Analyze Diet
Veterinary surgery : VS2003; 32(5); 455-463; doi: 10.1053/jvet.2003.50060

In vitro comparison of equine cancellous bone graft donor sites and tibial periosteum as sources of viable osteoprogenitors.

Abstract: To compare the osteogenic potential of cancellous bone of conventional graft sites with that of one nonconventional site (fourth coccygeal vertebra) and to investigate the tibial periosteum as a donor site with respect to osteogenic potential. Methods: In vitro osteogenic cell culture system. Methods: Eight adult horses. Methods: Cancellous bone or tibial periosteum was aseptically collected and cut into bone chips or periosteal strips of 1 to 2 mm(3) for primary explant cultures. After 2 weeks, primary tissue cultures that yielded a population of osteogenic cells were counted and subcultured at 1 x 10(5) cells/35-mm dish in osteogenic media. After 7 to 10 days, subcultures were stained with Von Kossa (VK) to assess mineralized bone nodule formation. VK-positive bone nodules were counted as osteoprogenitors and compared among 3 donor sites, which provided consistent primary osteogenic cells (tuber coxae, fourth coccygeal vertebra, periosteum) using ANOVA (P <.05). Results: Sternal and tibial bone yielded viable osteogenic cells from 25% and 50% of horses, respectively, whereas yields from tuber coxae, coccygeal vertebra, and periosteum were 75%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Tuber coxae and periosteum had significantly greater numbers of osteoprogenitors compared with fourth coccygeal vertebra. Conclusions: Among the conventional donor sites, tuber coxae most consistently yielded viable osteogenic cells with an acceptable percentage of osteoprogenitors. Sternal and tibial sites were unreliable in providing osteogenic cells. Two new donor sites, the fourth coccygeal vertebra and tibial periosteum, were tissues with good osteogenic potential. Conclusions: When a source of transplantable viable osteoprogenitor cells is desired, use of the tuber coxae as a conventional donor site is warranted. Use of tibial periosteum or fourth coccygeal vertebra as reliable sources of transplantable osteoprogenitors should be considered.
Publication Date: 2003-10-22 PubMed ID: 14569574DOI: 10.1053/jvet.2003.50060Google Scholar: Lookup
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
  • Evaluation 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.

This research compares various sites of the horse body as viable sources of osteoprogenitors, or bone cells involved in bone formation. The conventional site, tuber coxae was found to produce the most consistent yield of bone cells while non-conventional sites, tibial periosteum and fourth coccygeal vertebra, also showed good osteogenic potential.

Research Methodology

  • The study centered around an in vitro cell culture system.
  • Eight adult horses were involved in this experiment.
  • Either cancellous bone or tibial periosteum was aseptically collected from the horses and cut into minute chips or periosteal strips.
  • These tissues were cultured, and after two weeks osteogenic cells that sprouted from these cultures were recorded.
  • The cells were further cultured in osteogenic media and after a week to ten days, these subcultures were stained with Von Kossa (VK), a method used to detect calcium and other mineral deposits which would showcase bone formation.

Results

  • They found substantial variation in the yield of cells from different donor sites. Sternal and tibial bone provided osteogenic cells from only 25% and 50% of horses respectively.
  • Meanwhile, considerably higher yields were gathered from tuber coxae, the coccygeal vertebra, and periosteum with rates of 75%, 100%, and 100%, respectively.
  • In terms of osteoprogenitors, it was found that the tuber coxae and periosteum had significantly more than the fourth coccygeal vertebra.

Conclusions

  • The study concluded that among conventional donor sites, the tuber coxae was most reliable in yielding viable osteogenic cells with an acceptable percentage of osteoprogenitors.
  • It shed light on the fact that sternal and tibial sites were unreliable in providing osteogenic cells.
  • It also introduced the fourth coccygeal vertebra and tibial periosteum as new and reliable donor sites with good osteogenic potential.
  • Taking these findings into account, it was recommended that the tuber coxae be used as a conventional donor site if transplantable osteoprogenitor cells are required and the use of tibial periosteum or fourth coccygeal vertebra as alternate reliable sources should also be considered.

Cite This Article

APA
McD○ LA, Anderson GI. (2003). In vitro comparison of equine cancellous bone graft donor sites and tibial periosteum as sources of viable osteoprogenitors. Vet Surg, 32(5), 455-463. https://doi.org/10.1053/jvet.2003.50060

Publication

ISSN: 0161-3499
NlmUniqueID: 8113214
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 32
Issue: 5
Pages: 455-463

Researcher Affiliations

McD○, Laurie A
  • Department of Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Canada.
Anderson, Gail I

    MeSH Terms

    • Animals
    • Bone Regeneration
    • Bone Transplantation / veterinary
    • Bone and Bones / cytology
    • Coccyx / cytology
    • Coccyx / transplantation
    • Culture Techniques
    • Female
    • Horses
    • Male
    • Osteoblasts / physiology
    • Periosteum / cytology
    • Periosteum / transplantation
    • Sternum / cytology
    • Sternum / transplantation
    • Tibia / cytology
    • Tibia / transplantation

    Citations

    This article has been cited 5 times.
    1. Titsinides S, Agrogiannis G, Karatzas T. Bone grafting materials in dentoalveolar reconstruction: A comprehensive review.. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2019 Nov;55(1):26-32.
      doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2018.09.003pubmed: 30733842google scholar: lookup
    2. Radtke CL, Nino-Fong R, Rodriguez-Lecompte JC, Esparza Gonzalez BP, Stryhn H, McD○ LA. Osteogenic potential of sorted equine mesenchymal stem cell subpopulations.. Can J Vet Res 2015 Apr;79(2):101-8.
      pubmed: 25852225
    3. Radtke CL, Nino-Fong R, Esparza Gonzalez BP, McD○ LA. Application of a novel sorting system for equine mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs).. Can J Vet Res 2014 Oct;78(4):290-6.
      pubmed: 25355998
    4. Koch TG, Berg LC, Betts DH. Current and future regenerative medicine - principles, concepts, and therapeutic use of stem cell therapy and tissue engineering in equine medicine.. Can Vet J 2009 Feb;50(2):155-65.
      pubmed: 19412395
    5. McD○ LA, Anderson GI, Wright GM, Ryan DA. In vitro heterogeneity of osteogenic cell populations at various equine skeletal sites.. Can J Vet Res 2006 Oct;70(4):277-84.
      pubmed: 17042380