Differential phenotype and behavior in culture of CD34 positive cells from peripheral blood and adipose tissue
Froehlich H., Simari RD., Boilson BA.
Narrative Review, published in Heliyon (2021) — 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
- Heliyon (2021)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 34458617
- PMCID
- PMC8377488
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07779
- Citations
- 4
Abstract (original English)
The localization and quantification of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are controversial. Circulating CD34 + cells in blood have been identified as EPCs and as biomarkers of cardiovascular disease. We discuss in this paper the current data describing differential phenotype and behavior in vitro of CD34 positive cells from the circulation and adipose tissue (AT). We also describe in brief our own findings from CD34 + cells isolated from leukopheresis cones derived from healthy platelet donors and from patients undergoing bariatric surgery. We conclude that CD34 + cells in blood and in AT are different in antigenic profile and behavior in culture. The findings described assert that CD34 + cells detected in blood previously identified as biomarkers of cardiovascular disease are predominantly HPCs rather than EPCs, and that true CD34 + EPCs can be readily identified and extracted from AT, supportive of the current evidence which suggests EPCs are resident in the tissue vasculature.
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.