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

Comparison of the direct effects of human adipose- and bone-marrow-derived stem cells on postischemic cardiomyoblasts in an in vitro simulated ischemia-reperfusion model.

Szepes M., Benkő Z., Cselenyák A., Kompisch KM., Schumacher U., Lacza Z.

Laboratory Study on Immune Modulation, published in Stem Cells Int (2013) — 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
Stem Cells Int (2013)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
23853609
PMCID
PMC3703900
DOI
10.1155/2013/178346
Citations
3

Abstract (original English)

Regenerative therapies hold a promising and exciting future for the cure of yet untreatable diseases, and mesenchymal stem cells are in the forefront of this approach. However, the relative efficacy and the mechanism of action of different types of mesenchymal stem cells are still incompletely understood. We aimed to evaluate the effects of human adipose- (hASC) and bone-marrow-derived stem cells (hBMSCs) and adipose-derived stem cell conditioned media (ACM) on the viability of cardiomyoblasts in an in vitro ischemia-reperfusion (I-R) model. Flow cytometric viability analysis revealed that both cell treatments led to similarly increased percentages of living cells, while treatment with ACM did not (I-R model: 12.13 ± 0.75%; hASC: 24.66 ± 2.49%; hBMSC: 25.41 ± 1.99%; ACM: 13.94 ± 1.44%). Metabolic activity measurement (I-R model: 0.065 ± 0.033; hASC: 0.652 ± 0.089; hBMSC: 0.607 ± 0.059; ACM: 0.225 ± 0.013; arbitrary units) and lactate dehydrogenase assay (I-R model: 0.225 ± 0.006; hASC: 0.148 ± 0.005; hBMSC: 0.146 ± 0.004; ACM: 0.208 ± 0.009; arbitrary units) confirmed the flow cytometric results while also indicated a slight beneficial effect of ACM. Our results highlight that mesenchymal stem cells have the same efficacy when used directly on postischemic cells, and differences found between them in preclinical and clinical investigations are rather related to other possible c

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

Browse all related research

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

Related research