Aptitude of Auricular and Nasoseptal Chondrocytes Cultured Under a Monolayer or Three-Dimensional Condition for Cartilage Tissue Engineering

Asawa, Yukiyo; Ogasawara, Toru; Takahashi, Tatsuji; Yamaoka, Hisayo; Nishizawa, Satoru; Matsudaira, Ko; Mori, Yoshiyuki; Takato, Tsuyoshi; Hoshi, Kazuto

doi:10.1089/ten.tea.2007.0218

Cited by 38 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, auricular chondrocytes seemed to proexpressed in auricular and nasoseptal chondrocytes with a fold difference of ≥ 2 were analyzed with Functional duce more cartilage than nasoseptal chondrocytes, confirming a previous study (1,14). Although we cannot exAnnotation Clustering in DAVID (Table 3).…”

Section: Cartilage Subtype Differentiation General Performancesupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences in Cartilage-Forming Capacity of Expanded Human Chondrocytes from Ear and Nose and Their Gene Expression Profiles

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of culture-expanded human auricular and nasoseptal chondrocytes as cell source for regeneration of stable cartilage and to analyze the differences in gene expression profile of expanded chondrocytes from these specific locations. Auricular chondrocytes in monolayer proliferated less and more slowly (two passages took 26.7 ± 2.1 days and were reached in 4.37 ± 0.30 population doublings) than nasoseptal chondrocytes (19.3 ± 2.5 days; 5.45 ± 0.20 population doublings). However, auricular chondrocytes produced larger pellets with more cartilage-like matrix than nasoseptal chondrocytes (2.2 ± 0.71 vs. 1.7 ± 0.13 mm in diameter after 35 days of culture). Although the matrix formed by auricular and nasoseptal chondrocytes contained collagen X, it did not mineralize in an in vitro model or after in vivo subcutaneous implantation. A DNA microarray study on expanded auricular and nasoseptal chondrocytes from the same donors revealed 1,090 differentially expressed genes. No difference was observed in the expression of known markers of chondrogenic capacity (e.g., collagen II, FGFR3, BMP2, and ALK1). The most striking differences were that the auricular chondrocytes had a higher expression of anabolic growth factors BMP5 and IGF1, while matrix-degrading enzymes MMP13 and ADAMTS5 were higher expressed in nasoseptal chondrocytes. This might offer a possible explanation for the observed higher matrix production by auricular chondrocytes. Moreover, chondrocytes isolated from auricular or nasoseptal cartilage had specific gene expression profiles even after expansion. These differently expressed genes were not restricted to known characterization of donor site subtype (e.g., elastic), but were also related to developmental processes.

show abstract

Section: Cartilage Subtype Differentiation General Performancesupporting

confidence: 91%

“…We investigate the general performance of these cells, focusing on subtype and cell sources have been published (1,14,18,41).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in Cartilage-Forming Capacity of Expanded Human Chondrocytes from Ear and Nose and Their Gene Expression Profiles

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To date, we and others have evaluated the use of chondrocytes and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) from several anatomical locations for their applicability in cartilage regenerative medicine (Afizah et al, 2007;Asawa et al, 2009;Chung et al, 2008;Hellingman et al, 2011;Henderson et al, 2007;Isogai et al, 2006;Johnson et al, 2004;Kafienah et al, 2002;Karlsson et al, 2007;Kusuhara et al, 2009;Lohan et al, 2011;Malicev et al, 2009;Naumann et al, 2004;Panossian et al, 2001;Sakaguchi et al, 2005;Seda Tigli et al, 2009;Tay et al, 2004;van Osch et al, 2004;Vinardell et al, 2012;Xu et al, 2004;Yoshimura et al, 2007;Zhang and Spector, 2009). However, these studies often used non-expanded cells isolated from animals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, we and others have evaluated the use of chondrocytes and MSCs of several anatomical locations for their applicability in cartilage regenerative medicine (Afizah et al, 2007;Asawa et al, 2009;Chung et al, 2008;Hellingman et al, 2011;Henderson et al, 2007;Isogai et al, 2006;Johnson et al, 2004;Kafienah et al, …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The in vitro and in vivo capacity of culture-expanded human cells from several sources encapsulated in alginate to form cartilage

Pleumeekers

Nimeskern²,

Koevoet³

et al. 2014

eCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cartilage has limited self-regenerative capacity. Tissue engineering can offer promising solutions for reconstruction of missing or damaged cartilage. A major challenge herein is to define an appropriate cell source that is capable of generating a stable and functional matrix. This study evaluated the performance of culture-expanded human chondrocytes from ear (EC), nose (NC) and articular joint (AC), as well as bone-marrow-derived and adipose-tissuederived mesenchymal stem cells both in vitro and in vivo. All cells (≥ 3 donors per source) were culture-expanded, encapsulated in alginate and cultured for 5 weeks. Subsequently, constructs were implanted subcutaneously for 8 additional weeks. Before and after implantation, glycosaminoglycan (GAG) and collagen content were measured using biochemical assays. Mechanical properties were determined using stress-strain-indentation tests. Hypertrophic differentiation was evaluated with qRT-PCR and subsequent endochondral ossification with histology. ACs had higher chondrogenic potential in vitro than the other cell sources, as assessed by gene expression and GAG content (p < 0.001). However, after implantation, ACs did not further increase their matrix. In contrast, ECs and NCs continued producing matrix in vivo leading to higher GAG content (p < 0.001) and elastic modulus. For NC-constructs, matrix-deposition was associated with the elastic modulus (R 2 = 0.477, p = 0.039). Although all cells -except ACsexpressed markers for hypertrophic differentiation in vitro, there was no bone formed in vivo. Our work shows that cartilage formation and functionality depends on the cell source used. ACs possess the highest chondrogenic capacity in vitro, while ECs and NCs are most potent in vivo, making them attractive cell sources for cartilage repair.

show abstract

“…Nasal chondrocytes (NCs) (Bujia, 1995;Kafienah et al, 2002;Richmon et al, 2005) have been used to engineer cartilaginous constructs both in vitro and in vivo (Asawa et al, 2009;Candrian et al, 2008;Chia et al, 2005;Fulco et al, 2014;Hellingman et al, 2011;Malda et al, 2004;Richmon et al, 2005;Rotter et al, 2001Rotter et al, , 2002Scotti et al, 2012;Tsaryk et al, 2017;Twu et al, 2014;Watson and Reuther, 2014) and have recently been explored for nucleus pulposus tissue regeneration (Tsaryk et al, 2015;Tsaryk et al, 2017). However, the response of nasal chondrocytes to oxygen concentration and growth factors in maintaining phenotype and optimal NP-like matrix formation remains largely unknown in 3D culture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro extracellular matrix accumulation of nasal and articular chondrocytes for intervertebral disc repair

Vedicherla

Buckley

2017

Tissue and Cell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chondrocyte based regenerative therapies for intervertebral disc repair such as Autologous Disc Cell Transplantation (ADCT, CODON) and allogeneic juvenile chondrocyte implantation (NuQu®, ISTO Technologies) have demonstrated good outcomes in clinical trials. However concerns remain with the supply demand reconciliation and issues surrounding immunoreactivity which exist for allogeneic-type technologies. The use of stem cells is challenging due to high growth factor requirements, regulatory barriers and differentiation towards a stable phenotype. Therefore, there is a need to identify alternative non-disc cell sources for the development and clinical translation of next generation therapies for IVD regeneration. In this study, we compared Nasal Chondrocytes (NC) as a non-disc alternative chondrocyte source with Articular Chondrocytes (AC) in terms of cell yield, morphology, proliferation kinetics and ability to produce key extracellular matrix components under 5% and 20% oxygen conditions, with and without exogenous TGF-β supplementation.Results indicated that NC maintained proliferative capacity with high amounts of sGAG and lower collagen accumulation in the absence of TGF-β supplementation under 5% oxygen conditions. Importantly, osteogenesis and calcification was inhibited for NC when cultured in IVD-like microenvironmental conditions. The present study provides a rationale for the exploration of nasal chondrocytes as a promising, potent and clinically feasible autologous cell source for putative IVD repair strategies.

show abstract

Aptitude of Auricular and Nasoseptal Chondrocytes Cultured Under a Monolayer or Three-Dimensional Condition for Cartilage Tissue Engineering

Cited by 38 publications

References 28 publications

Differences in Cartilage-Forming Capacity of Expanded Human Chondrocytes from Ear and Nose and Their Gene Expression Profiles

Differences in Cartilage-Forming Capacity of Expanded Human Chondrocytes from Ear and Nose and Their Gene Expression Profiles

The in vitro and in vivo capacity of culture-expanded human cells from several sources encapsulated in alginate to form cartilage

In vitro extracellular matrix accumulation of nasal and articular chondrocytes for intervertebral disc repair

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About