Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Nomenclature and heterogeneity: consequences for the use of mesenchymal stem cells in regenerative medicine

Wilson A., Webster A., Genever P.

Narrative Review on Chronic Inflammation, Immune Modulation, published in Regen Med (2019) — 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
Narrative Review
Journal
Regen Med (2019)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
31115266
PMCID
PMC7132560
DOI
10.2217/rme-2018-0145
Citations
74

Abstract (original English)

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are in development for many clinical indications, based both on 'stem' properties (tissue repair or regeneration) and on signaling repertoire (immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects). Potential conflation of MSC properties with those of tissue-derived stromal cells presents difficulties in comparing study outcomes and represents a source of confusion in cell therapy development. Cultured MSCs demonstrate significant heterogeneity in clonogenicity and multi-lineage differentiation potential. However in vivo biology of MSCs includes native functions unrelated to regenerative medicine applications, so do nomenclature and heterogeneity matter? In this perspective we examine some consequences of the nomenclature debate and heterogeneity of MSCs. Regulatory expectations are considered, emphasizing that product development should prioritize detailed characterization of therapeutic cell populations for specific indications.

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 evidence
Mesenchymal Stem CellsHumansMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationRegenerative MedicineTerminology as Topic

Browse all related research

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

Related research