Table 1 Comparison of various stem cell types used for bladder repair
From: Urine-derived stem cells for potential use in bladder repair
Cell type/parameters | ESC/iPSCs[56] | Bladder SMCs and UCs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Self-renewal and expansion capability | Limited, PD ~30 | Â | High, PD 60-70 | Very high, PD >200 | Limited, PD <30 |
Multi-lineage differentiation capability | Multipotent, but mainly limited within mesodermal cell lineages [5–9] | Pluri-potent (can form all lineages of the body) [56] | None | ||
Urothelial and endothelial differentiation capability | Low (<10%) | Low (10%) | Low | Â | |
Telomerase activity (TA)/telomere length | Cannot be detected | Cannot be detected | Up to 75% USC clones possess TA and relatively long telomeres | Possess TA and long telomeres | None |
Harvesting approach | Invasive | Invasive | Non-invasive, simple, cost-low, safe [56] | Invasive to harvest somatic cells for iPSCs | Invasive |
Pure stem cell isolation | Difficult | Difficult | Very easy | Easy | None |
Number of stem cells harvested | 1 MSC/104 bone marrow stromal cells in new borns, 1 MSC/106[19] | Â | Â | Unknown | |
Angiogenic trophic factors | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unknown | Moderate |
Immuno-modulatory properties | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unknown | Unknown |
Rejection after implanted in vivo | No rejection reaction as allogenous or even xenogenous cells (for example, human BMSCs, USCs) implanted in rodent, rabbit, or canine models | Likely to be rejected | No rejection as autogenous cells | ||
Oncogenic potential | No | No | No | Yes | None |
Clinic trial utility | Potential | Potential | Potential | Safety concern | Yes |