SVF
Insufficient· Insufficient EvidenceNarrative Review

Exploring the Therapeutic Potential of Dedifferentiated Fat Progenitors (DFATs) in Comparison To the Adipose Derived Stem/Stromal Cells (ASCs).

Rybkowska P., Bzinkowska A., Chodkowska-Michalowska M., Radoszkiewicz K., Sarnowska A.

Narrative Review on Cartilage Damage, published in Stem Cell Rev Rep (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

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 Cell Rev Rep (2026)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
PMID
41108454
DOI
10.1007/s12015-025-10986-6

Abstract (original English)

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) therapy has undoubtedly become one of the most popular treatment methods used in tissue regeneration and bioengineering in both pre-clinical and clinical trials. MSCs-based therapy has been characterized to have several benefits, mainly supporting and accelerating tissue regeneration, but at the same time it is still subjected to certain risks. The ideal MSCs population that could be used for clinical purposes should be characterized by superior homogeneity, proper safety level, and great clinical efficacy with limited or no side effects. Recently discovered, dedifferentiated fat progenitors (DFATs) could be the perfect candidates for regenerative medicine. The growing number of studies indicates DFATs superior properties compared to widely used adipose derived stem/stromal cells (ASCs). Some potentially significant differences between ASCs and DFATs have been observed in the process of isolation, their surface marker expression, proliferation ability, differentiation capacity, and expression of pluripotency-related genes. DFATs have also been shown to pose some beneficial effects in animal studies, for instance, they might contribute to bone and cartilage repair, periodontal tissue regeneration, neovascularization, skin and fat grafting, nerve tissue recovery, and intestine restoration in vivo. However, most of the published reports do not

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

There is currently not enough data to draw conclusions about benefit or risk for this topic.

How we grade evidence
HumansAdipose TissueAnimalsCell DedifferentiationCell DifferentiationMesenchymal Stem CellsRegenerative MedicineAdipocytesStem CellsMesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation
Face & SkinCartilage Damage
View on PubMedDOI

Related research