Search

Mesenchymal stem cells or multipotent stromal cells (MSCs) have initially captured attention in the scientific world because of their differentiation potential into osteoblasts, chondroblasts and adipocytes and possible transdifferentiation into neurons, glial cells and endothelial cells. This broad plasticity was originally hypothesized as the key mechanism of their demonstrated efficacy in numerous animal models of disease as well as in clinical settings. However, there is accumulating evidence suggesting that the beneficial effects of MSCs are predominantly caused by the multitude of bioactive molecules secreted by these remarkable cells. Numerous angiogenic factors, growth factors and cytokines have been discovered in the MSC secretome, all have been demonstrated to alter endothelial cell behavior in vitro and induce angiogenesis in vivo. As a consequence, MSCs have been widely explored as a promising treatment strategy in disorders caused by insufficient angiogenesis such as chronic wounds, stroke and myocardial infarction. In this review, we will summarize into detail the angiogenic factors found in the MSC secretome and their therapeutic mode of action in pathologies caused by limited blood vessel formation. Also the application of MSC as a vehicle to deliver drugs and/or genes in (anti-)angiogenesis will be discussed. Furthermore, the literature describing MSC transdifferentiation into endothelial cells will be evaluated critically., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Due to the restricted intrinsic capacity of resident chondrocytes to regenerate the lost cartilage postinjury, stem cell-based therapies have been proposed as a novel therapeutic approach for cartilage repair. Moreover, stem cell-based therapies using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have been used successfully in preclinical and clinical settings. Despite these promising reports, the exact mechanisms underlying stem cell-mediated cartilage repair remain uncertain. Stem cells can contribute to cartilage repair via chondrogenic differentiation, via immunomodulation, or by the production of paracrine factors and extracellular vesicles. But before novel cell-based therapies for cartilage repair can be introduced into the clinic, rigorous testing in preclinical animal models is required. Preclinical models used in regenerative cartilage studies include murine, lapine, caprine, ovine, porcine, canine, and equine models, each associated with its specific advantages and limitations. This review presents a summary of recent in vitro data and from in vivo preclinical studies justifying the use of MSCs and iPSCs in cartilage tissue engineering. Moreover, the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing small and large animals will be discussed, while also describing suitable outcome measures for evaluating cartilage repair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Periodontal ligament stem cells (PDLSCs) represent a good source of multipotent cells for cell-based therapies in regenerative medicine. The success rate of these treatments is severely dependent on the establishment of adequate vasculature in order to provide oxygen and nutrients to the transplanted cells. Pharmacological preconditioning of stem cells has been proposed as a promising method to augment their therapeutic efficacy. In this study, the aim was to improve the intrinsic angiogenic properties of PDLSCs by in vitro pretreatment with deferoxamine (DFX; 100μM), fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2; 10ng/mL) or both substances combined. An antibody array revealed the differential expression of several proteins, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and placental growth factor (PlGF). ELISA data confirmed a 1.5 to 1.8-fold increase in VEGF for all tested conditions. Moreover, 48 hours after the removal of DFX, VEGF levels remained elevated (1.8-fold) compared to control conditions. FGF-2 and combination treatment resulted in a 5.4 to 13.1-fold increase in PlGF secretion, whereas DFX treatment had no effect. Furthermore, both PDLSCs as pretreated PDLSCs induced endothelial migration. Despite the significant elevated VEGF levels of pretreated PDLSCs, the induced endothelial migration was not higher by pretreated PDLSCs. We find that the observed induced endothelial cell motility was not dependent on VEGF, since blocking the VEGFR1-3 with Axitinib (0.5nM) did not inhibit endothelial motility towards PDLSCs. Taken together, this study provides evidence that preconditioning with DFX and/or FGF-2 significantly improves the angiogenic secretome of PDLSCs, in particular VEGF and PlGF secretion. However, our data suggest that VEGF is not the only player when it comes to influencing endothelial behavior by the PDLSCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]