Comparison between fibroblasts and mesenchymal stem cells derived from dermal and adipose tissue

Brohem, Carla Abdo; Carvalho, Caroline; Radoski, C. L.; Santi, F. C.; Baptista, M.C.; Swinka, Bruna Bastos; Urban, Cı́cero de Andrade; Araujo, L. R. R. de; Graf, Ruth; Feferman, I. H. S.; Lorencini, Márcio

doi:10.1111/ics.12064

Cited by 50 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They differ on the basis of hundreds of DE genes, as evaluated by the analyses of mRNAs associated with the translation machinery. We also show that, contradicting repeated previous suggestions [1,[3][4][5][6][7], fibroblasts are not able to differentiate into adipocytes, osteoblasts, or condrocytes. We believe that the residual differentiation previously described was due to the fact that it is very difficult to obtain pure populations of dermal fibroblasts, as also suggested by Lennon et al [29].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 89%

“…MSCs self-renew and retain a multipotent differentiation capacity, whereas fibroblasts seem to display only limited, or no such, multipotent differentiation [2], although there is controversy in the literature over this issue. Indeed, it has been suggested that fibroblasts are able to differentiate [1,[3][4][5][6][7] and could be used in cell therapy [8]. Recently, Blasi et al [3] reported that fibroblasts may differentiate but lack anti-inflammatory and angiogenic capacity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Polysome Profiling Shows the Identity of Human Adipose-Derived Stromal/Stem Cells in Detail and Clearly Distinguishes Them from Dermal Fibroblasts

Zych

Spangenberg²,

Stimamiglio³

et al. 2014

Stem Cells and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although fibroblasts and multipotent stromal/stem cells, including adipose-derived stromal cells (ADSCs), have been extensively studied, they cannot be clearly distinguished from each other. We, therefore, investigated the cellular and molecular characteristics of ADSCs and fibroblasts. ADSCs and fibroblasts share several morphological similarities and surface markers, but were clearly found to be different types of cells. Contrary to previous reports, fibroblasts were not able to differentiate into adipocytes, osteoblasts, or chondrocytes. Polysome-bound mRNA profiling revealed that *1,547 genes were differentially expressed (DE) in the two cell types; the genes were related to cell adhesion, the extracellular matrix, differentiation, and proliferation. These findings were confirmed by functional analyses showing that ADSCs had a greater adhesion capacity than fibroblasts; the proliferation rate of fibroblasts was also higher than that of ADSCs. Importantly, 185 DE genes were integral to the plasma membrane and, thus, candidate markers for ADSC isolation and manipulation. We also observed that an established marker of fibroblasts and ADSCs, CD105, was overexpressed in ADSCs at both mRNA and protein levels. CD105 expression seemed to be related to differentiation capacity, at least for adipogenesis. This study shows that ADSCs and fibroblasts are distinct cell types. These findings should be taken into account when using these two cell types in basic and therapeutic studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polysome Profiling Shows the Identity of Human Adipose-Derived Stromal/Stem Cells in Detail and Clearly Distinguishes Them from Dermal Fibroblasts

Zych

Spangenberg²,

Stimamiglio³

et al. 2014

Stem Cells and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been shown that fibroblasts from human bronchus, dermis, and foreskin are similar to bone marrow-derived MSCs in regard to their cell surface markers [16,17,43–46]. Many reports have also demonstrated the ability of fibroblasts from different tissues, including dermis, lung, and orbit, to differentiate into adipocytes, chondrocytes, and osteoblasts [16–19,43,45,47–49]. Furthermore, dermal and foreskin fibroblasts have been shown to be suppress T cell proliferation [20,23,50,51].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fibroblasts and Mesenchymal Stromal/Stem Cells Are Phenotypically Indistinguishable

Denu

Nemcek

Dd³

et al. 2016

Acta Haematol

189

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: Human mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs), derived from many different tissues, are characterized by a fibroblast-like morphology, the expression of certain cell surface markers and their ability to differentiate into adipocytes, chondrocytes and osteoblasts. A number of studies have shown that MSCs share many characteristics with fibroblasts; however, there is no well-defined set of phenotypic characteristics that could distinguish between these 2 types of cells. Methods: We used 4 well-established human fibroblast strains from 3 different tissue sources and several human MSC strains from 2 different tissue sources to compare the phenotypic and immunological characteristics of these cells. Results: Fibroblast strains had a similar morphology to MSCs, expressed the same cell surface markers as MSCs and could also differentiate into adipocytes, chondrocytes and osteoblasts. Also, similar to MSCs, these fibroblasts were capable of suppressing T cell proliferation and modulating the immunophenotype of macrophages. We also show that MSCs deposit extracellular matrices of collagen type I and fibronectin, and express FSP1 in patterns similar to fibroblasts. Conclusions: Based on currently accepted definitions for cultured human MSCs and fibroblasts, we could not find any immunophenotypic property that could make a characteristic distinction between MSCs and fibroblasts.

show abstract

“…Dermal fibroblasts are considered to be mature mesenchymal cells and are particularly abundant in the connective areas of each organ and tissue [48]. Moreover, it has been reported that MSC and fibroblasts share many characteristics in differentiation, proliferation potential, distribution, phenotype and immunoregulation [48,49]. A slight but statistically significant decrease in cell growth was only observed in HDF 106 cells treated alone 24 h after SW exposure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective sensitiveness of mesenchymal stem cells to shock waves leads to anticancer effect in human cancer cell co-cultures

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selective sensitiveness of mesenchymal stem cells to shock waves leads to anticancer effect in human cancer cell cocultures / Foglietta, Federica; Duchi, Serena; Canaparo, Roberto; Varchi, Greta; Lucarelli, Enrico; Dozza, Barbara; Serpe, Loredana. -In: LIFE SCIENCES. -ISSN 0024-3205. -173(2017), pp. 28-35. Original Citation:Selective sensitiveness of mesenchymal stem cells to shock waves leads to anticancer effect in human cancer cell co-cultures You may download, copy and otherwise use the AAM for non-commercial purposes provided that your license is limited by the following restrictions:(1) You may use this AAM for non-commercial purposes only under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND license.(2) The integrity of the work and identification of the author, copyright owner, and publisher must be preserved in any copy. AbstractAim: Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) possess the distinctive feature of homing in on and engrafting into the tumor stroma making their therapeutic applications in cancer treatment very promising.Research into new effectors and external stimuli, which can selectively trigger the release of cytotoxic species from MSC toward the cancer cells, significantly raises their potential.Main methods: Shock waves (SW) have recently gained recognition for their ability to induce specific biological effects, such as the local generation of cytotoxic reactive oxygen species (ROS) in a non-invasive and tunable manner. We thus investigate whether MSC are able to generate ROS and, in turn, affect cancer cell growth when in co-colture with human glioblastoma (U87) or osteorsarcoma (U2OS) cells and exposed to SW.Key findings: MSC were found to be the cell line that was most sensitive to SW treatment as shown by SW-induced ROS production and cytotoxicity. Notably, U87 and U2OS cancer cell growth was unaffected by SW exposure. However, significant decreases in cancer cell growth, 1.8 fold for U87 and 2.3 fold for U2OS, were observed 24 h after the SW treatment of MSC co-cultures with cancer cells. The ROS production induced in MSC by SW exposure was then responsible for lipid peroxidation and cell death in U87 and U2OS cells co-cultured with MSC.Significance: This experiment highlights the unique ability of MSC to generate ROS upon SW treatment and induce the cell death of co-cultured cancer cells. SW might therefore be proposed as an innovative tool for MSC-mediated cancer treatment.3

show abstract

Comparison between fibroblasts and mesenchymal stem cells derived from dermal and adipose tissue

Cited by 50 publications

References 56 publications

Polysome Profiling Shows the Identity of Human Adipose-Derived Stromal/Stem Cells in Detail and Clearly Distinguishes Them from Dermal Fibroblasts

Polysome Profiling Shows the Identity of Human Adipose-Derived Stromal/Stem Cells in Detail and Clearly Distinguishes Them from Dermal Fibroblasts

Fibroblasts and Mesenchymal Stromal/Stem Cells Are Phenotypically Indistinguishable

Selective sensitiveness of mesenchymal stem cells to shock waves leads to anticancer effect in human cancer cell co-cultures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About