Skip Navigation


Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on November 6, 2007
Rheumatology 2008 47(2):126-131; doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kem206
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
47/2/126    most recent
kem206v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, E.
Right arrow Articles by McGonagle, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jones, E.
Right arrow Articles by McGonagle, D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Immunogenetics
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

REVIEWS

Human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in vivo

E. Jones and D. McGonagle

The Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Correspondence to: D. McGonagle, The University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds LS7 4SA, UK. E-mail: d.g.mcgonagle{at}leeds.ac.uk


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Background
 Markers for the in...
 Marrow topography of MSCs
 The concept of MSC...
 The concept of MSC...
 Implications
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Great confusion still exists amongst cell biologists, musculoskeletal and other specialists interested in regenerative medicine regarding the in vivo identity of human bone marrow (BM) mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Contrary to views held in some quarters, methods for the robust identification and purification of BM MSCs are now well established. Human BM MSCs represent a phenotypically homogeneous cell population that share an identical phenotype with marrow adventitial reticular cells (ARCs), which are stromal cells similar in nature to pericytes. When an extensive panel of markers is used to characterize BM MSCs, it appears that the diverse MSC markers described in different laboratories are expressed on the same cell population. Rare cell phenotypical analysis and in vitro colony forming unit-fibroblast (CFU-F) assays produce no compelling evidence that BM MSCs circulate in healthy man. Furthermore, although investigators speak of a number of specific MSC markers, a true marker of MSC ‘stemness’ and multipotentiality has not yet been defined since culture-expanded MSCs may lose some of these markers, but remain multipotential. This knowledge provides a platform for understanding MSCs in vivo leading to novel approaches for therapy development, including in situ tissue engineering.

KEY WORDS: Mesenchymal stem cells, Surface markers, In vivo topography, MSCs in circulation


   Background
Top
 Abstract
 Background
Markers for the in...
 Marrow topography of MSCs
 The concept of MSC...
 The concept of MSC...
 Implications
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
The concept of a mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) arose from the work of Friedenstein and colleagues four decades ago [1]. They noted that upon plastic adherence of bone marrow (BM) cells, a rare cell population developed into colony forming units that were fibroblastic (CFU-F) [2]. Following in vitro culture expansion, clonal cultures derived from individual CFU-Fs could be introduced into diffusion chambers in experimental models where the formation of bone, cartilage and stromal elements was observed. The frequency of these marrow CFU-Fs was extremely low, ranging from 1/10 000 to 1/100 000 BM mononuclear cells (MNCs) [3]. This is considerably lower than the frequency of CD34+ haematopoietic progenitor/stem cells (HSCs) that comprise about 1% of the MNC fraction [4]. Therefore, it was long recognized that the study of BM MSCs in vivo would represent a much tougher challenge than the study of HSCs.

The interest in MSCs increased greatly almost a decade ago with the reporting of novel markers for culture-expanded MSCs including CD73 and CD105 and the development of robust in vitro assays of MSC tripotentiality [5]. Some investigators suggested that these findings were erroneously celebrated by the scientific community and media as the happy outcome of an extraordinary hunt for MSCs [6]. Indeed, the studies in question described the same culture-expanded CFU-F population that went back as far as Friedenstein's work, and the identity of the unknown ancestral cell remained enigmatic. The only firm clue to the in vivo identity of BM MSCs came from the work of Simmon's group [7] who showed that an antibody Stro-1 could be used to enrich CFU-Fs approximately 100-fold; however, their purification was still not feasible.

The ongoing confusion in the MSC field has been contributed to by the assumption that any marker expressed on culture-expanded MSCs was also likely to be present in vivo. Consequently, independent laboratories have begun to use different markers of expanded MSCs to search for MSCs in vivo [8, 9]. This has resulted in the perception that these in vivo MSCs were a heterogeneous cell population, and could be distinct from Stro-1+ stromal cells and progenitors. Indeed, the confusion to the in vivo identity of the BM MSC has lead to difficulty with terminology whereby the MSC acronym continues to signify both MSCs and marrow stromal stem cells [5, 6, 10]. Based on our studies of in vivo MSCs and related literature, the purpose of this article is to reconcile these apparent contradictions and to discuss their implications for regenerative medicine development.


   Markers for the in vivo identification of MSCs
Top
 Abstract
 Background
 Markers for the in...
Marrow topography of MSCs
 The concept of MSC...
 The concept of MSC...
 Implications
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
There is still a widely held perception that BM MSCs represent a phenotypically heterogeneous population of cells. There are a number of reasons for this. First, as far back as the pioneering work of Friedenstein et al. [11, 12], it has been recognized that not all CFU-Fs were highly proliferative and multipotential. Second, many different groups have used a limited number of diverse phenotypic markers to identify in vivo MSCs/CFU-Fs using magnetic enrichment or flow cytometry [8, 9, 13–17]. Taking a synthesis of these functional and phenotypic data to a logical (but not necessarily correct conclusion) has led to the impression that MSCs were both functionally and phenotypically heterogeneous.

To clarify this, we used multiparameter flow cytometry and cross-tested different MSC markers and purification methods, including plastic adherence for their selectivity and specificity for in vivo BM MSCs [14, 18]. We found that all these methods identified a phenotypically identical rare cell population that was distinct from BM haematopoietic cells by their very low CD45 expression and a larger cell size. The Stro-1 marker was uniformly expressed on these cells [14], but its cross-reaction with other BM populations somewhat limited its utility for BM MSC identification. Another disadvantage of the Stro-1 antibody related to the fact that its target antigen has not thus far been defined, despite the fact it has been over 15 yrs since its original discovery.

With this in mind, we next aimed to find the best positive marker for BM MSCs based on the criterion of the highest expression on MSCs and the lowest expression on all other marrow cell populations. As a result, it was demonstrated that the low-affinity nerve growth factor receptor (LNGFR), now clustered as CD271, was the most differentially expressed marker [14, 19]. Importantly, high-level expression of CD271 on BM MSCs was reported in at least four other independent studies [13, 20–22]. These observations have lead to the recent commercialization of CD271 as a preferred marker for the purification of a homogeneous population of cells that contains all the BM MSC activity [23]. Notably, another neural molecule (ganglioside molecule GD2) has been recently shown to be expressed on BM MSCs, both in vivo and following expansion in culture [24].

In the past, we were also able to show that both CD73 and CD105 were uniformly present on BM CD45lowCD271+ cells [18], as were many other putative MSC markers such as CD90 [14]. With the exception of CD146/Muc18, which showed a wide spectrum of positivity from low to brightly positive cells, every other marker tested in our studies has demonstrated no apparent heterogeneity and was either uniformly positive or uniformly negative on MSCs. Of course, with the passage of time and increased availability of good-quality commercial antibodies, further phenotypic heterogeneity within BM CD45lowCD271+ MSCs may be found, parallel to past discoveries in the HSC field, when CD34+ population was later subdivided into CD34+CD38– and CD34+CD38+ fractions [25]. Nevertheless contrary to some currently propagated views [26, 27], a phenotypically distinct, in vivo BM MSC population has now been identified. Importantly, a striking consensus regarding the morphology of fresh MSCs is emerging, regardless of the method of isolation used. They appear as large cells that have prominent nucleoli and bleb-like projections, which extend further as MSCs adhere—this is different from spindle-shaped morphology of typical cultured MSCs [14, 15, 21]

Based on functional assays, the presence of MSCs in extra skeletal locations including synovium, fat and even placental tissue and umbilical cord has been firmly established [28–31]. Identifying the MSC population from the much larger stromal fraction will be a more formidable challenge compared with MSC identification in the marrow. There has been a common opinion that CD73, CD105, CD90 and CD44 are highly specific for MSCs, and hence can discriminate multipotential cells from the more mundane tissue resident fibroblasts. More recently, however, several studies showed that these markers were ubiquitously expressed on stromal cells from many locations as well as on skin fibroblasts [32–34], and at best they only inform an investigator that the phenotyped cells are non-haematopoietic and stromal in origin. Of note, we originally utilized a fibroblast marker termed D7-FIB to purify MSCs from the BM and showed that these cells expressed other fibroblastic markers such as CD10 and CD13 [14]. In the BM, where the overwhelming majority of cells are haematopoietic, these markers may indeed be useful, but in connective tissues, where most of the cells are fibroblastic, their utility for the isolation of resident MSCs will be limited and a search for new, more specific markers, if they indeed exist, is needed. For the isolation of MSCs from post-partum tissues, such as placenta, an embryonic stem cell marker SSEA-4 was found to be useful [30] and, more recently, it was successfully applied for the isolation of MSCs from adult BM [35]. It remains to be investigated whether SSEA-4 identifies all, or only a subpopulation, of CD45lowCD271+ cells.

Another important issue to bear in mind is the stability of putative MSC markers in culture. Despite the loss of certain markers following passaging [7, 14] and the gain of others [18], MSC cultures remain multipotential, indicating that these markers are unlikely to be reflective of the MSC's true ‘stem cell’ nature or its multipotentiality. More likely, many markers present on MSCs in vivo may be induced by the BM microenvironment or be reflective of some other MSC function in vivo that is lost upon plastic adherence and exposure to culture media. At this stage, it would appear that the heterogeneity in the MSC proliferative and differentiation capacities, first noted by Friedenstein et al. [1] cannot be explained on the basis of known surface markers alone.


   Marrow topography of MSCs
Top
 Abstract
 Background
 Markers for the in...
 Marrow topography of MSCs
The concept of MSC...
 The concept of MSC...
 Implications
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Having defined major surface markers specific for MSCs in vivo, many investigators used immunofluorescence or immunohistochemical techniques to identify their possible in vivo niches [18, 36, 37]. It is well established that HSCs occupy a specific niche in the BM close to trabeculae [38] and that HSCs are regulated by several local cues including oxygen and calcium gradients and other molecules. Our phenotypical and morphological data together with data from other laboratories [6, 37] indicated that BM MSCs could be virtually identical to BM stromal supportive cells termed adventitial reticular cells (ARCs). In this respect, it is not surprising that many investigators still refer to MSCs as multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells [39] or marrow stromal stem cells [6, 15]. The morphological and phenotypical similarities between MSCs and ARCs are listed in the Table 1.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Shared features of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and bone marrow adventitial reticular cells (ARCs)

 
Other investigators have suggested that the topography of MSCs in the BM is that of a vascular pericyte, the cell lining of the outer surfaces of blood vessels [36]. In one view, ARCs themselves ‘can be seen as bona fide specialized pericytes of venous sinusoids in the marrow’ [37] linking both cells together. Indeed, MSCs sorted based on Stro-1+CD106+ or Stro-1+CD146+phenotype, expressed {alpha} smooth muscle actin or were positive for 3G5 antigen, which is said to be specific for pericytes [15, 16]. These findings have led to a broader proposition that MSCs are generally distributed throughout the post-natal organism as vascular pericytes [47]. At the same time, cells that meet the criteria for MSCs, have been isolated from articular cartilage [48], which is avascular, arguing that MSCs do not have to be exclusively located in a perivascular niche. Indeed, bone lining cells (BLCs) as potential reservoirs of MSC activity in the BM cannot be overlooked. The presence of MSC activity in BLCs would explain why bone explants enzymatically pre-treated to remove all soft marrow tissues could generate fully competent MSC cultures in many published studies [49, 50]. Common to both ARCs and pericytes, BLCs have been shown to be negative for CD45 and positive for {alpha} smooth muscle actin [51].

In fact, all three non-haematopoietic BM cell types can possess some degree of the MSC activity. As shown on Fig. 1, all of them are positive for CD10, a marker uniformly expressed on BM CD45lowCD271+ MSCs. Other studies showed similar distribution of BM {alpha} smooth muscle actin-positive cells [52]. In general, a close lineage commonality between ARCs and pericytes [37, 40] or BLCs and ARCs [53] has been previously reported. Altogether, these findings suggest that compared with HSCs, BM MSCs may have a less-defined niche. In fact, the non-haemotopoietic, non-endothelial marrow compartment might form a close network of phenotypically linked but topographically diverse cells, which could all have some degree of the MSC activity.


Figure 1
View larger version (79K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 1. MSCs may not have a specific niche in the BM. (A) 6-colour flow cytometry dot plots of gated CD45lowCD13+ MSCs from BM aspirates showing positivity for CD271, CD73 and CD10 expression. (B) Characteristic morphology of sorted BM MSCs with long projections, which is reminiscent of BM adventitial reticular cells (ARCs). (C) CD10 immunostaining of BM trephine biopsy showing the widespread distribution of CD10+ cells in vivo (original magnification 100x). CD10+ ARC is indicated by arrow. It remains possible that ARCs, bone lining cells (BLCs) and pericytes (P), all form part of an extended stromal marrow network that has the inherent capacity to be multipotential.

 

   The concept of MSC as a circulating cell
Top
 Abstract
 Background
 Markers for the in...
 Marrow topography of MSCs
 The concept of MSC...
The concept of MSC...
 Implications
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
It is firmly established that HSCs can be mobilized from their marrow niches and circulate following growth factor and/or chemotherapy administration. Furthermore, HSCs can home back to these marrow niches following systemic reinfusion and this forms the basis for peripheral blood autologous stem cell transplantation. Indeed the concept that MSCs may also circulate is not a new one, and as noted by Prockop, was suggested exactly 140 years ago—well before the advent of the molecular or even cellular biology eras [10]. Consequently, based on this and many subsequent studies, there is a widespread perception that MSCs circulate. But what is the recent evidence for MSCs circulating and homing to sites of injury in man? Actually, most of the evidence comes from experiments with rodent models where MSCs were systemically infused and appeared to be present in greater numbers at sites of injury [54, 55]. In our view, this scenario might simply represent the natural and anticipated consequence of a biophysical process whereby cells artificially introduced to the circulation get trapped at sites of injury. The criteria used to define circulating MSCs have not been sufficiently stringent. In many situations, single marker-based methods were used [56, 57], which may not be necessarily sufficient for rare cell detection. On the other hand, CFU-F assays could fail to detect MSCs considering the fact that MSCs could have lost their adherence properties following entry into circulation as suggested by Khosla and Eghbali-Fatourechi [57]. Using the latter assays, however, the presence of rare circulating MSC in many animal species and, occasionally, in man has been demonstrated [58], but much controversy still exists in this field.

Armed with the knowledge of the in vivo phenotype of BM MSCs, we have investigated the presence of MSCs in normal peripheral blood. We used four different pre-enrichment methods followed by multiparameter flow cytometry, which in the BM have demonstrated an excellent sensitivity for the MSC detection (1 MSC for ~100 000 haemopoietic cells). With a starting population of between 300 and 500 million peripheral blood MNCs (equivalent to ~300–500 ml of blood), a distinct MSC population could not be detected, regardless of a pre-enrichment method used (Fig. 2A). We did detect adherent spindle-shaped cells reminiscent of fibroblasts but these did not proliferate. These cells were actively phagocytic indicating their monocyte/macrophage lineage nature (Fig. 2B). Importantly, no fibroblastic colonies were grown from peripheral blood of all 16 donors studied. These data confirmed previous studies showing that circulating MSCs were exceptionally rare in man [58]. It remains a possibility, however, that MSCs may be mobilized from the marrow by growth factors [59] or following acute injury [60].


Figure 2
View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 2. Failure to detect MSCs in the circulation. (A) Absence of CD45lowD7-FIB+CD271+ MSCs in peripheral blood following selection with four different pre-enrichment methods. (B) Adherent ‘fibroblastoid cells’ from peripheral blood are 100% phagocytic as demonstrated by ferromagnetic bead ingestion. This indicates their monocyte/macrophage (rather than MSC) lineage nature. (C) Positive control BM MSC detection following D7-FIB-based pre-enrichment. CD45lowD7-FIB+CD271+ population of BM MSCs is encircled. (D) Adherent cells from the BM contain both non-phagocytic MSCs (indicated by arrows) and phagocytic monocytic lineage cells (original magnification 400x).

 
Although the issue of MSC circulation remains controversial, it is possible to suggest some explanations to a few unresolved issues. First, MSC have been unequivocally shown to circulate during the first trimester of fetal development but scarcely thereafter [61]. This could be related to the completion of the process of vasculogenesis during early development, consistent with the idea of most MSCs taking a role of pericytes stabilizing blood vessels. Although MSCs are present in the cord blood [62], higher numbers of these cells were recently found in soft tissues within the cord itself [63, 31], consistent with this idea. Second, if MSCs circulate in adults but are virtually undetectable, then their physiological role is questionable. Third, we and others have previously shown a very close spatial association between MSCs and fat cells in the marrow [18, 64]. It is well known that fat globules can be released into blood following major orthopaedic trauma (termed fat embolization) [65]. Far from being a specific feature of MSCs to egress from the BM in response to injury, this latter example illustrates that MSC circulation could merely represent a transient phenomenon and the unavoidable consequence of skeletal trauma. In our view, the data showing MSC circulation in man, outside the setting of skeletal trauma, remains controversial; however, the potential circulation of BM MSCs following fracture may have a simple biophysical explanation.


   The concept of MSC homing
Top
 Abstract
 Background
 Markers for the in...
 Marrow topography of MSCs
 The concept of MSC...
 The concept of MSC...
Implications
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
A logical extension of the belief that MSCs circulate must be that, like HSCs, they possess the ability to egress from the marrow and home to other sites. There would be a strong conceptual argument for MSCs trafficking from the marrow to sites of injury, if like HSCs, the marrow was their predominant topographic location. Given the recent demonstration that MSCs are fairly ubiquitously distributed throughout the skeleton [47], the question remains—why do they need to circulate and migrate for long distances at all? Nevertheless, if this question is to be pursued further, attempts to fully characterize tissue-specific MSCs and then track their movements following an infusion would represent a first step.

There is plenty of reported evidence that MSCs show some homing potential, which is influenced by chemokines and other molecules [66, 67]. This does not imply an ability to circulate systemically—in fact, it is equally plausible that MSC homing can occur over short distances, within tissues following some local injury. Phrased in a different way, the wide distribution of MSCs means that if homing occurs it may be over short distances and not be dependent on the systemic circulation. The proposed location of solid tissue MSCs in a perivascular niche [47] could greatly facilitate such local homing without the prior need to enter the systemic circulation.

Finally, a common sense approach to the therapy of cartilage or bone defects involves the direct injection or placement of cells into the defect of interest [68, 69]. At the practical level, those working in the front line of clinical cellular therapy development for musculoskeletal diseases are not pursuing ‘systemic infusion strategies’, which appear to be more academically driven and derived from the HSC stem cell paradigm. It must be acknowledged that interest in MSC homing for the cellular therapy of congenital myopathies has been considered and there is evidence that MSCs participate in muscle regeneration [70]. But again, this is counterbalanced by the fact that the vast majority of infused cells seem to end up in the reticuloendothelial system [71]. The accumulation of MSCs in the muscle may be secondary to the associated vascular damage that accompanies any muscle injury.

Regardless of whether steady-state MSC circulation represents a natural physiological process or not, such cells may still have an important therapeutic value when infused systemically after limited culture-expansion. Nowhere is this clearer than in respect to the use of MSCs in graft-vs-host disease [72], as immunomodulatory cells [73] or in breast cancer trials [74], where MSCs were shown to augment haematopoietic cell recovery. These scenarios illustrate that MSCs could be therapeutically used in settings outside tissue regeneration and in these settings their mode of action could be different (via autocrine, paracrine and even endocrine actions) [75].


   Implications
Top
 Abstract
 Background
 Markers for the in...
 Marrow topography of MSCs
 The concept of MSC...
 The concept of MSC...
 Implications
Acknowledgements
 References
 
The proposed aim of regenerative medicine strategies based on MSCs is tissue reconstruction using, singly or in combination, MSCs, growth factors and scaffolds [76, 77]. The potential for MSC-based gene therapy has been added to this mélange [78, 79]. However, the concept that MSCs are functioning stromal cells makes it likely that following prolonged expansion in culture that they will exhibit cell senesence, loss of potency, genetic instability and even transformation. Indeed all of these concerns have been borne out by experimental work [80–83]. Given the known drawbacks of gene therapy in the malignancy field [84], it would not seem prudent to pursue such a strategy in cells that may already be rendered genetically unstable by prolonged in vitro culture.

There has been many proof-of-principle studies showing that culture-expanded MSCs can repair bone in the experimental setting [77, 85], but this has not lead, in our view, to many ground-breaking translational developments thus far. Indeed, orthopaedic surgeons have not favoured such a cumbersome process as BM MSC expansion and re-administration, at least in the areas of orthopaedic trauma or fracture repair, but have used a more pragmatic approach utilizing whole BM injections into fracture sites, where excellent outcomes have been reported [69, 86, 87]. As few as 50 000 uncultured MSCs were found to provide effective bone repair in one such study [88]. This may be because BM MSCs in vivo may have much higher osteogenic differentiation potency compared with expanded MSCs as documented in one report [89].

In the Hernigou et al. study, CFU-F numbers in the implanted material were retrospectively established based on standard 14-day CFU-F assays [88]. However, the realization that uncultured MSCs can now be enumerated by flow cytometry could lead to the development of new strategies for fracture repair (and possibly, for other bone repair applications) whereby the number of fresh MSCs in the implanted cellular fractions could be accurately determined. Additionally, new technologies for repairing bone based on semi-purified, uncultured BM MSCs are now being actively developed [90]. However, in certain situations, mode of action may be more important than phenotypical characterization of the cellular product. For instance, in bone repair indications, the number of injected MSCs may be sufficient, but in applications based on immunomodulatory properties of MSCs, respective quality control procedures are likely to be more complicated.

Finally, a better appreciation of the in vivo biology of MSCs could lead to the emergence of in situ tissue engineering. This refers to the scenario whereby the manipulation of MSCs in vivo could be used for tissue repair without necessarily adding further stem cells to the joint. Indeed, ligamentization of artificial scaffolds placed in the correct orientation represented the first example of in situ tissue engineering in man [91]. From which joint structures MSCs actually traffic to such scaffolds and how they differentiate into ligaments has yet to be defined. Another examples of in situ tissue engineering are the administration of recombinant human bone morphogenetic proteins 2 or 7 for fracture repair or recombinant parathyroid hormone (PTH) for osteoporosis therapy (reviewed in [92]). All of these agents either locally or systemically increase bone mass and are likely to act on resident MSCs without the need for exogenous stem cells. Understanding the cellular basis for these processes has important implications for musculoskeletal stem cell therapy development.

In vivo identification of MSCs in the BM opens-up new avenues of research for understanding the nature and identity of MSCs at other sites including the synovium, periosteum [28, 93] and fat [29]. The formal identification of BM MSCs in these tissues would herald an exciting new era of research, not geared to expanding these cells indefinitely in culture, but rather understanding their in vivo biology and then devising therapeutic strategies to augment their function where defective and suppress it where exaggerated.


   Acknowledgements
Top
 Abstract
 Background
 Markers for the in...
 Marrow topography of MSCs
 The concept of MSC...
 The concept of MSC...
 Implications
 Acknowledgements
References
 
The authors would like to thank Anne English, Karen Henshaw, Salina Jain, Andy Rawstron and David Blyth for technical assistance, Sally Kinsey for provision of BM aspirates and Paul Emery for continuing support.

Disclosure statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Background
 Markers for the in...
 Marrow topography of MSCs
 The concept of MSC...
 The concept of MSC...
 Implications
 Acknowledgements
 References
 

  1. 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.[Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Friedenstein AJ, Latzinik NV, Gorskaya YF, Luria EA, Moskvina IL. Bone-marrow stromal colony formation requires stimulation by hematopoietic-cells. Bone Mineral (1992) 18:199–213.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  3. Castro-Malaspina H, Gay RE, Resnick G, et al. Characterisation of human bone marrow fibroblast colony-forming cells (CFU-F) and their progeny. Blood (1980) 56:289–301.[Free Full Text]
  4. Civin CI, Trischmann T, Kadan NS, et al. Highly purified CD34-positive cells reconstitute hematopoiesis. J Clin Oncol (1996) 14:2224–33.[Abstract]
  5. Pittenger MF, Mackay AM, Beck SC, et al. Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science (1999) 284:143–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Bianco P, Robey PG. Marrow stromal stem cells. J Clin Invest (2000) 105:1663–8.[Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Simmons PJ, Torokstorb B. Identification of stromal cell precursors in human bone-marrow by a novel monoclonal-antibody, Stro-1. Blood (1991) 78:55–62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Majumdar MK, Thiede MA, Haynesworth SE, Bruder SP, Gerson SL. Human marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) express hematopoietic cytokines and support long-term hematopoiesis when differentiated toward stromal and osteogenic lineages. J Hematother Stem Cell Res (2000) 9:841–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  9. Boiret N, Rapatel C, Veyrat-Masson R, et al. Characterization of nonexpanded mesenchymal progenitor cells from normal adult human bone marrow. Exp Hematol (2005) 33:219–25.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Prockop DJ. Marrow stromal cells as steam cells for nonhematopoietic tissues. Science (1997) 276:71–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Friedenstein AJ, Chailakhyan RK, Gerasimov UV. Bone-marrow osteogenic stem cells - In vitro cultivation and transplantation in diffusion chambers. Cell Tissue Kinet (1987) 20:263–72.[Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Muraglia A, Cancedda R, Quarto R. Clonal mesenchymal progenitors from human bone marrow differentiate in vitro according to a hierarchical model. J Cell Sci (2000) 113:1161–6.[Abstract]
  13. Quirici N, Soligo D, Bossolasco P, Servida F, Lumini C, Deliliers GL. Isolation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells by anti-nerve growth factor receptor antibodies. Exp Hematol (2002) 30:783–91.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Jones EA, Kinsey SE, English A, et al. Isolation and characterization of bone marrow multipotential mesenchymal progenitor cells. Arthritis Rheum (2002) 46:3349–60.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  15. Gronthos S, Zannettino ACW, Hay SJ, et al. Molecular and cellular characterisation of highly purified stromal stem cells derived from human bone marrow. J Cell Sci (2003) 116:1827–35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Shi S, Gronthos S. Perivascular niche of postnatal mesenchymal stem cells in human bone marrow and dental pulp. J Bone Mineral Res (2003) 18:696–704.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Deschaseaux F, Gindraux F, Saadi R, Obert L, Chalmers D, Herve P. Direct selection of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells using an anti-CD49a antibody reveals their CD45(med,low) phenotype. Br J Haematol (2003) 122:506–17.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Jones EA, English A, Kinsey SE, et al. Optimization of a flow cytometry-based protocol for detection and phenotypic characterization of multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells from human bone marrow. Cytometry Part B: Clin Cytometry (2006) 70B:391–9.
  19. Jones EA, Ponchel F, Kinsey SE, et al. Phenotypical, morphological and molecular analysis of fresh human bone marrow mesenchymal/stromal stem sells (MSCs) enriched by four different methods. Blood (2004) 104:643A. (abstract).
  20. Gronthos S, Simmons PJ. The growth-factor requirements of Stro-1-positive human bone marrow stromal precursors under serum-deprived conditions in-vitro. Blood (1995) 85:929–40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Buhring H-J, Battula VL, Treml S, Schewe B, Kanz L, Vogel W. Novel markers for the prospective isolation of human MSC. Ann NY Acad Sci (2007) 1106:262–71.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Jarocha D, Lesko E, Ratajczak MZ, Majka M. Comparison of different strategies of MSC isolation revels advantage to expand MSC directly from purified CD105(+) and CD271(+) cells. Blood (2006) 108:725A. (abstract).
  23. Avaliable at: http://www.miltenyibiotec.com/en/PG_624_476_MSC_Research_Tool_Box_-_CD271_LNGFR_.aspx.
  24. Martinez G, Hoffman T, Marino R, Dominici M, Horwitz E. Human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells express neuronal ganglyoside GD2: a novel surface marker for the identification of MSCs. Blood (2007) 109:4245–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Cardoso AA, Li M, Batard P, et al. Release from quiescence of CD34+ CD38– human umbilical cord blood cells reveals their potentiality to engraft adults. PNAS (1993) 90:8707–11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Tuan R. Stemming cartilage degeneration: Adult mesenchymal stem cells as a cell source for articular cartilage tissue engineering. Arthritis Rheum (2006) 54:3075–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Kolf C, Cho E, Tuan R. Mesenchymal stromal cells. Biology of adult mesenchymal stem cells: regulation of niche, self–renewal and differentiation. Arthritis Res (2007) 9:204–304.[Medline]
  28. De Bari C, Dell’Accio F, Tylzanowski P, Luyten FP. Multipotent mesenchymal stem cells from adult human synovial membrane. Arthritis Rheum (2001) 44:1928–42.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Zuk PA, Zhu M, Mizuno H, et al. Multilineage cells from human adipose tissue: Implications for cell-based therapies. Tissue Eng (2001) 7:211–28.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  30. Battula VL, Bareiss PM, Treml S, et al. Human placenta and bone marrow derived MSC cultured in serum-free, b-FGF-containing medium express cell surface frizzled-9 and SSEA-4 and give rise to multilinelage differentiation. Differentiation (2007) 75:279–91.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  31. Weiss ML, Medicetty S, Bledsoe AR, et al. Human umbilical cord matrix stem cells: Preliminary characterization and effect of transplantation in a rodent model of Parkinson's disease. Stem Cells (2006) 24:781–92.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  32. Wagner W, Wein F, Seckinger A, et al. Comparative characteristics of mesenchymal stem cells from human bone marrow, adipose tissue, and umbilical cord blood. Exp Hematol (2005) 33:1402–16.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  33. Ishii M, Koike C, Igarashi A, et al. Molecular markers distinguish bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells from fibroblasts. Biochem Biophys Res Commun (2005) 332:297–303.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  34. Jones EA, English A, Henshaw K, et al. Enumeration and phenotypic characterization of synovial fluid multipotential mesenchymal progenitor cells in inflammatory and degenerative arthritis. Arthritis Rheum (2004) 50:817–27.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  35. Gang EJ, Bosnakovski D, Figueiredo CA, Visser JW, Perlingeiro RCR. SSEA-4 identifies mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow. Blood (2007) 109:1743–51.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Short B, Brouard N, Occhiodoro-Scott T, Ramakrishnan A, Simmons PJ. Mesenchymal stem cells. Archives Med Res (2003) 34:565–71.[CrossRef]
  37. Bianco P, Riminucci M, Gronthos S, Robey PG. Bone marrow stromal stem cells: Nature, biology, and potential applications. Stem Cells (2001) 19:180–92.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  38. Calvi LM, Adams GB, Weibrecht KW, et al. Osteoblastic cells regulate the haematopoietic stem cell niche. Nature (2003) 425:841–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Horwitz EM, Le Blanc K, Dominici M, et al. Clarification of the nomenclature for MSC: The international society for cellular therapy position statement. Cytotherapy (2005) 7:393–5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  40. Cattoretti G, Schiro R, Orazi A, Soligo D, Colombo MP. Bone marrow stroma in humans - Anti-nerve growth-factor receptor antibodies selectively stain reticular cells In vivo and In vitro. Blood (1993) 81:1726–38.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Caneva L, Soligo D, Cattoretti G, Deharven E, Deliliers GL. Immunoelectron microscopy characterization of human bone-marrow stromal cells with Anti-Ngfr antibodies. Blood Cells Mol Dis (1995) 21:73–85.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  42. Simmons PJ, Masinovsky B, Longenecker BM, Berenson R, Torokstorb B, Gallatin WM. Vascular cell-adhesion molecule-1 expressed by bone-marrow stromal cells mediates the binding of hematopoietic progenitor cells. Blood (1992) 80:388–95.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Oostendorp RA, Reisbach G, Spitzer E, et al. VLA-4 and VCAM-1 are the principal adhesion molecules involved in the interaction between blast colony-forming cells and bone marrow stromal cells. Br J Haematol (1995) 91:275–84.[Web of Science][Medline]
  44. Tokoyoda K, Egawa T, Sugiyama T, Choi BI, Nagasawa T. Cellular niches controlling B lymphocyte behaviour within bone marrow during development. Immunity (2004) 20:707–18.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  45. Kortesidis A, Zannettino A, Isenmann S, Shi ST, Lapidot T, Gronthos S. Stromal-derived factor-1 promotes the growth, survival, and development of human bone marrow stromal stem cells. Blood (2005) 105:3793–801.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Campioni D, Lanza F, Moretti S, et al. Functional and immunophenotypic characteristics of isolated CD105(+) and fibroblast(+) stromal cells from AML: implications for their plasticity along endothelial lineage. Cytotherapy (2003) 5:66–79.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  47. Meirelles LDS, Chagastelles PC, Nardi NB. Mesenchymal stem cells reside in virtually all post-natal organs and tissues. J Cell Sci (2006) 119:2204–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Barbero A, Ploegert S, Heberer M, Martin I. Plasticity of clonal populations of dedifferentiated adult human articular chondrocytes. Arthritis Rheum (2003) 48:1315–25.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  49. Noth U, Osyczka AM, Tuli R, Hickok NJ, Danielson KG, Tuan RS. Multilineage mesenchymal differentiation potential of human trabecular bone-derived cells. J Orthop (2002) 20:1060–9.
  50. Tuli R, Tuli S, Nandi S, et al. Characterization of multipotential mesenchymal progenitor cells derived from human trabecular bone. Stem Cells (2003) 21:681–93.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  51. Sillaber C, Walchshofer S, Mosberger I, et al. Immunophenotypic characterization of human bone marrow endosteal cells. Tissue Antigens (1999) 53:559–68.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  52. Galmiche MC, Koteliansky VE, Briere J, Herve P, Charbord P. Stromal cells from human long-term marrow cultures are mesenchymal cells that differentiate following a vascular smooth muscle differentiation pathway. Blood (1993) 82:66–76.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Islam A. Pattern of bone marrow regeneration following chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia. J Med (1987) 18:108–22.[Web of Science][Medline]
  54. Gao JZ, Dennis JE, Muzic RF, Lundberg M, Caplan AI. The dynamic in vivo distribution of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stent cells after infusion. Cells Tissues Organs (2001) 169:12–20.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  55. Pittenger MF, Martin BJ. Mesenchymal stem cells and their potential as cardiac therapeutics. Circulation Res (2004) 95:9–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Zvaifler NJ, Marinova-Mutafchieva L, Adams G, et al. Mesenchymal precursor cells in the blood of normal individuals. Arthritis Research (2000) 2:477–88.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  57. Khosla S, Eghbali-Fatourechi GZ. Circulating cells with osteogenic potential. Skeletal Development and Remodeling in Health, Disease, and Aging. Ann NY Acad Sci (2006) 1068:489–97.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  58. Kuznetsov SA, Mankani MH, Gronthos S, Satomura K, Bianco P, Robey PG. Circulating skeletal stem cells. J Cell Biol (2001) 153:1133–39.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Fernandez M, Simon V, Herrera G, Cao C, DelFavero H, Minguell JJ. Detection of stromal cells in peripheral blood progenitor cell collections from breast cancer patients. Bone Marrow Transplant (1997) 20:265–71.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  60. Mansilla E, Marin GH, Drago H, et al. Bloodstream cells phenotypically identical to human mesenchymal bone marrow stem cells circulate in large amounts under the influence of acute large skin damage: new evidence for their use in regenerative medicine. Transplant Proc (2006) 38:967–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  61. Campagnoli C, Roberts IAG, Kumar S, Bennett PR, Bellantuono I, Fisk NM. Identification of mesenchymal stem/progenitor cells in human first-trimester fetal blood, liver, and bone marrow. Blood (2001) 98:2396–402.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  62. Erices A, Conget P, Minguell JJ. Mesenchymal progenitor cells in human umbilical cord blood. Br J Haematol (2000) 109:235–42.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  63. Wang HS, Hung SC, Peng ST, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells in the Wharton's jelly of the human umbilical cord. Stem Cells (2004) 22:1330–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  64. Blazsek I, Chagraoui J, Peault B. Ontogenic emergence of the hematon, a morphogenetic stromal unit that supports multipotential hematopoietic progenitors in mouse bone marrow. Blood (2000) 96:3763–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  65. Moylan JA, Evenson MA. Diagnosis and treatment of fat embolism. Annu Rev Med (1977) 28:85–90.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  66. Sordi V, Malosio ML, Marchesi F, et al. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells express a restricted set of functionally active chemokine receptors capable of promoting migration to pancreatic islets. Blood (2005) 106:419–27.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  67. Honczarenko M, Le Y, Swierkowski M, Ghiran I, Glodek AM, Silberstein LE. Human bone marrow stromal cells express a distinct set of biologically functional chemokine receptors. Stem Cells (2006) 24:1030–41.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  68. Brittberg M, Lindahl A, Nilsson A, Ohlsson C, Isaksson O, Peterson L. Treatment of deep cartilage defects in the knee with autologous chondrocyte transplantation. New Eng J Med (1994) 331:889–95.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Goel A, Sangwan SS, Siwach RC, Ali AM. Percutaneous bone marrow grafting for the treatment of tibial non-union. Injury Int J Care Injured (2005) 36:203–6.
  70. De Bari C, Dell’Accio F, Vandenabeele F, Vermeesch JR, Raymackcrs JM, Luyten FP. Skeletal muscle repair by adult human mesenchymal stem cells from synovial membrane. J Cell Biol (2003) 160:909–18.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  71. Barbash IM, Chouraqui P, Baron J, et al. Systemic delivery of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells to the infarcted myocardium - Feasibility, cell migration, and body distribution. Circulation (2003) 108:863–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  72. Le Blanc K, Rasmusson I, Sundberg B, et al. Treatment of severe acute graft-versus-host disease with third party haploidentical mesenchymal stem cells. Lancet (2004) 363:1439–41.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  73. Tyndall A, Walker U, Cope A, et al. Immunomodulatory properties of mesenchymal stem cells: a review based on an interdisciplinary meeting held at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Division, London, UK, 31 October 2005. Arthritis Res Ther (2007) 9:301–311.[CrossRef][Medline]
  74. Koc ON, Gerson SL, Cooper BW, et al. Rapid hematopoietic recovery after coinfusion of autologous-blood stem cells and culture-expanded marrow mesenchymal stem cells in advanced breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol (2000) 18:307–16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  75. Caplan AI, Dennis JE. Mesenchymal stem cells as trophic mediators. J Cell Biochem (2006) 98:1076–84.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  76. Caplan AI. Mesenchymal stem cells: Cell-based reconstructive therapy in orthopedics. Tissue Eng (2005) 11:1198–1211.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  77. Oreffo RO, Cooper C, Mason C, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells: lineage, plasticity, and skeletal therapeutic potential. Stem Cell Rev (2005) 1:169–78.[CrossRef][Medline]
  78. Kimelman N, Pelled G, Gazit Z, Gazit D. Applications of gene therapy and adult stem cells in bone bioengineering. Regen Med (2006) 1:549–61.[CrossRef][Medline]
  79. Caplan AI. Mesenchymal stem cells and gene therapy. Clin Orthopaedics Related Res (2000) 379(Suppl):S67–70.[CrossRef]
  80. Banfi A, Bianchi G, Notaro R, Luzzatto L, Cancedda R, Quarto R. Replicative aging and gene expression in long-term cultures of human bone marrow stromal cells. Tissue Eng (2002) 8:901–10.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  81. Miura M, Miura Y, Padilla-Nash HM, et al. Accumulated chromosomal instability in murine bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells leads to malignant transformation. Stem Cells (2006) 24:1095–103.[CrossRef][Medline]
  82. Serakinci N, Guldberg P, Burns JS, et al. Adult human mesenchymal stem cell as a target for neoplastic transformation. Oncogene (2004) 23:5095–98.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  83. Tolar J, Nauta AJ, Osborn MJ, et al. Sarcoma derived from cultured mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells (2007) 25:371–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  84. Nathwani AC, Davidoff AM, Linch DC. A review of gene therapy for haematological disorders. Br J Haematol (2005) 128:3–17.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  85. Bruder SP, Kurth AA, Shea M, Hayes WC, Jaiswal N, Kadiyala S. Bone regeneration by implantation of purified, culture-expanded human mesenchymal stem cells. J Orthop Res (1998) 16:155–62.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  86. Ma HL, Chen TH, Hung SC. Development of a new method in promoting fracture healing: multiple cryopreserved bone marrow injections using a rabbit model. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (2004) 124:448–54.[Medline]
  87. Hernigou P, Poignard A, Manicom O, Mathieu G, Rouard H. The use of percutaneous autologous bone marrow transplantation in nonunion and avascular necrosis of bone. J Bone Joint Surg Br (2005) 87B:896–902.[CrossRef][Medline]
  88. Hernigou P, Poignard A, Beaujean F, Rouard H. Percutaneous autologous bone-marrow grafting for nonunions - Influence of the number and concentration of progenitor cells. J Bone Joint Surg Am (2005) 87A:1430–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  89. Banfi A, Muraglia A, Dozin B, Mastrogiacomo M, Cancedda R, Quarto R. Proliferation kinetics and differentiation potential of ex vivo expanded human bone marrow stromal cells. Exp Hematol (2000) 28:707–15.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  90. Aslan H, Zilberman Y, Kandel L, et al. Osteogenic differentiation of noncultured immunoisolated bone marrow-derived CD105+ cells. Stem Cells (2006) 24:1728–37.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  91. Fujikawa K, Kobayashi T, Sasazaki Y, Matsumoto H, Seedhom B. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the Leeds-Keio artificial ligament. J Long Term Effect Med Implants (2000) 10:225–38.
  92. Jones EA, Pountos I, Yang XB, Mcgonagle D. Mesenchymal stem cells and their future in osteoporotic fracture repair. Advances in Osteoporotic Fracture Manage (2006) 4:11–6.
  93. De Bari C, Dell’Accio F, Vanlauwe J, et al. Mesenchymal multipotency of adult human periosteal cells demonstrated by single–cell lineage analysis. Arthritis Rheum (2006) 54:1209–21.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Submitted 18 May 2007; revised version accepted 27 June 2007.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
D. McGonagle and E. Jones
A potential role for synovial fluid mesenchymal stem cells in ligament regeneration
Rheumatology, August 1, 2008; 47(8): 1114 - 1116.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
47/2/126    most recent
kem206v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, E.
Right arrow Articles by McGonagle, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jones, E.
Right arrow Articles by McGonagle, D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Immunogenetics
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?