Human iPSC-derived MSCs (iMSCs) from aged individuals acquire a rejuvenation signature

Primary mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are fraught with aging-related shortfalls. Human-induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived MSCs (iMSCs) have been shown to be a useful clinically relevant source of MSCs that circumvent these aging-associated drawbacks. To date, the extent of the retention of aging-hallmarks in iMSCs differentiated from iPSCs derived from elderly donors remains unclear.

iMSCs irrespective of donor age and cell source acquire a rejuvenation gene signature. The iMSC concept could allow circumventing the drawbacks associated with the use of adult MSCs und thus provide a promising tool for use in various clinical settings in the future.

Fetal femur-derived MSCs (fMSCs) and adult bone marrow MSCs (aMSCs) were isolated, corresponding iPSCs were generated, and iMSCs were differentiated from fMSC-iPSCs, from aMSC-iPSCs, and from human embryonic stem cells (ESCs) H1. In addition, typical MSC characterization such as cell surface marker expression, differentiation capacity, secretome profile, and trancriptome analysis were conducted for the three distinct iMSC preparations-fMSC-iMSCs, aMSC-iMSCs, and ESC-iMSCs. To verify these

fMSCs and aMSCs both express the typical MSC cell surface markers and can be differentiated into osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic lineages in vitro. However, the transcriptome analysis revealed overlapping and distinct gene expression patterns and showed that fMSCs express more genes in common with ESCs than with aMSCs. fMSC-iMSCs, aMSC-iMSCs, and ESC-iMSCs met the criteria set out for MSCs. Dendrogram analyses confirmed that the transcriptomes of all iMSCs clustered together with the parental MSCs and separated from the MSC-iPSCs and ESCs. iMSCs irrespective of donor age and cell type acquired a rejuvenation-associated gene signature, specifically, the expression of INHBE, DNMT3B, POU5F1P1, CDKN1C, and GCNT2 which are also expressed in pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs and ESC) but not in the parental aMSCs. iMSCs expressed more genes in common with fMSCs than with aMSCs. Independent real-time PCR comparing aMSCs, fMSCs, and iMSCs confirmed the differential expression of the rejuvenation (COX7A, EZA2, and TMEM119) and aging (CXADR and IGSF3) signatures. Importantly, in terms of regenerative medicine, iMSCs acquired a secretome (e.g., angiogenin, DKK-1, IL-8, PDGF-AA, osteopontin, SERPINE1, and VEGF) similar to that of fMSCs and aMSCs, thus highlighting their ability to act via paracrine signaling. Conclusions: iMSCs irrespective of donor age and cell source acquire a rejuvenation gene signature. The iMSC concept could allow circumventing the drawbacks associated with the use of adult MSCs und thus provide a promising tool for use in various clinical settings in the future.