Current methods of adipogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells.
Scott MA., Nguyen VT., Levi B., James AW.
Narrative Review, published in Stem Cells Dev (2011) — 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
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Stem Cells Dev (2011)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 21526925
- PMCID
- PMC3182038
- DOI
- 10.1089/scd.2011.0040
- Citations
- 186
Abstract (original English)
There has been a recent increase in our understanding in the isolation, culture, and differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Concomitantly, the availability of MSCs has increased, with cells now commercially available, including human MSCs from adipose tissue and bone marrow. Despite an increased understanding of MSC biology and an increase in their availability, standardization of techniques for adipogenic differentiation of MSCs is lacking. The following review will explore the variability in adipogenic differentiation in vitro, specifically in 3T3-L1 and primary MSCs derived from both adipose tissue and bone marrow. A review of alternative methods of adipogenic induction is also presented, including the use of specific peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma agonists as well as bone morphogenetic proteins. Finally, we define a standard, commonly used adipogenic differentiation medium in the hopes that this will be adopted for the future standardization of laboratory techniques--however, we also highlight the essentially arbitrary nature of this decision. With the current, rapid pace of electronic publications, it becomes imperative for standardization of such basic techniques so that interlaboratory results may be easily compared and interpreted.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
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.