Open Access

Chondrogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells: role of tissue source and inducing factors

Stem Cell Research & Therapy20101:31

DOI: 10.1186/scrt31

Published: 13 October 2010

Abstract

Multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are an attractive cell source for cell therapy in cartilage. Although their therapeutic potential is clear, the requirements and conditions for effective induction of chondrogenesis in MSCs and for the production of a stable cartilaginous tissue by these cells are far from being understood. Different sources of MSCs have been considered for cartilage tissue engineering, mainly based on criteria of availability, as for adipose tissue, or of proximity to cartilage and the joint environment in vivo, as for bone marrow and synovial tissues. Focussing on human MSCs, this review will provide an overview of studies featuring comparative analysis of the chondrogenic differentiation of MSCs from different sources. In particular, it will examine the influence of the cells' origin on the requirements for the induction of chondrogenesis and on the phenotype achieved by the cells after differentiation.

Introduction

Articular hyaline cartilage has poor regenerative capacity, and the loss of its function is, in the long term, often painful and debilitating. Therefore, attempts have been made to intervene in cartilage defects with the objective of supporting biological repair of tissue. Alongside cell-based strategies for in situ regeneration [1], autologous chondrocyte transplantation was initiated as the first cell therapy for cartilage [2]. The requirement for biopsies from a healthy area of the cartilage cap and the necessity of surgical intervention prior to transplantation are evident disadvantages of this therapy, and multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) represent an appealing alternative cell source for cartilage repair.

The therapeutic potential of MSCs for cartilage repair is clear; however, the requirements and conditions for effective induction of chondrogenesis in MSCs and for the production of a stable cartilaginous tissue by these cells are far from being understood. Different sources of MSCs have been considered for cartilage tissue engineering, mainly based on criteria of availability, as for adipose tissue (AT), or of proximity to cartilage and the joint environment in vivo, as for bone marrow (BM) and synovial tissues. Focussing on human MSCs, this review will provide an overview of studies featuring comparative analysis of the chondrogenic differentiation of MSCs from different sources.

Definition of multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells

The presence of cells with osteochondral differentiation potential in BM was shown in the late 1960s [3]. Their isolation as the adherent mononuclear cell fraction of BM and ex vivo cultivation allowed their further characterization as colony-forming unit fibroblasts (CFU-Fs) [4]. This pioneering work in guinea-pig was followed by the identification of human BM CFU-Fs [5] and the demonstration of their osteogenic potential in diffusion chambers [6]. The in vitro differentiation of cloned MSC populations along the osteogenic, chondrogenic and adipogenic lineages demonstrated the multilineage potential of these cells [7].

The differentiation potential of MSCs was the feature that fostered their discovery and characterization. In vivo, MSCs function to support the homeostasis of mesenchymal tissues, and this mesengenic activity bears high therapeutic potential. However, it has been recognized in recent years that the potential therapeutic benefits of MSCs do not reside solely in their ability to differentiate towards multiple lineages but also in paracrine mechanisms [8]. In particular, the cardio-vascular reparative effects attributed to MSCs appear to be mediated predominantly through the secretion of factors targeting cells at the site of repair [9]. Indeed, MSCs secrete a variety of bioactive molecules with trophic, immunomodulatory, anti-scarring and chemo-attractant activities [10]. New therapeutic strategies thus include transplantation of MSCs for the promotion of haematopoietic engraftment or for immunosuppression in graft-versus-host disease [11]. Whether beneficial effects can be expected from the immunomodulatory activities of MSCs for the treatment of rheumatic arthritis is still under debate [12].

The term 'mesenchymal stem cells' was proposed by Caplan [13] on the basis of the ability of these cell populations to differentiate towards tissues of mesenchymal origin. Based on different isolation methods to obtain MSCs or subpopulations of MSCs, investigators have given different names, such as bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs) [14], marrow-isolated adult multipotent inducible (MIAMIs) cells [15] or multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAPCs) [16] to these cell populations. The International Society for Cellular Therapy proposed the term 'multipotent mesenchymal stromal cell' for the plastic-adherent cell population isolated from BM or other tissues, thus avoiding use of the term 'stem cells' to designate a population that does not consist entirely of such cells [17].

Indeed, early evidence for heterogeneity of MSC populations in terms of morphology, growth characteristics and differentiation potential has been reported [18]. MSC populations are heterogeneous cell populations whose composition depends on isolation methods and expansion conditions that differ largely among investigators. A recent publication on cloned populations of MSCs showed that nearly 50% of CFU-Fs from BM were tripotent MSCs while the remaining population of cells showed varied phenotypes [19].

So far, no clear marker for MSCs has been identified. The criteria for the definition of MSCs, as set by the International Society for Cellular Therapy, are the ability of MSCs to adhere to plastic in standard culture conditions, their phenotypical characterization based on the expression of a set of surface antigens and their in vitro differentiation along the osteogenic, the adipogenic and the chondrogenic lineages [20]. The ability to form CFU-Fs is another commonly accepted criterion. However, none of these criteria is unequivocal and only their combination can be used to define MSC populations.

Sources of MSCs in different organs

While it was the characterization of BM stromal cells that introduced the concept of MSCs, analysis of progenitor cell populations isolated from other tissues showed that they shared the properties ascribed to BM MSCs. This was not restricted to mesodermal tissues, on which this review will focus, as MSCs have also been isolated from ectodermal tissues, such as skin or hair follicles, as well as from perinatal tissue and umbilical cord blood [21].

The multilineage differentiation potential of a cell population can be due to a mixture of different committed progenitor cells. Therefore, to demonstrate the presence of multipotent cells in a cell population, it is essential to show the multilineage potential of cloned cell populations. A tissue other than BM whose osteogenic properties were described at an early stage was the periosteum [22], in which the presence of clonogenic multipotent cells has been demonstrated [23]. The presence of MSCs was also demonstrated in stromal cells isolated from AT [24]. The synovial membrane (SM) appeared a particularly interesting source of cells for cartilage tissue engineering owing to its proximity to articular cartilage. The presence of MSCs with multilineage potential was shown in the SM of healthy and osteoarthritic patients [25]. A more extended analysis of clonal populations of SM MSCs distinguished two populations: 30% of cells were tripotent while the remainder displayed only osteo-chondral differentiation potential [26]. This heterogeneity could be linked to the presence of synovial fibroblasts among SM MSC populations. The presence of MSCs has also been demonstrated in the synovial fluid of healthy and arthritic patients [27]. Dedifferentiated chondrocytes from articular cartilage of healthy and osteoarthritic donors have been shown to exhibit MSC characteristics. The reported rates of tripotent cloned cell populations arising from them varies from 10% to 30% [28, 29]. In trabecular bone, cell populations with chondrogenic, osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation potential have been isolated [30], but the multidifferentiation potential of cloned populations has been shown only along the adipogenic and osteogenic lineages [31].

Putative MSC populations have also been isolated from other tissues, for which, to our knowledge, the demonstration of clonal multilineage potential has not been provided. These tissues include muscle [32] as well as joint-related tissues such as meniscus, intra-articular ligament [33] and infrapatellar fat pad [34].

Origin of MSCs in vivo

MSCs are defined and characterized as cultured cell populations. The low numbers of initial cells isolated from tissue and the lack of unequivocal markers hampered the investigation of their physiological location and function in vivo. Pericytes, a cell type found in close proximity to endothelial cells in capillaries and microvessels, have been reported to possess stem cell properties [35, 36] and this gave rise to the hypothesis that MSCs and pericytes might represent one cell type. Markers for pericytes include the adhesion molecule CD146, whose expression in BM is restricted to adventitial reticular cells in the subendothelial layer of sinusoids [37]. A CD146-positive population of subendothelial cells from human BM stroma is the first and so far only MSC entity for which true self-renewing capacity has been demonstrated [37].

The possible identity of MSCs and pericytes is not restricted to BM. Based on the expression of CD146 and other markers, pericytes have been identified in multiple human organs, including skeletal muscle, pancreas, adipose tissue and placenta, and clonogenic populations from these cell populations have been found to display osteogenic, chondrogenic and adipogenic differentiation potential [38]. Possibly, MSCs derived from all vascularized tissues, such as BM, AT, trabecular bone, periosteum and SM, could share a common origin as perivascular cells. Evidence for this common origin of MSCs is so far based on similarities between MSCs and pericytes and on the shared expression of marker genes. Further investigations are needed to test this hypothesis.

However, cells with MSC characteristics have also been isolated from articular cartilage, which is an avascular tissue [28, 29]. Provided the tissue of origin was not contaminated, a perivascular origin of these cells can be excluded. It is likely, therefore, that cells other than perivascular cells can contribute to multipotent MSC populations.

Numbers of MSCs in different tissues

In relation to tissue mass, yields of adherent stromal cells from BM and AT have been described as similar, with an average 2 × 105 cells per gram of tissue [39]. As AT MSCs are most frequently isolated from lipoaspirates, no correlation to initial tissue mass is possible. The total number of nucleated cells is much higher in BM than in AT and, accordingly, investigators have reported higher amounts of CFU-Fs per total cell number in AT [33, 40]. Identical yields of CFU-Fs per total cell number were shown from periosteum and from AT [41], while more CFU-Fs could be isolated from SM than from subcutaneous fat [41, 42] or infrapatellar fat [43].

The analysis of differences in the growth kinetics of MSCs from different sources would require precise monitoring of initial cell numbers. It is not clear whether longer growth potential of AT MSCs than of BM MSCs before senescence, as suggested by some studies [40, 44, 45], can be convincingly demonstrated. The better growth characteristics sometimes reported for AT MSCs may, instead, be linked to higher initial cell numbers. In terms of accessibility and yield of adherent cells, AT indeed appears one of the most attractive sources of MSCs for therapeutic use.

Molecular characterization of MSCs

No specific marker combination for MSCs has been identified so far. However, immunophenotypical profiles of expanded MSCs from different sources have generally been found to be very similar. The analysis of MSCs from BM, AT, SM and periosteum showed that these cells can be characterized by the absence of expression of surface markers for the haematopoietic lineage, such as the cluster of differentiation (CD) molecules CD14, CD31 or CD45, and by positivity for a panel of markers, including CD13, CD29, CD44, CD73, CD90, CD105, CD147 or CD166 [33, 40, 41, 44, 4653]. Results from flow cytometric analysis of MSCs showing significant differences between different sources are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Surface markers for which different expression profiles in human MSCs from adipose tissue (AT), bone marrow (BM) and synovial membrane (SM) have been reported

AT > BMa

BM > AT

SM > BM

BM > SM

CD34 [51]

CD106 [40, 61]

CD140a [64]

CD90 [48]

 

CD146 [61]

  
 

HLA-ABC [61]

  

aHigher expression in multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells from adipose tissue than from bone marrow. AT, adipose tissue; BM, bone marrow; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; SM, synovial membrane.

While absence of CD34 is generally considered as a criterion for the definition of MSCs [20], some investigators have reported low expression in AT MSCs [46, 51, 53] and one group described selected cell populations with multidifferentiation potential from AT using CD34 [54]. The presence of a pericytic CD34-positive subpopulation in AT has been shown, but it has not yet been determined by cloning studies whether these cells indeed bear stem cell characteristics [55, 56]. While the stem cell marker CD133 is not expressed in expanded MSC populations obtained by adhesion to plastic [40, 47], the isolation of CD133-positive cell populations from blood and BM with high proliferation potential and multilineage potential, including mesodermal lineages, has been described [57, 58]. CD271, a marker that is highly expressed in BM and AT MSCs and allows the isolation of MSC populations from primary tissues [54, 59], has been reported not to be expressed in SM MSCs [26, 60]. However, to our knowledge, no direct comparison of stem cell populations from different sources has been performed for this marker. Several studies have pointed to higher expression of CD106 in BM than in AT [40, 46, 53, 61]. The vascular cell adhesion molecule CD106/VCAM1 has been shown to be involved in homing of haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) [62]. This difference may, therefore, be related to the specific microenvironment in BM and has indeed been correlated with a functional difference between AT and BM MSCs, the latter showing a higher capacity to maintain long-term cultures of primary HSCs [63]. Another marker with potential functional relevance is the platelet-derived growth factor receptor CD140a/PDGFRα, which is involved in proliferation and migration of MSCs and osteoblasts and has been described in one study to be expressed more highly in SM than in BM [64].

Comparative array analysis of expanded MSCs from different sources was published by several groups and provided, overall, very similar expression profiles of MSC populations [44, 47, 48, 6567]. Interestingly, intra-articular MSCs from SM and MSC-like cells from anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus were found to cluster separately from AT, BM and muscle MSCs [33]. Similar results were found by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis analysis of the proteome of MSCs, where the expression profiles of AT and BM MSCs were closer to each other than either was to SM MSCs [53]. While the functional heterogeneity of SM MSCs has been characterized [26], it remains unknown for other intra-articular sources of cells. It is not clear, therefore, whether the separate clustering of SM MSCs is due to particular characteristics of MSCs from the joint environment or to a higher heterogeneity of these populations. Altogether, the comparative transcriptome analyses of MSCs from different sources have revealed few differences, suggesting that these cell populations contain a common population of similar cells.

Epigenetic characterization of MSCs

Large-scale analysis of DNA methylation in embryonic and adult stem cells has shown that embryonic stem (ES) cells can clearly be discriminated from MSCs by specific hypermethylation of numerous genes. In contrast, the comparison of AT and BM MSCs revealed few differences [66]. A comparison of DNA methylation profiles in MSCs from AT, BM and muscle and in HSCs also revealed specific hypermethylation of numerous genes in HSCs while the methylation patterns of MSCs from different sources were very similar. Most promoters specifying mesodermal, endodermal and ectodermal differentiation were hypomethylated in all MSC populations [68]. This suggests that promoter hypomethylation is not predictive for the differentiation potential of cells, while hyper-methylation sets restrictions that define frames for differentiation potentials, distinguishing MSCs from ES cells or HSCs.

Accordingly, genes related to the adipogenic and myogenic lineage were found to be equally hypomethylated in MSCs from AT, BM or muscle [69], and in an analysis of the methylation patterns in the promoters of COL2A1 (collagen type II gene) and COL10A1 (collagen type X gene) in MSCs we found no differences between BM- and AT-derived MSCs [70]. However, two cytosines in the COL10A1 promoter were consistently hypomethylated in MSCs in comparison with articular chondrocytes, correlating to the inducibility of COL10A1 expression and hypertrophy during in vitro chondrogenesis of MSCs [70]. Differences between the DNA methylation patterns of differentiated cells originating from embryonic precursors and MSCs could thus be of functional relevance for tissue engineering.

Post-translational histone modifications have been mapped in ES cells and in MSCs and have been recognized to play an important role in transcriptional regulation in stem cells [71]. To date, no comparative analysis of MSCs from different sources has been published. Histone modifications and histone-modifying molecules are regulated, while MSCs enter senescence in vitro and could be involved in the ensuing loss of differentiation potential [72]. They are also actively involved in differentiation. Several studies have indicated that histone deacetylases, in particular HDAC4, may represent important regulators of chondrogenesis [73, 74].

MicroRNAs represent a further epigenetic regulation mechanism relevant for stem cell biology [75]. The comparison of the microRNA expression profiles of MSCs from BM and AT revealed that only one microRNA was differentially expressed while the differences with ES cells were high [66]. Studies have shown regulation of the expression of microRNAs in MSC senescence [76] and chondrogenic differentiation [77], but the functional mechanisms are unknown. The epigenetic characterization of MSCs is a relatively new field of investigation that has so far revealed only minor differences between MSCs from different sources at all levels. Refinement of the analysis of profiles may, however, lead to an epigenetic definition of MSCs, which could have the advantage of correlating with the functional potential of the cells.

Induction of chondrogenic differentiation of MSCs in vitro

During embryogenesis the development of cartilage is initiated by a phase of condensation of mesenchymal precursor cells, and the cell-cell contact arising from condensation appears to be crucial for the onset of chondrogenesis [78]. N-cadherin seems to be involved in cell-cell contact in pre-cartilage condensations, and functional N-cadherin was necessary for chondrogenesis of chick limb mesenchymal cells in vitro and in vivo [79]. In human MSCs, N-cadherin is strongly up-regulated during the condensation phase during the first few days of chondrogenic induction in vitro [80]. When MSCs are submitted to chondrogenic conditions in monolayer culture, they begin to condensate in response to the stimulus and form high-density three-dimensional cell aggregates [65]. However, proper chondrogenic differentiation occurs also for MSCs embedded in gel-like biomaterials that keep cells apart from each other and thus limit direct cell-cell contact [81]. This suggests that, although cell-cell contact facilitates chondrogenic induction of MSCs compared with monolayer culture, it does not represent an absolute requirement for in vitro chondrogenic differentiation of human MSCs in a three-dimensional structure.

One of the most widely applied culture systems for chondrogenesis is pellet culture, alternatively termed aggregate or spheroid culture [82, 83]. Pellets comprising between 200,000 and 500,000 cells, depending on the investigators, are submitted to chondrogenic induction with a basal medium containing, conventionally, dexamethasone, ascorbate, insulin, transferrin and selenous acid [82, 83]. The classic growth factor supplementation for this medium is 10 ng/ml of transforming growth factor (TGF)β. TGFβ1, 2 and 3 are the only well-established full inducers of chondrogenesis that lead to deposition of proteoglycan and collagen type II when added as single factors [83, 84]. Although other inducers of chondrogenesis, such as the bone morphogenic proteins BMP2 for BM MSCs and BMP6 for AT MSCs, have been described [85, 86], this has not been confirmed by other investigators [65, 8790] and may apply only to MSCs from selected donors. Rather, BMP2 [85], BMP4 [91], BMP6 [92] and the insulin-like growth factor IGF1 [87] may be regarded as promoters of chondrogenesis in MSCs when used together with the inducer TGFβ. Table 2 gives an overview of studies characterizing growth factors as full inducers or promoters of chondrogenesis in MSCs. Besides soluble factors, environmental factors such as mechanical stimulation [93] and hypoxia [94, 95] have also been reported to modulate chondrogenesis of MSCs in vitro.
Table 2

Growth factors reported as full inducers (I) or promoters (P) of chondrogenic differentiation of human MSCs in pellet culture in vitro

 

BM MSC

AT MSC

SM MSC

Factor

I

P

I

P

I

P

TGFβ1

[84, 96, 98]

     

TGFβ2

[84]

     

TGFβ3

[40, 61, 65, 83, 89, 90, 99]

 

[40]

   

BMP2

[85, 109]

[85, 90]

[110]

[89]

 

[41, 105]

BMP4

 

[90, 91]

 

[89]

  

BMP6

 

[45, 87, 90, 92]

[86]

[45, 89]

 

[52]

BMP7

 

[90]

   

[111]

IGF1

 

[87, 90, 97]

 

[103]

 

[112]

I, factors inducing proteoglycan and collagen type II deposition in pellets according to histology when added as single factors to chondrogenic basal medium; P, factors promoting proteoglycan and collagen type II deposition in pellets when added in combination with TGFβ to chondrogenic basal medium. The list of publications is not exhaustive. AT, adipose tissue; BM, bone marrow; BMP, bone morphogenic protein; IGF, insulin-like growth factor; MSC, multipotent mesenchymal stromal cell; SM, synovial membrane; TGF, transforming growth factor.

With some exceptions [40], most studies undertaking a direct comparison of BM and AT MSCs have described a lower chondrogenic differentiation potential of AT MSCs in pellet culture under induction with TGFβ1 or 3 alone [61, 65, 96] or with TGFβ2 and IGF1 [97], including studies using cells isolated from the same patients [98, 99]. Cultures in alginate beads [50, 100], hyaluronic acid scaffolds [101] and cartilage-derived matrix [100] also showed a lower response of AT MSCs to TGFβ-driven chondrogenic induction.

Looking for factors that might explain the reduced inducibility of AT MSCs with TGFβ, we analysed the expression of relevant growth factors in expanded MSCs from BM and AT and found reduced expression of BMP2, 4, 6 and the TGFβ receptor 1 (TGFBR1) in AT MSCs [89] and enhanced levels of the integral membrane protein 2A (ITM2A) gene [102]. The high expression of ITM2A during the early phase of the induction of chondrogenesis correlated to inhibition of chondrogenesis, and forced overexpression of ITM2A was indeed able to inhibit chondrogenesis in a mouse cell line [102].

One strategy explored for the enhancement of chondrogenesis in AT MSCs was to increase concentrations of TGFβ. While we found that concentrations up to 50 ng/ml did not enhance the chondrogenesis of AT MSCs [89], another group found that a combination of 25 ng/ml TGFβ2 and 500 ng/ml IGF1 induced a chondrogenic phenotype in AT MSCs similar to that induced by 5 ng/ml TGFβ2 in BM MSCs [103]. A second strategy arising from the differences in the growth factor repertoire of AT and BM MSCs was to add BMPs for the induction of chondrogenesis. The addition of BMPs at a concentration of 10 ng/ml indeed enhanced the chondrogenic differentiation of AT MSCs. Among the BMPs the most potent inducer was BMP6, which eliminated the differences in differentiation potential between AT and BM MSCs [45, 89, 100].

The third source of MSCs often considered for applications in cartilage tissue engineering is the SM. While the chondrogenic potential of SM MSCs was initially described with TGFβ1 as inducing factor [25, 104], another laboratory found no induction of chondrogenesis in pellet cultures with TGFβ3 alone, but only with a supplementary high-dose BMP2 treatment [105]. Under these conditions with TGFβ3 and high-dose BMP2, chondrogenic differentiation was higher in MSCs from BM, SM and periosteum than in those from muscle and subcutaneous AT [41, 42]. We found the response of SM MSCs to chondrogenic induction with TGFβ3 alone to be higher than that of AT MSCs, but lower than that of BM MSCs. While TGFβ3 was able to induce chondrogenesis in only 50% of SM MSC populations from distinct donors, 100% of SM MSCs responded when TGFβ3 was combined with 10 ng/ml BMP6 [52].

The requirements for the induction of chondrogenesis in MSCs from different sources thus appear to differ in terms of growth factors. The comparative analysis of AT and BM suggests these different requirements may be related to differences in the growth factor repertoires expressed by the cells or to active pathways at the time point of the initiation of chondrogenesis, which may depend on their microenvironment in vivo.

Hypertrophic differentiation of MSCs in vitro

Despite differences in the conditions necessary for effective induction of chondrogenesis, the chondrogenic phenotype and molecular profile achieved by AT and BM MSCs under appropriate conditions were found to be similar [65, 89]. The chondrogenic induction of MSCs in pellet culture with TGFβ3 is accompanied by an undesired up-regulation of hypertrophy-associated marker molecules, such as collagen type X and the matrix metallo-proteinase MMP13, and by an activation of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity in vitro [65, 96, 100, 106]. After ectopic transplantation into subcutaneous pouches of severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mice, the hypertrophic phenotype of differentiated pellets of both AT and BM MSCs leads to pronounced matrix calcification accompanied by vascular invasion and even micro-ossicle formation [89, 106]. Common in vitro protocols of chondrogenesis thus produce MSC-derived chondrocytes that undergo premature hypertrophy and develop into transient endochondral cartilage, instead of stable articular cartilage-like tissue. As AT MSCs, in spite of their origin, mineralized their surrounding matrix in vivo to an extent similar to BM MSCs, the predisposition for osteogenesis and matrix calcification does not appear to be due to an origin of MSCs from bone.

In vitro, SM MSCs showed a tendency identical to those of MSCs from AT and BM to induce expression of osteogenic genes [105] and collagen type X after chondrogenic differentiation [52]. Under TGFβ3 and BMP6, the mean up-regulation of ALP activity was lower in SM MSCs than in AT and BM MSCs, but ALP activity in SM MSCs cell populations displayed extremely high donor variability compared with other MSCs, ranging from negative to very strong signals [52]. In vivo, cell populations that showed low ALP activity in vitro displayed low calcification, and this was surprisingly accompanied by a loss of already deposited collagen type II protein, possibly due to high MMP2, 3 and 13 activity. The MSCs in these transplants thus lost their differentiated phenotype, while SM MSCs from other donors, which displayed high ALP activity in vitro, showed calcification in a similar way as AT and BM MSCs [52]. The cause of this variability of phenotypes in SM MSCs after chondrogenic induction is unknown. Although SM MSCs show a different phenotype than AT and BM MSCs after chondrogenesis in vitro, their origin from the joint environment appears not to be sufficient to program them towards a stable chondrogenic phenotype.

Undesired hypertrophic development of expanded MSCs seems no concern in vivo in a cartilage micro-environment where expanded animal MSCs spontaneously mature into collagen type II-positive and collagen type X-negative chondrocytes [107]. In vitro co-culture experiments with articular chondrocytes demonstrate that the hypertrophic differentiation of MSCs can be inhibited by soluble factors secreted from chondrocytes, and parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP) may be a candidate molecule for involvement in this inhibition [108]. PTHrP1-34 displays an inhibitory action on the TGFβ-induced hypertrophic differentiation of MSCs in vitro [90]. As a counteractor of Indian hedgehog, which is up-regulated during chondrogenesis of MSCs, it could represent an important factor for the stabilization of an articular phenotype in MSCs. Further in vivo and co-culture experiments may enable identification of factors that are active in the microenvironment of cartilage and have the ability to lock cells in a hyaline chondrogenic stage.

Conclusion

Despite the growth of knowledge on the origin and composition of MSC populations from different tissues, their heterogeneity is poorly understood. Transcriptional and epigenetic analyses of different MSC populations reveal very similar profiles. However, differences in expressed growth factors or active pathways between MSCs from different sources could explain the different requirements for the induction of chondrogenesis. Conditions allowing efficient chondrogenic in vitro differentiation of MSCs from AT, BM and SM have been described. For long-lasting cell therapy in cartilage it is, however, essential to be able to achieve a stable chondrogenic phenotype. The endochondral pathway triggered in MSCs during in vitro chondrogenesis and the fibrous dedifferentiation observed for some SM MSC populations therefore merit more thorough analysis. A better understanding of articular cartilage differentiation should permit determination of the conditions necessary for stable chondrogenic differentiation of MSCs.

Abbreviations

ALP: 

alkaline phosphatase

AT: 

adipose tissue

BM: 

bone marrow

BMP: 

bone morphogenic protein

CD: 

cluster of differentiation

CFU-F: 

colony-forming unit fibroblast

ES: 

embryonic stem

HSC: 

haematopoietic stem cell

IGF: 

insulin-like growth factor

MMP: 

matrix metalloproteinase

MSC: 

multipotent mesenchymal stromal cell

PTHrP: 

parathyroid hormone-related protein

SM: 

synovial membrane

TGF: 

transforming growth factor.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant number RI707/7-1) and by the EuroBoNeT consortium, a European Commission FP-6 granted Network of Excellence for studying the pathology and genetics of bone tumours.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Research Centre for Experimental Orthopaedics, Orthopaedic University Hospital Heidelberg,Schlierbacher Landstrasse 200a

References

  1. Richter W: Mesenchymal stem cells and cartilage in situ regeneration. J Intern Med. 2009, 266: 390-405. 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02153.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brittberg M, Lindahl A, Nilsson A, Ohlsson C, Isaksson O, Peterson L: Treatment of deep cartilage defects in the knee with autologous chondrocyte transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1994, 331: 889-895. 10.1056/NEJM199410063311401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Friedenstein AJ, Piatetzky-Shapiro II, Petrakova KV: Osteogenesis in transplants of bone marrow cells. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1966, 16: 381-390.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Friedenstein AJ, Chailakhjan RK, Lalykina KS: The development of fibroblast colonies in monolayer cultures of guinea-pig bone marrow and spleen cells. Cell Tissue Kinet. 1970, 3: 393-403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Castro-Malaspina H, Gay RE, Resnick G, Kapoor N, Meyers P, Chiarieri D, McKenzie S, Broxmeyer HE, Moore MA: Characterization of human bone marrow fibroblast colony-forming cells (CFU-F) and their progeny. Blood. 1980, 56: 289-301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bab I, Passi-Even L, Gazit D, Sekeles E, Ashton BA, Peylan-Ramu N, Ziv I, Ulmansky M: Osteogenesis in in vivo diffusion chamber cultures of human marrow cells. Bone Miner. 1988, 4: 373-386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Pittenger MF, Mackay AM, Beck SC, Jaiswal RK, Douglas R, Mosca JD, Moorman MA, Simonetti DW, Craig S, Marshak DR: Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science. 1999, 284: 143-147. 10.1126/science.284.5411.143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Caplan AI, Dennis JE: Mesenchymal stem cells as trophic mediators. J Cell Biochem. 2006, 98: 1076-1084. 10.1002/jcb.20886.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Psaltis PJ, Zannettino AC, Worthley SG, Gronthos S: Concise review: mesenchymal stromal cells: potential for cardiovascular repair. Stem Cells. 2008, 26: 2201-2210. 10.1634/stemcells.2008-0428.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Meirelles LS, Fontes AM, Covas DT, Caplan AI: Mechanisms involved in the therapeutic properties of mesenchymal stem cells. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2009, 20: 419-427. 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2009.10.002.Google Scholar
  11. Tolar J, Le Blanc K, Keating A, Blazar BR: Hitting the right spot with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). Stem Cells. 2010, 28: 1446-1455. 10.1002/stem.459.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ichim TE, Harman RJ, Min WP, Minev B, Solano F, Rodriguez JP, Alexandrescu DT, Necochea-Campion R, Hu X, Marleau AM, Riordan NH: Autologous stromal vascular fraction cells: A tool for facilitating tolerance in rheumatic disease. Cell Immunol. 2010, 264: 7-17. 10.1016/j.cellimm.2010.04.002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Caplan AI: Mesenchymal stem cells. J Orthop Res. 1991, 9: 641-650. 10.1002/jor.1100090504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gronthos S, Zannettino AC, Hay SJ, Shi S, Graves SE, Kortesidis A, Simmons PJ: Molecular and cellular characterisation of highly purified stromal stem cells derived from human bone marrow. J Cell Sci. 2003, 116: 1827-1835. 10.1242/jcs.00369.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. D'Ippolito G, Diabira S, Howard GA, Menei P, Roos BA, Schiller PC: Marrow-isolated adult multilineage inducible (MIAMI) cells, a unique population of postnatal young and old human cells with extensive expansion and differentiation potential. J Cell Sci. 2004, 117: 2971-2981. 10.1242/jcs.01103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Belema-Bedada F, Uchida S, Martire A, Kostin S, Braun T: Efficient homing of multipotent adult mesenchymal stem cells depends on FROUNT-mediated clustering of CCR2. Cell Stem Cell. 2008, 2: 566-575. 10.1016/j.stem.2008.03.003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Horwitz EM, Le Blanc K, Dominici M, Mueller I, Slaper-Cortenbach I, Marini FC, Deans RJ, Krause DS, Keating A: Clarification of the nomenclature for MSC: The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy. 2005, 7: 393-395. 10.1080/14653240500319234.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Phinney DG: Building a consensus regarding the nature and origin of mesenchymal stem cells. J Cell Biochem Suppl. 2002, 38: 7-12. 10.1002/jcb.10084.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Russell KC, Phinney DG, Lacey MR, Barrilleaux BL, Meyertholen KE, O'Connor KC: In vitro high-capacity assay to quantify the clonal heterogeneity in trilineage potential of mesenchymal stem cells reveals a complex hierarchy of lineage commitment. Stem Cells. 2010, 28: 788-798. 10.1002/stem.312.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dominici M, Le Blanc K, Mueller I, Slaper-Cortenbach I, Marini F, Krause D, Deans R, Keating A, Prockop D, Horwitz E: Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy. 2006, 8: 315-317. 10.1080/14653240600855905.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn NZ, Tuan RS: Regulation of stemness and stem cell niche of mesenchymal stem cells: implications in tumorigenesis and metastasis. J Cell Physiol. 2010, 222: 268-277. 10.1002/jcp.21940.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ollier L: Recherches experimentales sur la Production artificielle des Os au Moyen de la Transplantation du Perioste et sur la Regeneration des Os apres les Resections et les Ablations completes. J de Physiol de l'Homme et des Animaux. 1859, 2: 1-27.Google Scholar
  23. De Bari C, Dell'Accio F, Vanlauwe J, Eyckmans J, Khan IM, Archer CW, Jones EA, McGonagle D, Mitsiadis TA, Pitzalis C, Luyten FP: Mesenchymal multipotency of adult human periosteal cells demonstrated by single-cell lineage analysis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006, 54: 1209-1221. 10.1002/art.21753.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Zuk PA, Zhu M, Ashjian P, De Ugarte DA, Huang JI, Mizuno H, Alfonso ZC, Fraser JK, Benhaim P, Hedrick MH: Human adipose tissue is a source of multipotent stem cells. Mol Biol Cell. 2002, 13: 4279-4295. 10.1091/mbc.E02-02-0105.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. De Bari C, Dell'Accio F, Tylzanowski P, Luyten FP: Multipotent mesenchymal stem cells from adult human synovial membrane. Arthritis Rheum. 2001, 44: 1928-1942. 10.1002/1529-0131(200108)44:8<1928::AID-ART331>3.0.CO;2-P.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Karystinou A, Dell'Accio F, Kurth TB, Wackerhage H, Khan IM, Archer CW, Jones EA, Mitsiadis TA, De Bari C: Distinct mesenchymal progenitor cell subsets in the adult human synovium. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009, 48: 1057-1064. 10.1093/rheumatology/kep192.Google Scholar
  27. Jones EA, English A, Henshaw K, Kinsey SE, Markham AF, Emery P, McGonagle D: Enumeration and phenotypic characterization of synovial fluid multipotential mesenchymal progenitor cells in inflammatory and degenerative arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2004, 50: 817-827. 10.1002/art.20203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Barbero A, Ploegert S, Heberer M, Martin I: Plasticity of clonal populations of dedifferentiated adult human articular chondrocytes. Arthritis Rheum. 2003, 48: 1315-1325. 10.1002/art.10950.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. de la Fuente R, Abad JL, Garcia-Castro J, Fernandez-Miguel G, Petriz J, Rubio D, Vicario-Abejon C, Guillen P, Gonzalez MA, Bernad A: Dedifferentiated adult articular chondrocytes: a population of human multipotent primitive cells. Exp Cell Res. 2004, 297: 313-328. 10.1016/j.yexcr.2004.02.026.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Noth U, Osyczka AM, Tuli R, Hickok NJ, Danielson KG, Tuan RS: Multilineage mesenchymal differentiation potential of human trabecular bone-derived cells. J Orthop Res. 2002, 20: 1060-1069. 10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00018-9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Nuttall ME, Patton AJ, Olivera DL, Nadeau DP, Gowen M: Human trabecular bone cells are able to express both osteoblastic and adipocytic phenotype: implications for osteopenic disorders. J Bone Miner Res. 1998, 13: 371-382. 10.1359/jbmr.1998.13.3.371.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Grande DA, Southerland SS, Manji R, Pate DW, Schwartz RE, Lucas PA: Repair of articular cartilage defects using mesenchymal stem cells. Tissue Eng. 1995, 1: 345-353. 10.1089/ten.1995.1.345.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Segawa Y, Muneta T, Makino H, Nimura A, Mochizuki T, Ju YJ, Ezura Y, Umezawa A, Sekiya I: Mesenchymal stem cells derived from synovium, meniscus, anterior cruciate ligament, and articular chondrocytes share similar gene expression profiles. J Orthop Res. 2009, 27: 435-441. 10.1002/jor.20786.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wickham MQ, Erickson GR, Gimble JM, Vail TP, Guilak F: Multipotent stromal cells derived from the infrapatellar fat pad of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003, 412: 196-212. 10.1097/01.blo.0000072467.53786.ca.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Doherty MJ, Ashton BA, Walsh S, Beresford JN, Grant ME, Canfield AE: Vascular pericytes express osteogenic potential in vitro and in vivo. J Bone Miner Res. 1998, 13: 828-838. 10.1359/jbmr.1998.13.5.828.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Farrington-Rock C, Crofts NJ, Doherty MJ, Ashton BA, Griffin-Jones C, Canfield AE: Chondrogenic and adipogenic potential of microvascular pericytes. Circulation. 2004, 110: 2226-2232. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000144457.55518.E5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sacchetti B, Funari A, Michienzi S, Di Cesare S, Piersanti S, Saggio I, Tagliafico E, Ferrari S, Robey PG, Riminucci M, Bianco P: Self-renewing osteoprogenitors in bone marrow sinusoids can organize a hematopoietic microenvironment. Cell. 2007, 131: 324-336. 10.1016/j.cell.2007.08.025.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Crisan M, Yap S, Casteilla L, Chen CW, Corselli M, Park TS, Andriolo G, Sun B, Zheng B, Zhang L, Norotte C, Teng PN, Traas J, Schugar R, Deasy BM, Badylak S, Buhring HJ, Giacobino JP, Lazzari L, Huard J, Peault B: A perivascular origin for mesenchymal stem cells in multiple human organs. Cell Stem Cell. 2008, 3: 301-313. 10.1016/j.stem.2008.07.003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. De Ugarte DA, Morizono K, Elbarbary A, Alfonso Z, Zuk PA, Zhu M, Dragoo JL, Ashjian P, Thomas B, Benhaim P, Chen I, Fraser J, Hedrick MH: Comparison of multi-lineage cells from human adipose tissue and bone marrow. Cells Tissues Organs. 2003, 174: 101-109. 10.1159/000071150.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kern S, Eichler H, Stoeve J, Kluter H, Bieback K: Comparative analysis of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, or adipose tissue. Stem Cells. 2006, 24: 1294-1301. 10.1634/stemcells.2005-0342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sakaguchi Y, Sekiya I, Yagishita K, Muneta T: Comparison of human stem cells derived from various mesenchymal tissues: superiority of synovium as a cell source. Arthritis Rheum. 2005, 52: 2521-2529. 10.1002/art.21212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Mochizuki T, Muneta T, Sakaguchi Y, Nimura A, Yokoyama A, Koga H, Sekiya I: Higher chondrogenic potential of fibrous synovium- and adipose synovium-derived cells compared with subcutaneous fat-derived cells: distinguishing properties of mesenchymal stem cells in humans. Arthritis Rheum. 2006, 54: 843-853. 10.1002/art.21651.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee SY, Nakagawa T, Reddi AH: Mesenchymal progenitor cells derived from synovium and infrapatellar fat pad as a source for superficial zone cartilage tissue engineering: analysis of superficial zone protein/lubricin expression. Tissue Eng Part A. 2010, 16: 317-325. 10.1089/ten.tea.2009.0104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee RH, Kim B, Choi I, Kim H, Choi HS, Suh K, Bae YC, Jung JS: Characterization and expression analysis of mesenchymal stem cells from human bone marrow and adipose tissue. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2004, 14: 311-324. 10.1159/000080341.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Izadpanah R, Trygg C, Patel B, Kriedt C, Dufour J, Gimble JM, Bunnell BA: Biologic properties of mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow and adipose tissue. J Cell Biochem. 2006, 99: 1285-1297. 10.1002/jcb.20904.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. De Ugarte DA, Alfonso Z, Zuk PA, Elbarbary A, Zhu M, Ashjian P, Benhaim P, Hedrick MH, Fraser JK: Differential expression of stem cell mobilization-associated molecules on multi-lineage cells from adipose tissue and bone marrow. Immunol Lett. 2003, 89: 267-270. 10.1016/S0165-2478(03)00108-1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Wagner W, Wein F, Seckinger A, Frankhauser M, Wirkner U, Krause U, Blake J, Schwager C, Eckstein V, Ansorge W, Ho AD: Comparative characteristics of mesenchymal stem cells from human bone marrow, adipose tissue, and umbilical cord blood. Exp Hematol. 2005, 33: 1402-1416. 10.1016/j.exphem.2005.07.003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Djouad F, Bony C, Haupl T, Uze G, Lahlou N, Louis-Plence P, Apparailly F, Canovas F, Reme T, Sany J, Jorgensen C, Noel D: Transcriptional profiles discriminate bone marrow-derived and synovium-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Arthritis Res Ther. 2005, 7: R1304-R1315. 10.1186/ar1827.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Musina RA, Bekchanova ES, Sukhikh GT: Comparison of mesenchymal stem cells obtained from different human tissues. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2005, 139: 504-509. 10.1007/s10517-005-0331-1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Mehlhorn AT, Niemeyer P, Kaiser S, Finkenzeller G, Stark GB, Sudkamp NP, Schmal H: Differential expression pattern of extracellular matrix molecules during chondrogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow and adipose tissue. Tissue Eng. 2006, 12: 2853-2862. 10.1089/ten.2006.12.2853.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Rebelatto CK, Aguiar AM, Moretao MP, Senegaglia AC, Hansen P, Barchiki F, Oliveira J, Martins J, Kuligovski C, Mansur F, Christofis A, Amaral VF, Brofman PS, Goldenberg S, Nakao LS, Correa A: Dissimilar differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and adipose tissue. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2008, 233: 901-913. 10.3181/0712-RM-356.Google Scholar
  52. Dickhut A, Pelttari K, Janicki P, Wagner W, Eckstein V, Egermann M, Richter W: Calcification or dedifferentiation: requirement to lock mesenchymal stem cells in a desired differentiation stage. J Cell Physiol. 2009, 219: 219-226. 10.1002/jcp.21673.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Roche S, Delorme B, Oostendorp RA, Barbet R, Caton D, Noel D, Boumediene K, Papadaki HA, Cousin B, Crozet C, Milhavet O, Casteilla L, Hatzfeld J, Jorgensen C, Charbord P, Lehmann S: Comparative proteomic analysis of human mesenchymal and embryonic stem cells: towards the definition of a mesenchymal stem cell proteomic signature. Proteomics. 2009, 9: 223-232. 10.1002/pmic.200800035.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Quirici N, Scavullo C, de Girolamo L, Lopa S, Arrigoni E, Deliliers GL, Brini AT: Anti-L-NGFR and -CD34 monoclonal antibodies identify multipotent mesenchymal stem cells in human adipose tissue. Stem Cells Dev. 2010, 19: 915-925. 10.1089/scd.2009.0408.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Traktuev DO, Merfeld-Clauss S, Li J, Kolonin M, Arap W, Pasqualini R, Johnstone BH, March KL: A population of multipotent CD34-positive adipose stromal cells share pericyte and mesenchymal surface markers, reside in a periendothelial location, and stabilize endothelial networks. Circ Res. 2008, 102: 77-85. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.107.159475.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Zimmerlin L, Donnenberg VS, Pfeifer ME, Meyer EM, Peault B, Rubin JP, Donnenberg AD: Stromal vascular progenitors in adult human adipose tissue. Cytometry A. 2010, 77: 22-30.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Tondreau T, Meuleman N, Delforge A, Dejeneffe M, Leroy R, Massy M, Mortier C, Bron D, Lagneaux L: Mesenchymal stem cells derived from CD133-positive cells in mobilized peripheral blood and cord blood: proliferation, Oct4 expression, and plasticity. Stem Cells. 2005, 23: 1105-1112. 10.1634/stemcells.2004-0330.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Pozzobon M, Piccoli M, Ditadi A, Bollini S, Destro R, Andre-Schmutz I, Masiero L, Lenzini E, Zanesco L, Petrelli L, Cavazzana-Calvo M, Gazzola MV, De Coppi P: Mesenchymal stromal cells can be derived from bone marrow CD133+ cells: implications for therapy. Stem Cells Dev. 2009, 18: 497-510. 10.1089/scd.2008.0003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Jones EA, Kinsey SE, English A, Jones RA, Straszynski L, Meredith DM, Markham AF, Jack A, Emery P, McGonagle D: Isolation and characterization of bone marrow multipotential mesenchymal progenitor cells. Arthritis Rheum. 2002, 46: 3349-3360. 10.1002/art.10696.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Landuyt KB, Jones EA, McGonagle D, Luyten FP, Lories RJ: Flow cytometric characterization of freshly isolated and culture expanded human synovial cell populations in patients with chronic arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010, 12: R15-10.1186/ar2916.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Rider DA, Dombrowski C, Sawyer AA, Ng GH, Leong D, Hutmacher DW, Nurcombe V, Cool SM: Autocrine fibroblast growth factor 2 increases the multipotentiality of human adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells. 2008, 26: 1598-1608. 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0480.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Simmons PJ, Masinovsky B, Longenecker BM, Berenson R, Torok-Storb B, Gallatin WM: Vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 expressed by bone marrow stromal cells mediates the binding of hematopoietic progenitor cells. Blood. 1992, 80: 388-395.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Wagner W, Roderburg C, Wein F, Diehlmann A, Frankhauser M, Schubert R, Eckstein V, Ho AD: Molecular and secretory profiles of human mesenchymal stromal cells and their abilities to maintain primitive hematopoietic progenitors. Stem Cells. 2007, 25: 2638-2647. 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0280.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Nimura A, Muneta T, Koga H, Mochizuki T, Suzuki K, Makino H, Umezawa A, Sekiya I: Increased proliferation of human synovial mesenchymal stem cells with autologous human serum: comparisons with bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and with fetal bovine serum. Arthritis Rheum. 2008, 58: 501-510. 10.1002/art.23219.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Winter A, Breit S, Parsch D, Benz K, Steck E, Hauner H, Weber RM, Ewerbeck V, Richter W: Cartilage-like gene expression in differentiated human stem cell spheroids: a comparison of bone marrow-derived and adipose tissue-derived stromal cells. Arthritis Rheum. 2003, 48: 418-429. 10.1002/art.10767.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Aranda P, Agirre X, Ballestar E, Andreu EJ, Roman-Gomez J, Prieto I, Martin-Subero JI, Cigudosa JC, Siebert R, Esteller M, Prosper F: Epigenetic signatures associated with different levels of differentiation potential in human stem cells. PLoS One. 2009, 4: e7809-10.1371/journal.pone.0007809.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Jansen BJ, Gilissen C, Roelofs H, Schaap-Oziemlak A, Veltman JA, Raymakers RA, Jansen JH, Kogler G, Figdor CG, Torensma R, Adema GJ: Functional differences between mesenchymal stem cell populations are reflected by their transcriptome. Stem Cells Dev. 2010, 19: 481-490. 10.1089/scd.2009.0288.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Sorensen AL, Jacobsen BM, Reiner AH, Andersen IS, Collas P: Promoter DNA methylation patterns of differentiated cells are largely programmed at the progenitor stage. Mol Biol Cell. 2010, 21: 2066-2077. 10.1091/mbc.E10-01-0018.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Sorensen AL, Timoskainen S, West FD, Vekterud K, Boquest AC, Ahrlund-Richter L, Stice SL, Collas P: Lineage-specific promoter DNA methylation patterns segregate adult progenitor cell types. Stem Cells Dev. 2010, 19: 1257-1266. 10.1089/scd.2009.0309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Zimmermann P, Boeuf S, Dickhut A, Boehmer S, Olek S, Richter W: Correlation of COL10A1 induction during chondrogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells with demethylation of two CpG sites in the COL10A1 promoter. Arthritis Rheum. 2008, 58: 2743-2753. 10.1002/art.23736.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Collas P: Epigenetic states in stem cells. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009, 1790: 900-905.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Noer A, Lindeman LC, Collas P: Histone H3 modifications associated with differentiation and long-term culture of mesenchymal adipose stem cells. Stem Cells Dev. 2009, 18: 725-736. 10.1089/scd.2008.0189.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Bobick BE, Chen FH, Le AM, Tuan RS: Regulation of the chondrogenic phenotype in culture. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2009, 87: 351-371. 10.1002/bdrc.20167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Haberland M, Montgomery RL, Olson EN: The many roles of histone deacetylases in development and physiology: implications for disease and therapy. Nat Rev Genet. 2009, 10: 32-42. 10.1038/nrg2485.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Stadler BM, Ruohola-Baker H: Small RNAs: keeping stem cells in line. Cell. 2008, 132: 563-566. 10.1016/j.cell.2008.02.005.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Wagner W, Horn P, Castoldi M, Diehlmann A, Bork S, Saffrich R, Benes V, Blake J, Pfister S, Eckstein V, Ho AD: Replicative senescence of mesenchymal stem cells: a continuous and organized process. PLoS One. 2008, 3: e2213-10.1371/journal.pone.0002213.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Sorrentino A, Ferracin M, Castelli G, Biffoni M, Tomaselli G, Baiocchi M, Fatica A, Negrini M, Peschle C, Valtieri M: Isolation and characterization of CD146+ multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. Exp Hematol. 2008, 36: 1035-1046. 10.1016/j.exphem.2008.03.004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Woods A, Wang G, Beier F: Regulation of chondrocyte differentiation by the actin cytoskeleton and adhesive interactions. J Cell Physiol. 2007, 213: 1-8. 10.1002/jcp.21110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Oberlender SA, Tuan RS: Expression and functional involvement of N-cadherin in embryonic limb chondrogenesis. Development. 1994, 120: 177-187.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Tuli R, Tuli S, Nandi S, Huang X, Manner PA, Hozack WJ, Danielson KG, Hall DJ, Tuan RS: Transforming growth factor-beta-mediated chondrogenesis of human mesenchymal progenitor cells involves N-cadherin and mitogen-activated protein kinase and Wnt signaling cross-talk. J Biol Chem. 2003, 278: 41227-41236. 10.1074/jbc.M305312200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Dickhut A, Gottwald E, Steck E, Heisel C, Richter W: Chondrogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells in gel-like biomaterials in vitro und in vivo. Front Biosci. 2008, 13: 4517-4528. 10.2741/3020.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Johnstone B, Hering TM, Caplan AI, Goldberg VM, Yoo JU: In vitro chondrogenesis of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal progenitor cells. Exp Cell Res. 1998, 238: 265-272. 10.1006/excr.1997.3858.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Mackay AM, Beck SC, Murphy JM, Barry FP, Chichester CO, Pittenger MF: Chondrogenic differentiation of cultured human mesenchymal stem cells from marrow. Tissue Eng. 1998, 4: 415-428. 10.1089/ten.1998.4.415.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Barry F, Boynton RE, Liu B, Murphy JM: Chondrogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow: differentiation-dependent gene expression of matrix components. Exp Cell Res. 2001, 268: 189-200. 10.1006/excr.2001.5278.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Schmitt B, Ringe J, Haupl T, Notter M, Manz R, Burmester GR, Sittinger M, Kaps C: BMP2 initiates chondrogenic lineage development of adult human mesenchymal stem cells in high-density culture. Differentiation. 2003, 71: 567-577. 10.1111/j.1432-0436.2003.07109003.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Estes BT, Wu AW, Guilak F: Potent induction of chondrocytic differentiation of human adipose-derived adult stem cells by bone morphogenetic protein 6. Arthritis Rheum. 2006, 54: 1222-1232. 10.1002/art.21779.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Indrawattana N, Chen G, Tadokoro M, Shann LH, Ohgushi H, Tateishi T, Tanaka J, Bunyaratvej A: Growth factor combination for chondrogenic induction from human mesenchymal stem cell. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2004, 320: 914-919. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.06.029.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Xu D, Gechtman Z, Hughes A, Collins A, Dodds R, Cui X, Jolliffe L, Higgins L, Murphy A, Farrell F: Potential involvement of BMP receptor type IB activation in a synergistic effect of chondrogenic promotion between rhTGFbeta3 and rhGDF5 or rhBMP7 in human mesenchymal stem cells. Growth Factors. 2006, 24: 268-278. 10.1080/08977190601075865.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Hennig T, Lorenz H, Thiel A, Goetzke K, Dickhut A, Geiger F, Richter W: Reduced chondrogenic potential of adipose tissue derived stromal cells correlates with an altered TGFbeta receptor and BMP profile and is overcome by BMP-6. J Cell Physiol. 2007, 211: 682-691. 10.1002/jcp.20977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Weiss S, Hennig T, Bock R, Steck E, Richter W: Impact of growth factors and PTHrP on early and late chondrogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. J Cell Physiol. 2010, 223: 84-93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Sekiya I, Larson BL, Vuoristo JT, Reger RL, Prockop DJ: Comparison of effect of BMP-2, -4, and -6 on in vitro cartilage formation of human adult stem cells from bone marrow stroma. Cell Tissue Res. 2005, 320: 269-276. 10.1007/s00441-004-1075-3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Sekiya I, Colter DC, Prockop DJ: BMP-6 enhances chondrogenesis in a subpopulation of human marrow stromal cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2001, 284: 411-418. 10.1006/bbrc.2001.4898.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Potier E, Noailly J, Ito K: Directing bone marrow-derived stromal cell function with mechanics. J Biomech. 2010, 43: 807-817. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.11.019.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Araldi E, Schipani E: Hypoxia, HIFs and bone development. Bone. 2010, 47: 190-196. 10.1016/j.bone.2010.04.606.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Khan WS, Adesida AB, Tew SR, Lowe ET, Hardingham TE: Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells express the pericyte marker 3G5 in culture and show enhanced chondrogenesis in hypoxic conditions. J Orthop Res. 2010, 28: 834-840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Liu TM, Martina M, Hutmacher DW, Hui JH, Lee EH, Lim B: Identification of common pathways mediating differentiation of bone marrow- and adipose tissue-derived human mesenchymal stem cells into three mesenchymal lineages. Stem Cells. 2007, 25: 750-760. 10.1634/stemcells.2006-0394.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Im GI, Shin YW, Lee KB: Do adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells have the same osteogenic and chondrogenic potential as bone marrow-derived cells?. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005, 13: 845-853. 10.1016/j.joca.2005.05.005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Huang JI, Kazmi N, Durbhakula MM, Hering TM, Yoo JU, Johnstone B: Chondrogenic potential of progenitor cells derived from human bone marrow and adipose tissue: a patient-matched comparison. J Orthop Res. 2005, 23: 1383-1389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Afizah H, Yang Z, Hui JH, Ouyang HW, Lee EH: A comparison between the chondrogenic potential of human bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs) and adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) taken from the same donors. Tissue Eng. 2007, 13: 659-666. 10.1089/ten.2006.0118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Diekman BO, Rowland CR, Caplan AI, Lennon D, Guilak F: Chondrogenesis of adult stem cells from adipose tissue and bone marrow: Induction by growth factors and cartilage derived matrix. Tissue Eng Part A. 2010, 16: 523-533. 10.1089/ten.tea.2009.0398.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Jakobsen RB, Shahdadfar A, Reinholt FP, Brinchmann JE: Chondrogenesis in a hyaluronic acid scaffold: comparison between chondrocytes and MSC from bone marrow and adipose tissue. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010Google Scholar
  102. Boeuf S, Borger M, Hennig T, Winter A, Kasten P, Richter W: Enhanced ITM2A expression inhibits chondrogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Differentiation. 2009, 78: 108-115. 10.1016/j.diff.2009.05.007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Kim HJ, Im GI: Chondrogenic differentiation of adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells: greater doses of growth factor are necessary. J Orthop Res. 2009, 27: 612-619. 10.1002/jor.20766.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Nishimura K, Solchaga LA, Caplan AI, Yoo JU, Goldberg VM, Johnstone B: Chondroprogenitor cells of synovial tissue. Arthritis Rheum. 1999, 42: 2631-2637. 10.1002/1529-0131(199912)42:12<2631::AID-ANR18>3.0.CO;2-H.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Shirasawa S, Sekiya I, Sakaguchi Y, Yagishita K, Ichinose S, Muneta T: In vitro chondrogenesis of human synovium-derived mesenchymal stem cells: optimal condition and comparison with bone marrow-derived cells. J Cell Biochem. 2006, 97: 84-97. 10.1002/jcb.20546.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Pelttari K, Winter A, Steck E, Goetzke K, Hennig T, Ochs BG, Aigner T, Richter W: Premature induction of hypertrophy during in vitro chondrogenesis of human mesenchymal stem cells correlates with calcification and vascular invasion after ectopic transplantation in SCID mice. Arthritis Rheum. 2006, 54: 3254-3266. 10.1002/art.22136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Steck E, Fischer J, Lorenz H, Gotterbarm T, Jung M, Richter W: Mesenchymal stem cell differentiation in an experimental cartilage defect: restriction of hypertrophy to bone-close neocartilage. Stem Cells Dev. 2009, 18: 969-978. 10.1089/scd.2008.0213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Fischer J, Dickhut A, Rickert M, Richter W: Articular chondrocytes secrete PTHrP and inhibit hypertrophy of mesenchymal stem cells in coculture during chondrogenesis. Arthritis Rheum. 2010Google Scholar
  109. Noel D, Caton D, Roche S, Bony C, Lehmann S, Casteilla L, Jorgensen C, Cousin B: Cell specific differences between human adipose-derived and mesenchymal-stromal cells despite similar differentiation potentials. Exp Cell Res. 2008, 314: 1575-1584. 10.1016/j.yexcr.2007.12.022.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Wei Y, Hu Y, Lv R, Li D: Regulation of adipose-derived adult stem cells differentiating into chondrocytes with the use of rhBMP-2. Cytotherapy. 2006, 8: 570-579. 10.1080/14653240600987690.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Miyamoto C, Matsumoto T, Sakimura K, Shindo H: Osteogenic protein-1 with transforming growth factor-beta1: potent inducer of chondrogenesis of synovial mesenchymal stem cells in vitro. J Orthop Sci. 2007, 12: 555-561. 10.1007/s00776-007-1176-4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Pei M, He F, Vunjak-Novakovic G: Synovium-derived stem cell-based chondrogenesis. Differentiation. 2008, 76: 1044-1056. 10.1111/j.1432-0436.2008.00299.x.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd 2010