Osteoprogenitor cells from non-regenerative bone show greater resistance to cellular stress than those from regenerative bone
Broussard J., Culpepper S., Long T., Trostle AJ., Tower RJ., Sammarco MC.
Animal Study on Scar, published in Front Cell Dev Biol (2025) — 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
- Front Cell Dev Biol (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41487999
- PMCID
- PMC12756367
- DOI
- 10.3389/fcell.2025.1684670
Abstract (original English)
Introduction Bone regeneration following injury depends on osteoprogenitor cells derived predominantly from the periosteum. Incomplete regeneration has been attributed to both cell-extrinsic factors (e.g., environment, inflammation, mechanical instability) and cell-intrinsic factors (e.g., impaired proliferation or differentiation of stem cells). In the digit amputation mouse model, amputation through the third phalanx (P3) supports complete regeneration, while amputation through the second phalanx (P2) results in callus formation and scarring. Periosteal cells are known to be the major contributing cell source for repair and regeneration. Yet the healing outcomes of P2 and P3 amputations are significantly different. This study tests whether P2 and P3 cells are functionally equivalent. Methods and results Using in vitro cellular stress tests, we compared the intrinsic properties of periosteal cells from P2 and P3 bones and found that P3 periosteal cells were more prone to proliferative senescence and less resistant to cellular stress in vitro than those from P2. In vivo , senescent cells were detected at both P2 and P3 injury sites, but their senescence-associated secretory phenotypes (SASPs) differed depending on the amputation level. Specifically, P2 cells expressed higher levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g. Tnf, Il1b ) whereas P3 cells expressed higher levels of prote
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.
Related research
- Level ASystematic ReviewPubMed
Clinical Applications of Autologous Fat Grafting in Pathological Hand Conditions.
Systematic Review with a reported sample of 7 on Osteoarthritis, Scar, published in J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
- 2026
- n = 7
J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol - Level AMeta-analysisPubMed
Stem cell therapy in thin endometrium and Asherman's syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 323 on Scar, published in Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
- 2026
- n = 323
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol - Level AMeta-analysisEurope PMC
Therapeutic value of mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles in hypertrophic and keloid scars: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Meta-analysis on Chronic Wound, Scar, published in Front Cell Dev Biol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
- 2026
Front Cell Dev Biol - Level AMeta-analysisPubMed
Efficacy and safety of autologous cell-based therapies for atrophic acne scar treatment: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with in-depth methodological and clinical insights.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 500 on Chronic Wound, Scar, published in Front Cell Dev Biol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
- 2026
- n = 500
Front Cell Dev Biol - Level ASystematic ReviewEurope PMC
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Fractional CO<sub>2</sub> Laser and Gold Microneedling Radiofrequency for Atrophic Acne Scars: A Systematic Review
Systematic Review on Chronic Wound, Scar, published in Skin Res Technol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
- 2026
Skin Res Technol - Level AMeta-analysisPubMed
Role of exosome therapy in reconstructive surgery: a review.
Meta-analysis on Chronic Wound, Scar, Immune Modulation, published in Front Med (Lausanne) (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
- 2026
Front Med (Lausanne)1 citations