorp RA., Barbet R., Caton D., Noel D.
Laboratory Study, published in Proteomics (2009) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Proteomics (2009)
- Country
- Germany
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 19142956
- DOI
- 10.1002/pmic.200800035
Abstract (original English)
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) are adult multipotential progenitors which have a high potential in regenerative medicine. They can be isolated from different tissues throughout the body and their homogeneity in terms of phenotype and differentiation capacities is a real concern. To address this issue, we conducted a 2-DE gel analysis of mesenchymal stem cells isolated from bone marrow (BM), adipose tissue, synovial membrane and umbilical vein wall. We confirmed that BM and adipose tissue derived cells were very similar, which argue for their interchangeable use for cell therapy. We also compared human mesenchymal to embryonic stem cells and showed that umbilical vein wall stem cells, a neo-natal cell type, were closer to BM cells than to embryonic stem cells. Based on these proteomic data, we could propose a panel of proteins which were the basis for the definition of a mesenchymal stem cell proteomic signature.
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.