Over recent years, mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have gained immense attraction in immunotherapy, regenerative medicine and tissue engineering. MSC microenvironment modulation occurs through synergy of direct cell–cell contact, and secreted soluble factors and extracellular vesicles (EV). MSC-derived EV have been suggested as cell-free immunomodulatory alternative to MSC; however, previous findings have challenged this. Furthermore, recent data suggest that evaluating the mechanism of action of human MSC (hMSC) in animal models might promote adverse immune reactions or lack of functionality due to xeno-incompatibilities. In this study, we first assessed the immunomodulatory strength of different human MSC sources on in vitro stimulated T cells and compared this to interferon-gamma (IFNγ) primed MSC conditioned medium (CM) and EV. Second, we addressed the main molecular mechanisms, and third, we assessed the MSC in vitro immunosuppressive effect across interspecies barriers. We identified human adipose tissue-derived stromal cells (ASC) with strongest immunomodulatory strength, followed by bone marrow (BM) and cord blood-derived MSC (CB). Whilst CM from primed ASC managed to exert analogous effects as their cellular counterpart, EV derived thereof did not, reproducing previous findings. IFNγ-induced indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) activity was identified as key mechanism to suppress human lymphocyte proliferation, as in the presence of the IDO inhibitor epacadostat (Epac) a stimulation of proliferation was seen. In addition, we revealed MSC immunosuppressive effects to be species-specific, because human cells failed to suppress murine lymphocyte proliferation. In summary, ASC were the strongest immunomodulators with the IDO-kynurenine pathway being key within the human system. Importantly, the in vitro lack of interspecies immunomodulatory strength suggests that preclinical data need to be carefully interpreted especially when considering a possible translation to clinical field.

BackgroundMesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are promising cell therapy candidates. Clinical application is considered safe. However, minor side effects have included thromboembolism and instant blood-mediated inflammatory reactions suggesting an effect of MSC infusion on hemostasis. Previous studies focusing on plasmatic coagulation as a secondary hemostasis step detected both procoagulatory and anticoagulatory activities of MSCs. We now focus on primary hemostasis and analyzed whether MSCs can promote or inhibit platelet activation.MethodsEffects of MSCs and MSC supernatant on platelet activation and function were studied using flow cytometry and further platelet function analyses. MSCs from bone marrow (BM), lipoaspirate (LA) and cord blood (CB) were compared to human umbilical vein endothelial cells or HeLa tumor cells as inhibitory or activating cells, respectively.ResultsBM-MSCs and LA-MSCs inhibited activation and aggregation of stimulated platelets independent of the agonist used. This inhibitory effect was confirmed in diagnostic point-of-care platelet function analyses in platelet-rich plasma and whole blood. Using inhibitors of the CD39–CD73–adenosine axis, we showed that adenosine produced by CD73 ectonucleotidase activity was largely responsible for the LA-MSC and BM-MSC platelet inhibitory action. With CB-MSCs, batch-dependent responses were obvious, with some batches exerting inhibition and others lacking this effect.ConclusionsStudies focusing on plasmatic coagulation suggested both procoagulatory and anticoagulatory activities of MSCs. We now show that MSCs can, dependent on their tissue origin, inhibit platelet activation involving adenosine converted from adenosine monophosphate by CD73 ectonucleotidase activity. These data may have strong implications for safety and risk/benefit assessment regarding MSCs from different tissue sources and may help to explain the tissue protective mode of action of MSCs. The adenosinergic pathway emerges as a key mechanism by which MSCs exert hemostatic and immunomodulatory functions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13287-018-0936-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

<b><i>Background/Aims:</i></b> Extracellular vesicles (EVs), including microvesicles and exosomes, deliver bioactive cargo mediating intercellular communication in physiological and pathological conditions. EVs are increasingly investigated as therapeutic agents and targets, but also as disease biomarkers. However, a definite consensus regarding EV isolation methods is lacking, which makes it intricate to standardize research practices and eventually reach a desirable level of data comparability. In our study, we performed an inter-laboratory comparison of EV isolation based on a differential ultracentrifugation protocol carried out in 4 laboratories in 2 independent rounds of isolation. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Conditioned medium of colorectal cancer cells was prepared and pooled by 1 person and distributed to each of the participating laboratories for isolation according to a pre-defined protocol. After EV isolation in each laboratory, quantification and characterization of isolated EVs was collectively done by 1 person having the highest expertise in the respective test method: Western blot, flow cytometry (fluorescence-activated cell sorting [FACS], nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). <b><i>Results:</i></b> EVs were visualized with TEM, presenting similar cup-shaped and spherical morphology and sizes ranging from 30 to 150 nm. NTA results showed similar size ranges of particles in both isolation rounds. EV preparations showed high purity by the expression of EV marker proteins CD9, CD63, CD81, Alix, and TSG101, and the lack of calnexin. FACS analysis of EVs revealed intense staining for CD63 and CD81 but lower levels for CD9 and TSG101. Preparations from 1 laboratory presented significantly lower particle numbers (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.0001), most probably related to increased processing time. However, even when standardizing processing time, particle yields still differed significantly between groups, indicating inter-laboratory differences in the efficiency of EV isolation. Importantly, no relation was observed between centrifugation speed/k-factor and EV yield. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Our findings demonstrate that quantitative differences in EV yield might be due to equipment- and operator-dependent technical variability in ultracentrifugation-based EV isolation. Furthermore, our study emphasizes the need to standardize technical parameters such as the exact run speed and k-factor in order to transfer protocols between different laboratories. This hints at substantial inter-laboratory biases that should be assessed in multi-centric studies.