Isolation of equine bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells: a comparison between three protocols.
Bourzac C., Smith LC., Vincent P., Beauchamp G., Lavoie JP., Laverty S.
Animal Study, published in Equine Vet J (2010) — 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
- Equine Vet J (2010)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 20716192
- DOI
- 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00098.x
Abstract (original English)
There is a need to assess and standardise equine bone marrow (BM) mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) isolation protocols in order to permit valid comparisons between therapeutic trials at different sites. To compare 3 protocols of equine BM MSC isolation: adherence to a plastic culture dish (Classic) and 2 gradient density separation protocols (Percoll and Ficoll). BM aspirates were harvested from the sternum of 6 mares and MSCs isolated by all 3 protocols. The cell viability after isolation, MSC yield, number of MSCs attained after 14 days of culture and the functional characteristics (self-renewal (CFU) and multilineage differentiation capacity) were determined for all 3 protocols. The mean +/- s.d. MSC yield from the Percoll protocol was significantly higher (6.8 +/- 3.8%) than the Classic protocol (1.3 +/- 0.7%). The numbers of MSCs recovered after 14 days culture per 10 ml BM sample were 24.0 +/- 12.1, 14.6 +/- 9.5 and 4.1 +/- 2.5 x 10(6) for the Percoll, Ficoll and Classic protocols, respectively, significantly higher for the Percoll compared with the Classic protocol. Importantly, no significant difference in cell viability or in osteogenic or chondrogenic differentiation was identified between the protocols. At Passage 0, cells retrieved with the Ficoll protocol had lower self-renewal capacity when compared with the Classic protocol but there was no significant difference betw
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.