Differences in the MicroRNA profiles of subcutaneous adipose-derived stem cells and omental adipose-derived stem cells.
Hu F., Xu P., Sun B., Xiao Z.
Animal Study, published in Gene (2017) — 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
- Animal Study
- Journal
- Gene (2017)
- Country
- Netherlands
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 28483594
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.gene.2017.05.014
- Citations
- 8
Abstract (original English)
Adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) isolated from subcutaneous (SC) and omentum (O) share similar characteristics, but the differences in their microRNA profiles are mostly unknown. In this study, besides significant differences in cell morphology and the differentiation ability of the two types of ASCs, the microRNA expression profiles of the cell lines were determined using SOLiD next-generation sequencing. The in-depth analysis found that miR-214, miR-222, miR-181a, miR-26a and miR-23/27/24 clusters and miR-375 act as "markers" to distinguish the different fat deposit-derived ASCs. Additionally, the global miRNA-mRNA interaction differences were revealed, and the results of the GO term enrichment and KEGG pathway in the DAVID tool showed that the molecular function, biological process and signaling pathways showed some different in the two types of ASCs. Our findings provided a clue to a more thorough understanding of the difference between SC-ASCs and O-ASCs and indicate their different potentials for clinical use.
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.