Aim
This study aimed to compare the osteogenic differentiation and regenerative potentials of human mesenchymal stem cells derived from human bone marrow (hBM-MSCs) or amniotic fluid (hAF-MSCs), both in vitro and in vivo studies. Subjects and
Background
Cell therapies offer a promising potential in promoting bone regeneration. Stem cell therapy presents attractive care modality in treating degenerative conditions or tissue injuries. The rationale behind this is both the expansion potential of stem cells into a large cell population size and its differentiation abilities into a wide variety of tissue types, when given the proper stimuli. A progenitor stem cell is a promising source of cell therapy in regenerative medicine and bone tissue engineering.
Conclusions
AF-MSCs have a better performance in vivo bone healing than that of BM-MSCs. Hence, AF derived MSCs is highly recommended as an alternative source to BM-MSCs in bone regeneration and spine fusion surgeries. Moreover, the usage of gel-foam as a scaffold proved as an efficient cell carrier that showed bio-compatibility with cells, bio-degradability and osteoinductivity in vivo.
Methods
Human MSCs, used in this study, were successfully isolated from two human sources; the bone marrow (BM) and amniotic fluid (AF) collected at the gestational ages of second or third trimesters.
Results
The stem cells derived from amniotic fluid seemed to be the most promising type of progenitor cells for clinical applications. In a pre-clinical experiment, attempting to explore the therapeutic application of MSCs in bone regeneration, Rat lumbar spines defects were surgically created and treated with undifferentiated and osteogenically differentiated MSCs, derived from BM and second trimester AF. Cells were loaded on gel-foam scaffolds, inserted and fixed in the area of the surgical defect. X-Ray radiography follows up, and histopathological analysis was done three-four months post- operation. The transplantation of AF-MSCs or BM-MSCs into induced bony defects showed promising results. The AF-MSCs are offering a better healing effect increasing the likelihood of achieving successful spinal fusion. Some bone changes were observed in rats transplanted with osteoblasts differentiated cells but not in rats transplanted with undifferentiated MSCs. Longer observational periods are required to evaluate a true bone formation. The findings of this study suggested that the different sources; hBM-MSCs or hAF-MSCs exhibited remarkably different signature regarding the cell morphology, proliferation capacity and osteogenic differentiation potential. Conclusions: AF-MSCs have a better performance in vivo bone healing than that of BM-MSCs. Hence, AF derived MSCs is highly recommended as an alternative source to BM-MSCs in bone regeneration and spine fusion surgeries. Moreover, the usage of gel-foam as a scaffold proved as an efficient cell carrier that showed bio-compatibility with cells, bio-degradability and osteoinductivity in vivo.