Unveiling distinctions between mesenchymal stromal cells and stem cells by single-cell transcriptomic analysis.
Yan K., Ma F., Song X., Wang H., Liu P., Zhang J.
Laboratory Study, published in Heliyon (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
- Laboratory Study
- Journal
- Heliyon (2025)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 40034318
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42311
Abstract (original English)
Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and stem cells are distinct types of cells, but they are practically undistinguishable by currently commonly-used identification markers. A single-cell transcriptomic analysis was used to solve this problem. There are eight critical genes involved in self-renewal and differentiation, SOX2, NANOG, POU5F1, SFRP2, DPPA4, SALL4, ZFP42 and MYCN expressed in ESCs, iPSCs and adult stem cells (ASCs), but not in MSCs. There are five functional genes of MSCs, TMEM119 , FBLN5 , KCNK2 , CLDN11 and DKK1 , which are not expressed in stem cells. Trajectory analysis displayed clear developmental cliffs from ESCs/iPSCs to ASCs and to MSCs. Adipose-derived MSCs, relative to other types of MSCs, exhibit a more consistent and broader spectrum of gene expression for regulatory and excrete function. This study identifies distinction markers between MSCs and stem cells, providing an alternative approach for quality control of MSCs in their propagation and further mechanistic insights into their action.
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.