Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMedOpen access

Proteomic Study Revealed a Distinction Between Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Mesenchymal Stem Cells from Different Sources.

Nováková S., Hatoková Z., Danchenko M., Beke G., Kľučár Ľ., Slovinská L.

Laboratory Study on Face & Skin, published in Stem Cell Rev Rep (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
Stem Cell Rev Rep (2025)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
40576856
PMCID
PMC12408728
DOI
10.1007/s12015-025-10926-4
Citations
3

Abstract (original English)

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are an essential tool in cell-based therapies. One of the most crucial factors for efficacy in regenerative medicine is the source of MSCs. Tissue origin has long been suggested as a potential determinant of MSC properties. Human dermal fibroblasts (HDFa) share similar characteristics with MSCs, and the question of whether HDFa are functionally equivalent to MSCs remains debated. The present work used proteomic and phenotypic analyses to compare HDFa, dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs), and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (AD-MSCs). We observed similarities and/or differences in morphology, cell surface markers, differentiation, and proteomic profile. Proteome was profiled by nano liquid chromatography and comprehensively quantified by mass spectrometry. In fact, HDFa and MSCs shared similar surface markers, growth kinetics, and differentiation capacity. Proteomic analysis reproducibly identified and quantified 3,051 proteins, 86 of them were differentially abundant according to strict statistical criteria. We identified a set of proteins that determined signatures for each stem cell origin. Gene Ontology (GO) term enrichment of differentially accumulated proteins, and Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) identified signaling pathways characteristic to individual cell types. Particularly, we highlighted signaling pathways involved in cell migrati

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
HumansMesenchymal Stem CellsFibroblastsProteomicsCell DifferentiationDental PulpProteomeDermisCells, CulturedAdipose Tissue

Browse all related research

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

Related research