Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesAnimal StudyEurope PMCOpen access

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.

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
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 evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research