Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMed

No simple way to averaging out: Pooled mesenchymal stromal cells do not reflect average donor characteristics.

Kukaj D., Niebert S., Biehl C., Reichart U., Schueler C., Burk J.

Laboratory Study, published in Regen Ther (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Regen Ther (2025)
Country
Netherlands
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
41098939
DOI
10.1016/j.reth.2025.09.012

Abstract (original English)

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are promising candidates for numerous regenerative therapies. Still, clinical translation is complicated by the heterogeneity of MSCs and related shortcomings in preclinical research. Pooling MSCs from multiple donors is increasingly being advocated as an effective way to mitigate donor variability. However, it remains unclear whether the range of individual cell characteristics is equally reflected in pooled cultures, or if pooling rather leads to a homogenized cell population dominated by the fittest donor, which would lead to skewed results. This study investigates whether MSC pools are functionally representative for their respective donor MSCs and whether dominant donors emerge over time. MSCs from nine human donors were categorized into low-, middle-, and high-fitness groups. Individual MSCs were then pooled according to their fitness groups, complemented by a mixed-fitness pool. Functional assays for proliferation, metabolic activity, differentiation, migration and senescence were performed to evaluate the pools versus the individual MSCs. Donor representation within pools was tracked using fluorescence microscopy and qPCR. The high-fitness pool, as well as its individual donor MSCs, displayed the most rapid proliferation and highest metabolic activity. However, while for proliferation, the pool data aligned well with the individual donor

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 evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.