5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Strategies to address mesenchymal stem/stromal cell heterogeneity in immunomodulatory profiles to improve cell-based therapies

      , , ,
      Acta Biomaterialia
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references159

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement.

          The considerable therapeutic potential of human multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) has generated markedly increasing interest in a wide variety of biomedical disciplines. However, investigators report studies of MSC using different methods of isolation and expansion, and different approaches to characterizing the cells. Thus it is increasingly difficult to compare and contrast study outcomes, which hinders progress in the field. To begin to address this issue, the Mesenchymal and Tissue Stem Cell Committee of the International Society for Cellular Therapy proposes minimal criteria to define human MSC. First, MSC must be plastic-adherent when maintained in standard culture conditions. Second, MSC must express CD105, CD73 and CD90, and lack expression of CD45, CD34, CD14 or CD11b, CD79alpha or CD19 and HLA-DR surface molecules. Third, MSC must differentiate to osteoblasts, adipocytes and chondroblasts in vitro. While these criteria will probably require modification as new knowledge unfolds, we believe this minimal set of standard criteria will foster a more uniform characterization of MSC and facilitate the exchange of data among investigators.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Foreign body reaction to biomaterials.

            The foreign body reaction composed of macrophages and foreign body giant cells is the end-stage response of the inflammatory and wound healing responses following implantation of a medical device, prosthesis, or biomaterial. A brief, focused overview of events leading to the foreign body reaction is presented. The major focus of this review is on factors that modulate the interaction of macrophages and foreign body giant cells on synthetic surfaces where the chemical, physical, and morphological characteristics of the synthetic surface are considered to play a role in modulating cellular events. These events in the foreign body reaction include protein adsorption, monocyte/macrophage adhesion, macrophage fusion to form foreign body giant cells, consequences of the foreign body response on biomaterials, and cross-talk between macrophages/foreign body giant cells and inflammatory/wound healing cells. Biomaterial surface properties play an important role in modulating the foreign body reaction in the first two to four weeks following implantation of a medical device, even though the foreign body reaction at the tissue/material interface is present for the in vivo lifetime of the medical device. An understanding of the foreign body reaction is important as the foreign body reaction may impact the biocompatibility (safety) of the medical device, prosthesis, or implanted biomaterial and may significantly impact short- and long-term tissue responses with tissue-engineered constructs containing proteins, cells, and other biological components for use in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Our perspective has been on the inflammatory and wound healing response to implanted materials, devices, and tissue-engineered constructs. The incorporation of biological components of allogeneic or xenogeneic origin as well as stem cells into tissue-engineered or regenerative approaches opens up a myriad of other challenges. An in depth understanding of how the immune system interacts with these cells and how biomaterials or tissue-engineered constructs influence these interactions may prove pivotal to the safety, biocompatibility, and function of the device or system under consideration.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Mesenchymal stem cells derived from dental tissues vs. those from other sources: their biology and role in regenerative medicine.

              To date, 5 different human dental stem/progenitor cells have been isolated and characterized: dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs), stem cells from exfoliated deciduous teeth (SHED), periodontal ligament stem cells (PDLSCs), stem cells from apical papilla (SCAP), and dental follicle progenitor cells (DFPCs). These postnatal populations have mesenchymal-stem-cell-like (MSC) qualities, including the capacity for self-renewal and multilineage differentiation potential. MSCs derived from bone marrow (BMMSCs) are capable of giving rise to various lineages of cells, such as osteogenic, chondrogenic, adipogenic, myogenic, and neurogenic cells. The dental-tissue-derived stem cells are isolated from specialized tissue with potent capacities to differentiate into odontogenic cells. However, they also have the ability to give rise to other cell lineages similar to, but different in potency from, that of BMMSCs. This article will review the isolation and characterization of the properties of different dental MSC-like populations in comparison with those of other MSCs, such as BMMSCs. Important issues in stem cell biology, such as stem cell niche, homing, and immunoregulation, will also be discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Acta Biomaterialia
                Acta Biomaterialia
                Elsevier BV
                17427061
                October 2021
                October 2021
                : 133
                : 114-125
                Article
                10.1016/j.actbio.2021.03.069
                5a0ae1a8-0b22-4d3e-8197-b573e2fdf606
                © 2021

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article