Improved adipogenic in vitro differentiation: comparison of different adipogenic cell culture media on human fat and bone stroma cells for fat tissue engineering
Ghoniem AA., Açil Y., Wiltfang J., Gierloff M.
Laboratory Study, published in Anat Cell Biol (2015) — 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
- Laboratory Study
- Journal
- Anat Cell Biol (2015)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 26140219
- PMCID
- PMC4488646
- DOI
- 10.5115/acb.2015.48.2.85
- Citations
- 11
Abstract (original English)
To date there is no sufficient in vitro fat tissue engineering and a protocol has not been well established for this purpose. Therefore, we evaluated the in vitro influence of two different adipogenic growth media for their stimulation potential on different cell lineages to clearly define the most potent adipogenic growth media for future in vitro tissue engineering approaches. The samples for differentiation were composed of human adipogenic-derived stroma cells (hADSCs) and human bone marrow mesenchymal stroma cells (hMSCs). A normal adipogenic medium (NAM) and a specific adipogenic medium (SAM) were tested for their adipogenic stimulation potential. After 10 days and 21 days the relative gene expression was measured for the adipogenic marker genes PPARγ2, C/EBPα, FABP4, LPL, and GLUT4 detected through real time reverse transcriptase polymease chain reaction (RT-PCR). Other study variables were the comparison between NAM and SAM and between the used cells hADSCs and hMSCs. Additionally an Oil-Red staining was performed after 21 days. Our results revealed that only SAM was significantly (P<0.05) superior in the differentiation process in contrast to NAM for 10 days and 21 days. As well was SAM superior to differentiate the used cell lineages. This was evaluated by the detected marker genes PPARγ2, C/EBPα, FABP4, LPL, and GLUT4 through real time RT-PCR and by Oil-Red staining.
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.