Analyze Diet

Comparison of isolation and expansion techniques for equine osteogenic progenitor cells from periosteal tissue.

Abstract: Stem cell therapy and cell-based therapies using other progenitor cells are becoming the treatment of choice for many equine orthopedic lesions. Important criteria for obtaining autogenous equine progenitor cells in vitro for use in clinical cell-based therapy include the ability to isolate and expand cells repeatedly to high numbers (millions) required for therapy, in a clinically relevant time frame. Cells must also maintain their ability to differentiate into the tissue type of choice. The objective of this study was to compare isolation and expansion techniques for preparation of periosteal-derived osteogenic progenitor cells for use in commercial autogenous cell-based therapy. Cells were allowed to migrate spontaneously from periosteal tissue or were enzymatically released. Isolated cells were expanded using enzymatic detachment of cells and subsequent monolayer or dynamic culture techniques. Viable osteogenic progenitor cells from each group were counted at 2 weeks, and osteogenic potential determined. Cells isolated or expanded using the explant or bioreactor technique yielded cells at a much lower number per gram of tissue compared with that of enzyme digestion and monolayer expansion, but all cells were able to differentiate into the ostoblast phenotype. Osteogenic progenitor cells isolated by enzymatic release and expanded using monolayer culture reached the highest number of viable cells per gram of donor periosteal tissue while maintaining the ability to differentiate into bone forming cells in vitro. This technique would be an easy, consistent method of preparation of equine osteogenic cells for clinical cell based therapy for orthopedic conditions. La thérapie à l’aide de cellules souches et les thérapies utilisant d’autres cellules de type progéniteur sont en voie de devenir le traitement de choix pour plusieurs lésions orthopédiques équines. Les critères importants pour obtenir in vitro des cellules autogènes équines de type progéniteur pour utilisation en thérapie clinique basée sur les cellules inclus la capacité à isoler et propager les cellules à répétition pour obtenir les nombres élevés (millions) nécessaires à la thérapie, et ce à l’intérieur d’un échéancier approprié pour la clinique. Les cellules doivent également maintenir leur capacité à se différencier au type de tissu approprié. L’objectif de cette étude était de comparer les techniques d’isolement et d’expansion pour la préparation de cellules ostéogéniques dérivées du périoste de type progéniteur pour utilisation commerciale d’une thérapie basée sur les cellules autogènes. Les cellules pouvaient migrer spontanément du périoste ou étaient relâchées par traitement enzymatique. Les cellules isolées étaient propagées par détachement des cellules au moyen d’enzyme suivi de techniques de culture dynamique ou en monocouche. Les cellules ostéogéniques viables de type progéniteur de chaque groupe étaient dénombrées après 2 semaines, et le potentiel ostéogénique déterminé. Les cellules isolées ou dont on augmenta le nombre par explantation ou la technique du bioréacteur ont permis de récolter un nombre beaucoup plus faible de cellules par gramme de tissu comparativement au traitement enzymatique et l’expansion en monocouche, mais les cellules étaient en mesure de se différencier au phénotype des ostéoblastes. Les cellules ostéogéniques de type progéniteur isolées par relâche enzymatique et ayant pris de l’expansion par culture en monocouche ont atteint les nombres les plus élevés de cellules viables par gramme de périoste du donneur tout en maintenant la capacité à se différencier in vitro en cellules formant de l’os. Cette technique serait une méthode facile et constante de préparation de cellules ostéogéniques équines pour le traitement de conditions orthopédiques basé sur une thérapie cellulaire. (Traduit par Docteur Serge Messier)
Publication Date: 2012-10-02 PubMed ID: 23024451PubMed Central: PMC3314441
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Comparative Study
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research focuses on comparing techniques for isolating and expanding cells from equine (horse) periosteal tissue to be used in stem cell therapy for orthopedic disorders. It was observed that cells removed through enzymatic release and then grown in monolayer culture – a simple and consistent process – resulted in the highest amount of viable cells, which retained their ability to turn into bone-forming cells in vitro.

Objective and Background

  • The study aimed to examine and compare methods for isolating and growing osteogenic progenitor cells (a type of stem cell that can form bone) from the periosteum (a membrane that covers the outer surface of all bones) of horses. This study is encompassed within the broader field of autogenous cell-based therapy, in which a patient’s cells are used to treat their own medical conditions.
  • Stem cell therapy has become an increasingly popular choice for treating many equine orthopedic lesions. For this therapy to be viable, there need to be high numbers of stable, repeatable cells that can be obtained and used.

Methodology

  • Progenitor cells were harvested either by allowing them to migrate naturally from the periosteal tissue or by releasing them using an enzyme.
  • The isolation techniques used in the study included: explant technique (where cells come out naturally from tissues), enzyme digestion (using enzymes to break down tissues and free cells), and bioreactor technique (for dynamic culturing of cells).
  • The cell expansion techniques involved in the study were: monolayer culture (growing cells on a flat surface), and dynamic culture (where cells are grown under conditions emphasizing active movement).

Findings

  • After a period of two weeks, the researchers counted the number of successful osteogenic progenitor cells that developed from each group.
  • It was observed that cells grown using the explant or bioreactor technique resulted in fewer cells per gram of tissue compared to those grown with enzyme digestion and monolayer expansion.
  • However, all cells, regardless of their method of expansion, were successful in differentiating into osteoblasts (bone-forming cells).
  • Those cells which were isolated through enzymatic release and then expanded using monolayer culture gave the highest yield of viable cells per gram of donor periosteal tissue.

Conclusion

  • The results of the study suggest that the most efficient method for preparing equine osteogenic cells for clinical use is via enzymatic release followed by expansion through monolayer culture.
  • This method also enables these cells to maintain their capacity to differentiate into bone-forming cells in vitro, making it a useful method for cell-based therapy for orthopedic conditions in horses.

Cite This Article

APA
McD○ LA. (2012). Comparison of isolation and expansion techniques for equine osteogenic progenitor cells from periosteal tissue. Can J Vet Res, 76(2), 91-98.

Publication

ISSN: 1928-9022
NlmUniqueID: 8607793
Country: Canada
Language: English
Volume: 76
Issue: 2
Pages: 91-98

Researcher Affiliations

McD○, Laurie A
  • Department of Health Management, University of Prince Edward Island, 550 University Avenue, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island C1A 4P3. lmcd○@upei.ca

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Cell Culture Techniques / veterinary
  • Cell Differentiation / physiology
  • Collagenases / metabolism
  • Horses / metabolism
  • Horses / physiology
  • Immunohistochemistry / veterinary
  • Osteocalcin / metabolism
  • Osteogenesis / physiology
  • Periosteum / cytology
  • Periosteum / metabolism
  • Stem Cells / cytology
  • Stem Cells / metabolism

Grant Funding

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research

References

This article includes 42 references
  1. Putzier M, Strube P, Funk J, Gross C, Perka C. Periosteal cells compared with autologous cancellous bone in lumbar segmental fusion.. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;8:536–543.
    pubmed: 18518674
  2. Carrancio S, Lopez-Holgado N, Sanchez-Guijo FM. Optimization of mesenchymal stem cell expansion procedures by cell separation and culture conditions modification.. Exp Hematol 2008;36:1014–1021.
    pubmed: 18468767
  3. Trombi L, Mattii L, Pacini S. Human autologous plasma-derived clot as a biological scaffold for mesenchymal stem cells in treatment of orthopedic healing.. J Orthop Res 2008;26:176–183.
    pubmed: 17868116
  4. Luyten FP, Dell’Accio F, De Bari C. Skeletal tissue engineering: Opportunities and challenges.. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2001;15:759–769.
    pubmed: 11812020
  5. Ng AM, Saim AB, Tan KK. Comparison of bioengineered human bone construct from four sources of osteogenic cells.. J Orthop Sci 2005;10:192–199.
    pubmed: 15815868
  6. Muschler GF, Nakamoto C, Griffith LG. Engineering principles of clinical cell-based tissue engineering.. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:1541–1558.
    pubmed: 15252108
  7. Wiesmann HP, Nazer N, Klatt C, Szuwart T, Meyer U. Bone tissue engineering by primary osteoblast-like cells in a monolayer system and 3-dimensional collagen gel.. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:1455–1462.
    pubmed: 14663811
  8. Muschler GF, Midura RJ. Connective tissue progenitors: Practical concepts for clinical applications.. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002:66–80.
    pubmed: 11937867
  9. Borjesson DL, Peroni JF. The regenerative medicine laboratory: Facilitating stem cell therapy for equine disease.. Clin Lab Med 2011;31:109–123.
    pubmed: 21295725
  10. Frisbie DD, Smith RK. Clinical update on the use of mesenchymal stem cells in equine orthopaedics.. Equine Vet J 2010;42:86–89.
    pubmed: 20121921
  11. Seeger FH, Tonn T, Krzossok N, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler S. Cell isolation procedures matter: A comparison of different isolation protocols of bone marrow mononuclear cells used for cell therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction.. Eur Heart J 2007;28:766–772.
    pubmed: 17298974
  12. Bourzac C, Smith LC, Vincent P, Beauchamp G, Lavoie JP, Laverty S. Isolation of equine bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells: A comparison between three protocols.. Equine Vet J 2010;42:519–527.
    pubmed: 20716192
  13. Caplan AI. Review: Mesenchymal stem cells: Cell-based reconstructive therapy in orthopedics.. Tissue Eng 2005;11:1198–1211.
    pubmed: 16144456
  14. Gao J, Caplan AI. Mesenchymal stem cells and tissue engineering for orthopaedic surgery.. Chir Organi Mov 2003;88:305–316.
    pubmed: 15146948
  15. Jeon O, Rhie JW, Kwon IK, Kim JH, Kim BS, Lee SH. In vivo bone formation following transplantation of human adipose-derived stromal cells that are not differentiated osteogenically.. Tissue Eng Part A 2008;14:1285–1294.
    pubmed: 18593269
  16. Brittberg M. Autologous chondrocyte implantation — Technique and long-term follow-up.. Injury 2008;39(Suppl 1):S40–S49.
    pubmed: 18313471
  17. Yang J, Yamato M, Nishida K. Cell delivery in regenerative medicine: The cell sheet engineering approach.. J Control Release 2006;116:193–203.
    pubmed: 16890320
  18. De Bari C, Dell’Accio F, Luyten FP. Human periosteum-derived cells maintain phenotypic stability and chondrogenic potential throughout expansion regardless of donor age.. Arthritis Rheum 2001;44:85–95.
    pubmed: 11212180
  19. Stich S, Loch A, Leinhase I. Human periosteum-derived progenitor cells express distinct chemokine receptors and migrate upon stimulation with CCL2, CCL25, CXCL8, CXCL12, and CXCL13.. Eur J Cell Biol 2008;87:365–376.
    pubmed: 18501472
  20. Hutmacher DW, Sittinger M. Periosteal cells in bone tissue engineering.. Tissue Eng 2003;9(Suppl 1):S45–S64.
    pubmed: 14511470
  21. Park BW, Hah YS, Kim DR, Kim JR, Byun JH. Vascular endothelial growth factor expression in cultured periosteal-derived cells.. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:554–560.
    pubmed: 18296084
  22. Sakata Y, Ueno T, Kagawa T. Osteogenic potential of cultured human periosteum-derived cells — A pilot study of human cell transplantation into a rat calvarial defect model.. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2006;34:461–465.
    pubmed: 17157522
  23. Yang Y, Rossi FM, Putnins EE. Ex vivo expansion of rat bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells on microcarrier beads in spin culture.. Biomaterials 2007;28:3110–3120.
    pubmed: 17433434
  24. Steel RGD, Torrie JH. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach.. Toronto, Ontario: McGraw Hill; 1981. p. 176.
  25. Park BW, Hah YS, Kim DR, Kim JR, Byun JH. Osteogenic phenotypes and mineralization of cultured human periosteal-derived cells.. Arch Oral Biol 2007;52:983–989.
    pubmed: 17543271
  26. Declercq H, Van den Vreken N, De Maeyer E. Isolation, proliferation and differentiation of osteoblastic cells to study cell/biomaterial interactions: Comparison of different isolation techniques and source.. Biomaterials 2004;25:757–768.
    pubmed: 14609664
  27. Jonsson KB, Frost A, Nilsson O, Ljunghall S, Ljunggren O. Three isolation techniques for primary culture of human osteoblast-like cells: A comparison.. Acta Orthop Scand 1999;70:365–373.
    pubmed: 10569267
  28. Majeska RJ. Culture of osteoblastic cells.. In: Bilezikian JP, Raisz LG, Raisz GA, editors. Principles of Bone Biology. 1st ed. San Diego, California: Academic Press; 1996. pp. 1229–1237.
  29. Siggelkow H, Rebenstorff K, Kurre W. Development of the osteoblast phenotype in primary human osteoblasts in culture: Comparison with rat calvarial cells in osteoblast differentiation.. J Cell Biochem 1999;75:22–35.
    pubmed: 10462701
  30. Frondoza C, Sohrabi A, Hungerford D. Human chondrocytes proliferate and produce matrix components in microcarrier suspension culture.. Biomaterials 1996;17:879–888.
    pubmed: 8718933
  31. Waters SL, Cummings LJ, Shakesheff KM, Rose FR. Tissue growth in a rotating bioreactor. Part I: Mechanical stability.. Math Med Biol 2006;23:311–337.
    pubmed: 16777926
  32. Overstreet M, Sohrabi A, Polotsky A, Hungerford DS, Frondoza CG. Collagen microcarrier spinner culture promotes osteoblast proliferation and synthesis of matrix proteins.. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 2003;39:228–234.
    pubmed: 14613330
  33. Sikavitsas VI, Bancroft GN, Holtorf HL, Jansen JA, Mikos AG. Mineralized matrix deposition by marrow stromal osteoblasts in 3D perfusion culture increases with increasing fluid shear forces.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:14683–14688.
    pmc: PMC299759pubmed: 14657343
  34. Bardouille C, Lehmann J, Heimann P, Jockusch H. Growth and differentiation of permanent and secondary mouse myogenic cell lines on microcarriers.. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2001;55:556–562.
    pubmed: 11414320
  35. Hoffman RM. To do tissue culture in two or three dimensions? That is the question.. Stem Cells 1993;11:105–111.
    pubmed: 8457785
  36. Petite H, Viateau V, Bensaid W. Tissue-engineered bone regeneration.. Nat Biotechnol 2000;18:959–963.
    pubmed: 10973216
  37. Frauenschuh S, Reichmann E, Ibold Y, Goetz PM, Sittinger M, Ringe J. A microcarrier-based cultivation system for expansion of primary mesenchymal stem cells.. Biotechnol Prog 2007;23:187–193.
    pubmed: 17269687
  38. Schop D, Janssen FW, Borgart E, de Bruijn JD, Dijkhuizen-Radersma R. Expansion of mesenchymal stem cells using a microcarrier-based cultivation system: Growth and metabolism.. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2008;2:126–135.
    pubmed: 18348332
  39. Sart S, Schneider YJ, Agathos SN. Ear mesenchymal stem cells: An efficient adult multipotent cell population fit for rapid and scalable expansion.. J Biotechnol 2009;139:291–299.
    pubmed: 19136033
  40. Eibes G, dos Santos F, Andrade PZ. Maximizing the ex vivo expansion of human mesenchymal stem cells using a microcarrier- based stirred culture system.. J Biotechnol 2010;146:194–197.
    pubmed: 20188771
  41. Varani J, Bendelow MJ, Chun JH, Hillegas WA. Cell growth on microcarriers: Comparison of proliferation on and recovery from various substrates.. J Biol Stand 1986;14:331–336.
    pubmed: 3558416
  42. Yu X, Botchwey EA, Levine EM, Pollack SR, Laurencin CT. Bioreactor-based bone tissue engineering: The influence of dynamic flow on osteoblast phenotypic expression and matrix mineralization.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:11203–11208.
    pmc: PMC509184pubmed: 15277663