Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary table of differentiated allogeneic MSC in bone regeneration models

From: Changes in immunological profile of allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells after differentiation: should we be concerned?

Paper Model In vitro immunogenicity In vitro immunosuppressive ability In vivo engraftment In vivo immune marker expression In vivo functional benefits In vivo cellular response In vivo antibody response
Wang et al.[37] In vitro assessment of osteogenically differentiated MSCs from swine No increase in SLAI. Slight increase in SLAII. Osteogenically differentiated MSCs were equivalently immunogenic as undifferentiated MSCs Osteogenically differentiated and undifferentiated MSCs displayed equivalent immunosuppressive ability NT NT NT NT NT
Liu et al.[7] Osteogenically differentiated rabbit MSCs; ectopic transplant Osteogenically differentiated MSCs lacked surface MHCII. No difference in in vitro immunogenicity or susceptibility to cytotoxic lysis No difference in immunosuppressive ability between differentiated and undifferentiated MSCs NT Upregulation of MHCII on implanted dMSCs Implanted allogeneic dMSCs produced osteonectin and osteopontin in vivo No increased rejection of allogeneic skin grafts after dMSC treatment NT
Le Blanc et al.[38] In vitro assessment of human dMSCs No significant increase in in vitro immunogenicity despite increase in HLAI cell surface expression Osteogenically differentiated MSCs retained their immunosuppressive ability in vitro NT NT NT NT NT
Kang et al.[31] Allogeneic MSCs in allogeneic bone matrix to radial defect in New Zealand White rabbit NT NT Both autologous and allogeneic MSCs were capable of facilitating bone regeneration NT Initial bone quality index equivalent between autologous and allogeneic MSCs, but significantly higher in autologous MSC-treated group after 12 weeks No cellular infiltrate observed NT
Arinzeh et al.[32] Scaffold loaded allogeneic MSCs to canine critical sized femoral defect NT NT Implanted allogenic MSC detected up to 16 weeks NT Bone regeneration observed at 16 weeks No lymphocytic infiltration observed No alloantibodies detected
Kotobuki et al.[34] Lewis MSCs on hydroxyapatite scaffolds to F344 rats NT NT NT NT Immunosuppression was required for in vivo osteogenic differentiation of allogeneic MSCs Possible infiltration of inflammatory cells NT
Chatterjea et al.[35] Allogeneic MSC-derived osteoprogenitors in ectopic rat model NT NT NT NT Allogeneic osteoprogenitors require immunosuppression to form bone T and B cell infiltration to allogeneic graft. Effects were mediated by immunosuppression NT
Ren et al.[36] MHCI knock-down MSCs in various animal models NT NT NT NT MHCI knock-down MSC-treated animals showed better bone regeneration Higher frequency of circulating activated lymphocytes in animals treated with wild-type MSCs NT
Horwitz et al.[30] OI patients who had previously received bone marrow transplants administered MSCs derived from the same donor NT NT 5 of 6 patients demonstrated MSC engraftment NT 5 of 6 patients demonstrated markedly increased growth velocity Cellular response to viral antigens in some patients 1 patient produced anti-FBS antibodies
Le Blanc et al.[29] Allogeneic foetal liver-derived MSCs to foetus diagnosed with OI NT NT Allogeneic dMSCs detected in bone biopsy at 9 months (up to 7.4%) NT Patient growth could be attributed to allogeneic MSC therapy No memory response against donor undifferentiated MSCs  
  1. Data related to immunological profile of MSCs both in vitro and in vivo are collated. dMSC, differentiated mesenchymal stem cell; FBS, foetal bovine serum; HLAI, human leukocyte antigen class I; MHCI, major histocompatibility complex class I; MHCII, major histocompatibility class II; MSC, mesenchymal stem cell; NT, not tested; OI, osteogenesis imperfecta; SLAI, swine leukocyte antigen class I; SLAII, swine leukocyte antigen class II.