International Journal of Photoenergy

International Journal of Photoenergy / 2014 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2014 |Article ID 827540 | 8 pages |

Neuronal Differentiation of Adipose Derived Stem Cells: Progress So Far

Academic Editor: Gerhard Litscher
Received16 Apr 2014
Revised26 May 2014
Accepted26 May 2014
Published30 Jun 2014


The nervous system is essential for normal physiological function of all systems within the human body. Unfortunately the nervous system has a limited capacity for self-repair and there are a plethora of disorders, diseases, and types of trauma that affect the central and peripheral nervous systems; however, current treatment modalities are unable to remedy them. Stem cell therapy using easily accessible mesenchymal stem cells, such as those found in the adipose stroma, has come to the fore in a number of biomedical disciplines as a potential therapeutic regime. In addition to substantial research already having been conducted on the in vitro differentiation of stem cells for the treatment of neurological repair, numerous strategies for the induction and culture of stem cells into terminal neural lineages have also been developed. However, none of these strategies have yet been able to produce a fully functional descendent suitable for use in stem cell therapy. Due to the positive effects that low level laser irradiation has shown in stem cell studies to date, we propose that it could enhance the processes involved in the differentiation of adipose derived stem cells into neuronal lineages.

1. Introduction

Stem cells are defined as cells that have the ability to perpetuate themselves through self-renewal and to generate mature, differentiated cells of a particular tissue. Different types of stem cells exist, as well as the degree of their differentiation potential or “potency.” Both the type and potency of the stem cells are dependent on their provenance. Table 1 summarises the different types of stem cells, their origin, and their potency or differentiation potential. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, derived from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, and capable of differentiating into cells of the three germ layers (endoderm, ectoderm, and mesoderm) [1, 2].

OriginBlastocystEarly embryoFoetus/infantInfant/adult

Stem cell typeEmbryonic
stem cells
Primordial germ cells
Embryonic germ cells
Foetal stem cells
Foetal/maternal stem cells
Umbilical cord and placental stem cells
Adult stem cells
Induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells
References[7, 8][3, 4][5, 912][1317]

Primordial germ cells (the precursors of gametes) have been shown to be pluripotent and are able to be reprogrammed into embryonic germ cells, which are also pluripotent [3, 4]. Stem cells from more differentiated tissues such as those found in and around the developing foetus, extraembryonic tissues (placenta, chorion, and umbilicus), and the newborn infant and in older “adult” tissues are all thought to be multipotent. Multipotent stem cells are able to differentiate into different cell types but usually only to cell types that are derived from the same embryonic germ layer [5]. However, due to the ability of some multipotent “mesenchymal” stem cells (MSCs) derived from one germ layer to differentiate into cells from another germ layer, it is thought that some multipotent stem cells may in fact also be pluripotent. The defining characteristics of MSCs are inconsistent among investigators due, in part, to the lack of a universally accepted surface marker phenotype. Three characteristics of MSCs are defined and are universally accepted by most: (1) MSC populations are plastic adherent in vitro; (2) MSCs express antigens CD105, CD90, and CD73 and lack the expression of hematopoietic antigens CD45, CD34, CD14, CD19, or CD3 while expressing MHC Class I molecules in vitro but not Class II molecules unless stimulated; (3) MSCs have the capacity to differentiate to osteoblasts, adipocytes, and chondroblasts in vitro [6].

It is also possible to reprogramme normal “unipotent” somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells, through the introduction of four genes into the somatic cells. These cells have been termed induced pluripotent stem cells and have many of the same characteristics of embryonic stem cells [13, 14].

During wound healing, damaged cells are replaced with new cells, ascendant from a stem cell niche within the particular tissue. Most mammalian tissues have the potential and capacity, in varying degrees, for self-repair. The nervous system, however, has a much more limited, or indeed lacks, capacity for this. Although neural stem cells have been identified in the adult brain [18], their capacity and ability to functionally replace and repair damaged or diseased tissue in all parts of the brain and nervous system are limited [19]. Furthermore, although neural stem cells have been isolated and cultured from foetal and adult brain and other central nervous tissues [2022], the harvesting and isolation of neural stem cells from these sources are not a practical solution for treatment. Stem cell therapy, with the use of mesenchymal stem cells, offers a more feasible option in seeking a treatment modality for neuronal replacement and repair.

2. Nervous System

The nervous system is the master control and communication core of the human body. Using chemical and electrical signals, the nervous system allows the body to react to sensory stimuli, usually in the form of motor responses. The nervous system is broadly divided into two principal parts—the central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system. The central nervous system consists of the brain and the spinal cord, and these decipher and translate sensory input and in turn direct an appropriate motor response. The peripheral nervous system is that part of the nervous system that falls outside the central nervous system and consists primarily of bundles of axons, that is, the nerves that extend from the spinal cord and the brain. The peripheral nervous system is further subdivided into the sensory and motor divisions. Sensory nerves act as the afferent division, transmitting impulses from the peripheral receptors to the central nervous system. Conversely, the motor nerves act as the efferent division conducting impulses from the central nervous system to the effector organs, primarily the muscles and glands. The peripheral nerves link and connect all parts of the body to the central nervous system and act as the communication system between the body and the brain.

3. Diseases and Trauma

Communication between the central nervous system and the rest of the body is essential for normal physiological functioning of the body. Neural damage, whether due to disease, physical trauma, or degeneration, can all result in the impairment or total loss of function of the affected organs or systems. Neurodegeneration is most commonly due to the aging and affects both nondividing neurons and neural stem cells, in both the central and peripheral nervous systems. Clinical issues resulting from neurodegeneration include losses of memory and cognition and sensory and motor deficits that in turn cause impairments to the functioning of many individual physiological systems such as the gastrointestinal tract (e.g., constipation), impaired vision and hearing, and normal muscular motor function [23].

Although neurodegeneration due to age could itself be considered a disease, there are specific diseases that affect the nervous system to devastating consequence. These include stroke, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and motor neuron diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and spinal muscular atrophy. Spinal cord injury can be caused by both neurodegeneration and disease, but the most common cause is due to severe trauma to the spinal column and spinal cord by physical means, including falls in the elderly, motor vehicle and sporting accidents, and those brought about by physically violent incidents [24].

4. Therapies

Treatment of neural damage is, in general, primarily palliative. This includes the prevention of the progression of the disease/injury, management of sensory loss and spasticity, and teaching patients how to adapt to their disabilities. Many treatment regimens rely on drugs to attempt to improve neurological function and/or support, but few have the potential to repair and cure. These include steroids, hormones, and opiate antagonists; however, none of these agents provide major beneficial improvement of neurological function [25].

Due to the lack of any one or combinatory physical or chemical therapeutic remedy available, the investigation of cellular and molecular therapies is now at the fore of this research. Cell therapy, in particular stem cells, is showing promise as a potential therapy, especially in combination with tissue engineering applications [26, 27].

5. Multipotent Mesenchymal Stromal Cells

Adult stem cells are cells that possess the capacity of self-renewal, a proliferative potential, and the ability to differentiate into one or more terminal cell types [28]. Adult stem cells, unlike embryonic stem cells, circumvent the ethical and biological safety issues of embryonic stem cells, such as tumorigenicity [29] and histocompatibility [30]. It has been recommended by the International Society for Cellular Therapy that stem cells isolated from adult tissues are designated “multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells” (MSCs) [31]. This is due to the fact that not all adult stem cells that are being isolated and investigated are of true embryonic mesodermal origin. MSCs isolated from different adult tissues are proving to be a valuable research tool in cell therapy. Tissues from which MSCs have successfully been isolated include adipose [32, 33], bone marrow [34], muscle [35], skin [36], synovial membranes [37], and nervous tissue [38]. Most MSCs should by definition be able to be differentiated into osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic lineages using standard in vitro culture conditions [39]. However, dependent on the source tissue and the culture and differentiation conditions, MSCs have also successfully been differentiated into myogenic and neurogenic lineages [34, 4042]. As our understanding of MSCs expands, so do their differentiation abilities and potential uses in tissue engineering for cell therapy.

6. Adipose Derived Stem Cells

Autologous stem cell therapy, using adipose derived stem cells (ADSCs), could indeed be a much more practical, ethical, and readily accessible source of stem cells for the use in reparative and regenerative medicine. ADSCs, like haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), are of mesenchymal origin; however, ADSCs are more abundant as well as being relatively easier and more cost effective to isolate. Moreover, the stem cell yield from adipose tissue is exponentially higher than from bone marrow [43]. ADSCs have been shown to be able to differentiate into adipogenic, osteogenic, chondrogenic, myogenic, and neurogenic lineages in vitro (Figure 1) by using cell specific culture and induction media [32, 43, 44].

In characterising ADSCs, they phenotypically identify as mesenchymal stem cells by expressing well documented cluster of differentiation (CD) markers, including CD13, CD29, CD31, CD34, CD44, CD63, CD73, CD90, and CD144 [4549]. The expression of some of these markers has been shown to increase and/or decrease over time, in vitro, indicating an adaptive response to the culture environment [50]. Furthermore, the ability of the ADSCs to differentiate in vitro into the lineages mentioned above is another characteristic identification assay for their potency.

A great deal of work has been performed investigating the differentiation of various types of stem cells, including embryonic, induced pluripotent, and neural stem cells into neuronal lineages for the potential use in regenerative medicine. However, although these studies provide vital information and a greater understanding of stem cell biology, signalling, and differentiation processes, it is questionable as to the long term safety and efficacy of these cells for use in regenerative treatments. Further studies into the safety of using both embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells are required, as they share the major disadvantage of being prone to forming teratomas after transplantation in vivo [14, 51]. The use of autologous multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells, however, potentially offers an easier, faster, and hopefully safer option.

7. Low Intensity Laser Irradiation

Laser radiation at different intensities has been shown to inhibit as well as stimulate cellular processes. Findings suggest that, at the cellular level, laser energy of a particular wavelength can initiate a signalling cascade that promotes cellular proliferation [52]. Low intensity laser irradiation (LILI), a form of phototherapy used in different clinical conditions to promote wound healing, appears to accelerate wound closure (i.e., the proliferation of new cells) [53]. LILI has been shown to be of neurological benefit in studies investigating stroke, degenerative brain disease, spinal cord and traumatic brain injury, and peripheral nerve regeneration as reviewed by Hashmi et al. [54]. Table 2 summarises selected studies conducted on ADSCs and neuronal stem cells with subsequent outcomes using LILI at different parameters.

StudyLaser parametersResultsReferences

Human dental pulp stem cell (hDPSC) and LILI20 mW/6 s, 40 mW/3 s, 660 nmIncreased viability and proliferation[55]
ADSCS and LILI0.153 W/cm2 for 30, 45, 60, 180, and 300 s
532 nm
Increased proliferation at 30–60 s,
longer exposure decreased proliferation, and autofluorescence
Neuronal embryonic rat brain cells and LILI10, 30, 50, 110, 160, 200, and 250 mW for 1, 4, or 7 min, 780 nmIncreased migration and fiber sprouting, large size neurons with dense branched interconnected network of neuronal fibers[57]
Primary neuronal culture and LILI50 mW, 0.2, 4, 10, and 30 J/cm2, 808 nmInduced neuronal growth and neurite extension alter microglial phenotype[58]
Human neural progenitor (NHNP) and LILI50 mW/cm2, 0.05 J/cm2
808 nm
Increased ATP production[59]
ADSCs and LILI5 J/cm2, 635 nmIncreased viability and proliferation[60]
ADSCs and LILI5 J/cm2, 636 nmIncreased viability and proliferation[61]
ADSCs and LILI10 and 15 J/cm2
830 nm
Decreased viability and proliferation[62]
ADSCsNo LILIIncreased viability, proliferation, and differentiation[63]
Human fibroblasts and primary rat cortical neurons and LILI1 W, 10 mW/cm2, 0.01, 0.1, 0.5, 2, 10, 50, 200, 1,000, 5,000 mJ/cm2 810 and 980 nmImproved neurite elongation, accelerated nerve regeneration, and improved functional recovery[64]
ADSCs and LILI5 J/cm2, 636 nmADSC differentiation into smooth muscle cells[63]
ADSCsNo LILIADSC differentiation into smooth muscle cells[65]
ADSCs transplanted in ischemic mouse limbsNo LILIEnhancement of angiogenesis and osteogenesis[66, 67]
ADSCsNoDifferentiation into smooth muscle cells[68]

8. Neuronal Induction and Characterisation

Several protocols have been employed by researchers in this field to induce the in vitro differentiation of ADSCs into neural lineages. Typically, isolated ADSCs are used and are either induced directly using chemicals and growth factors to stimulate differentiation or coaxed into generating neurospheres, which are then further induced using similar chemical and growth factor containing media.

Neurosphere generation is typically induced by the addition of epidermal growth factor (EGF) and basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) to the ADSC culture media [69]. However, the spontaneous formation of spheres without the addition of growth factors has also been reported [70]. Dissociated neurospheres are then cultured in media containing a variety of differentiation factors.

Reports of experimental protocols successfully inducing neural differentiation by the addition of factors (alone or in combination with others) to culture media for ADSCs or ADSC derived neurospheres include all-trans-retinoic acid, forskolin, platelet derived growth factor (PDGF-BB), heregulin, B27, brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), nerve growth factor (NGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF), neurotrophin-3 (NT-3), -mercaptoethanol (BME), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), insulin, indomethacin, isobutylmethylxanthine (IBMX), valproic acid, hydrocortisone, and azacytidine [32, 69, 7179].

However, the morphological and neuron-like appearance and changes noted in chemical induction protocols, particularly those using BME, DMSO, or BHA, have been reported to be due to cell shrinkage and not neural differentiation [80, 81]. Furthermore, the short time span in which these changes occur in these chemical induction protocols does not appear to be compatible with actual cellular differentiation. It would therefore appear that neural induction via growth factors alone or in combination with specific chemicals is able to truly induce differentiation that can be determined by both morphology and expression of neural specific markers.

Morphology alone can therefore not be an indicator of differentiation; hence, detection of the expression of neuronal markers is necessary. There are a plethora of neuronal markers dependent on the neuronal lineage being investigated. These include vimentin, nestin, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), -tubulin III (Tuj-1), and microtubule associated protein 2 (MAP2). Undifferentiated ADSCs have been shown to express native immature neural proteins, such as vimentin, GFAP, and nestin [71, 82, 83], with the expression of these characteristic neural cell markers decreasing after neuronal differentiation [83]. Once ADSCs are more committed along their neural differentiation path, they express Tuj-1 and MAP2, indicative of immature neurons [83, 84]. However, GFAP expression has also been shown to increase after induction of neural differentiation [82, 84]. This illustrates the importance of understanding the expression profiles of the different markers and their significance during the differentiation process.

Dependent on the induction protocol and the degree of differentiation achieved (neuronal progenitor, immature neuron, or mature neuron), the next step in confirming functional differentiation would be to assess the expression of neurotransmitter receptors and electrophysiological studies [82, 83, 85].

9. Influence of Laser Phototherapy on Neuronal Differentiation of ADSCs

To date there is no data available on whether LILI can influence the neuronal differentiation of ADSCs. However, LILI has been shown to increase the expression of stem cell markers in ADSCs [60] as well as the proliferation and viability of stem cells in vitro [55, 56, 60]. Furthermore, LILI has been successfully used to demonstrate an increase in neuronal sprouting and migration in embryonic rat brain cultures [57], as well as inducing neuronal growth and neurite extension in primary neuronal and microglia cocultures [58]. Laser irradiation has also been shown to enhance the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production of cultured normal human neural progenitor cells [59]. These studies all point to a positive effect of LILI on stem cells and neural progenitors, unequivocally indicating that laser irradiation can indeed play an important role in the differentiation of ADSCs into neuronal lineages, potentially at specific or, perhaps, all stages of the differentiation process.

10. Conclusions

It is now known that ADSCs exhibit the properties of multipotent stem cells, and hence their role in tissue engineering is invaluable. In the past decade, this relatively new and specialised research focus of differentiating ADSCs into neuronal lineages has progressed in leaps and bounds. However, attaining lineage specific, terminally differentiated, functional neurons has yet to be achieved. Results from in vivo studies have shown that ADSCs (isolated or differentiated) can promote nerve healing, but whether this is ostensibly by direct differentiation of the transplanted cells or via the paracrine effects of growth factors secreted by ADSCs on the endogenous neural progenitors has yet to be elucidated.

By understanding how neural progenitors function in situ, we are gaining a better understanding of what it is that we are aiming for in a terminally differentiated and functional neuron. Not only is it a prerequisite to understand the functional properties of the differentiated cells, but also deciphering the regulatory pathways and mechanisms of the ADSCs themselves will expedite the development and usage of ADSCs for autologous stem cell therapy in treating neurological diseases and disorders.


The material in this paper has neither been published nor been considered elsewhere for publication.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.


  1. G. M. de Peppo and D. Marolt, “State of the art in stem cell research: human embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, and transdifferentiation,” Journal of Blood Transfusion, vol. 2012, Article ID 317632, 10 pages, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. B. J. Conley, J. C. Young, A. O. Trounson, and R. Mollard, “Derivation, propagation and differentiation of human embryonic stem cells,” International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 555–567, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. M. Pirouz, A. Klimke, and M. Kessel, “The reciprocal relationship between primordial germ cells and pluripotent stem cells,” Journal of Molecular Medicine, vol. 90, no. 7, pp. 753–761, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. H. G. Leitch, D. Okamura, and G. Durcova-Hills, “On the fate of primordial germ cells injected into early mouse embryos,” Developmental Biology, vol. 385, no. 2, pp. 155–159, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. G. Kmiecik, W. Niklińska, P. Kuć et al., “Fetal membranes as a source of stem cells,” Advances in Medical Sciences, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 185–195, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. E. M. Horwitz, M. Andreef, and F. Frassoni, “Mesenchymal stromal cells,” Current Opinion in Hematology, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 419–425, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. A. E. Bishop, L. D. Buttery, and J. M. Polak, “Embryonic stem cells,” The Journal of Pathology, vol. 197, pp. 424–429, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  8. D. Dutta, “Signaling pathways dictating pluripotency in embryonic stem cells,” The International Journal of Developmental Biology, vol. 57, no. 9-10, pp. 667–675, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. S. Indumathi, R. Harikrishnan, R. Mishra et al., “Comparison of feto-maternal organ derived stem cells in facets of immunophenotype, proliferation and differentiation,” Tissue and Cell, vol. 45, pp. 434–442, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. Q. Chen, M. Khoury, G. Limmon, M. Choolani, J. K. Y. Chan, and J. Chen, “Human fetal hepatic progenitor cells are distinct from, but closely related to, hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells,” Stem Cells, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1160–1169, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. D. W. Kim, M. Staples, K. Shinozuka, P. Pantcheva, S. D. Kang, and C. V. Borlongan, “Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells: phenotypic characterization and optimizing their therapeutic potential for clinical applications,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 11692–11712, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. A. Bongso and C. Y. Fong, “The therapeutic potential, challenges and future clinical directions of stem cells from the Wharton's jelly of the human umbilical cord,” Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, vol. 9, pp. 226–240, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. K. Takahashi, K. Tanabe, M. Ohnuki et al., “Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors,” Cell, vol. 131, no. 5, pp. 861–872, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. K. Takahashi and S. Yamanaka, “Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors,” Cell, vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 663–676, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. O. Tsuji, K. Miura, Y. Okada et al., “Therapeutic potential of appropriately evaluated safe-induced pluripotent stem cells for spinal cord injury,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 28, pp. 12704–12709, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. K. Drews, J. Jozefczuk, A. Prigione, and J. Adjaye, “Human induced pluripotent stem cells-from mechanisms to clinical applications,” Journal of Molecular Medicine, vol. 90, no. 7, pp. 735–745, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. X. Yulin, L. Lizhen, Z. Lifei et al., “Efficient generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells,” Folia Biologica, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 221–230, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  18. J. Yao, Y. Mu, and F. H. Gage, “Neural stem cells: mechanisms and modeling,” Protein & Cell, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 251–261, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. G. C. Bellenchi, F. Volpicelli, V. Piscopo, C. Perrone-Capano, and U. Di Porzio, “Adult neural stem cells: an endogenous tool to repair brain injury?” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 124, no. 2, pp. 159–167, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. F. H. Gage, “Mammalian neural stem cells,” Science, vol. 287, no. 5457, pp. 1433–1438, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. L. S. Shihabuddin, P. J. Horner, J. Ray, and F. H. Gage, “Adult spinal cord stem cells generate neurons after transplantation in the adult dentate gyrus,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 20, no. 23, pp. 8727–8735, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  22. A. M. Parr, I. Kulbatski, T. Zahir et al., “Transplanted adult spinal cord-derived neural stem/progenitor cells promote early functional recovery after rat spinal cord injury,” Neuroscience, vol. 155, no. 3, pp. 760–770, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. G. Sarlak, A. Jenwitheesuk, B. Chetsawang, and P. Govitrapong, “Effects of melatonin on nervous system aging: neurogenesis and neurodegeneration,” Journal of Pharmacological Sciences, vol. 123, pp. 9–24, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  24. B. H. Dobkin and L. A. Havton, “Basic advances and new avenues in therapy of spinal cord injury,” Annual Review of Medicine, vol. 55, pp. 255–282, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. N. A. Silva, N. Sousa, R. L. Reis, and A. J. Salgado, “From basics to clinical: a comprehensive review on spinal cord injury,” Progress in Neurobiology, vol. 114, pp. 25–57, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  26. K. Haastert-Talini, S. Geuna, L. B. Dahlin et al., “Chitosan tubes of varying degrees of acetylation for bridging peripheral nerve defects,” Biomaterials, vol. 34, no. 38, pp. 9886–9904, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. Y. Gu, J. Zhu, C. Xue et al., “Chitosan/silk fibroin-based, Schwann cell-derived extracellular matrix-modified scaffolds for bridging rat sciatic nerve gaps,” Biomaterials, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 2253–2263, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  28. A. Spradling, D. Drummond-Barbosa, and T. Kai, “Stem cells find their niche,” Nature, vol. 414, no. 6859, pp. 98–104, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. U. Ben-David and N. Benvenisty, “The tumorigenicity of human embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 268–277, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. R. J. Swijnenburg, S. Schrepfer, J. A. Govaert et al., “Immunosuppressive therapy mitigates immunological rejection of human embryonic stem cell xenografts,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 35, pp. 12991–12996, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. E. M. Horwitz, K. le Blanc, M. Dominici et al., “Clarification of the nomenclature for MSC: the International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement,” Cytotherapy, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 393–395, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. P. A. Zuk, M. Zhu, P. Ashjian et al., “Human adipose tissue is a source of multipotent stem cells,” Molecular Biology of the Cell, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 4279–4295, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. P. A. Zuk, M. Zhu, H. Mizuno et al., “Multilineage cells from human adipose tissue: implications for cell-based therapies,” Tissue Engineering, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 211–228, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. S. A. Wexler, C. Donaldson, P. Denning-Kendall, C. Rice, B. Bradley, and J. M. Hows, “Adult bone marrow is a rich source of human mesenchymal “stem” cells but umbilical cord and mobilized adult blood are not,” British Journal of Haematology, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 368–374, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. A. Asakura, M. Komaki, and M. Rudnicki, “Muscle satellite cells are multipotential stem cells that exhibit myogenic, osteogenic, and adipogenic differentiation,” Differentiation: Research in Biological Diversity, vol. 68, no. 4-5, pp. 245–253, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. J. G. Toma, M. Akhavan, K. J. L. Fernandes et al., “Isolation of multipotent adult stem cells from the dermis of mammalian skin,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 778–784, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. C. de Bari, F. Dell'Accio, P. Tylzanowski, and F. P. Luyten, “Multipotent mesenchymal stem cells from adult human synovial membrane,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1928–1942, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. C. R. R. Bjornson, R. L. Rietze, B. A. Reynolds, M. C. Magli, and A. L. Vescovi, “Turning brain into blood: a hematopoietic fate adopted by adult neural stem cells in vivo,” Science, vol. 283, no. 5401, pp. 534–537, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. M. Dominici, K. Le Blanc, I. Mueller et al., “Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement,” Cytotherapy, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 315–317, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. M. Chen, P. Lie, Z. Li, and X. Wei, “Endothelial differentiation of Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells in comparison with bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells,” Experimental Hematology, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 629–640, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. R. Vishnubalaji, M. Al-Nbaheen, B. Kadalmani, A. Aldahmash, and T. Ramesh, “Skin-derived multipotent stromal cells—an archrival for mesenchymal stem cells,” Cell and Tissue Research, vol. 350, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. M. K. Majumdar, M. A. Thiede, J. D. Mosca, M. Moorman, and S. L. Gerson, “Phenotypic and functional comparison of cultures of marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and stromal cells,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 176, pp. 57–66, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  43. B. M. Strem, K. C. Hicok, M. Zhu et al., “Multipotential differentiation of adipose tissue-derived stem cells,” The Keio Journal of Medicine, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 132–141, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. Y. A. Romanov, A. N. Darevskaya, N. V. Merzlikina, and L. B. Buravkova, “Mesenchymal stem cells from human bone marrow and adipose tissue: isolation, characterization, and differentiation potentialities,” Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 138–143, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. J. B. Mitchell, K. McIntosh, S. Zvonic et al., “Immunophenotype of human adipose-derived cells: temporal changes in stromal-associated and stem cell-associated markers,” Stem Cells, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 376–385, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. V. Folgiero, E. Migliano, M. Tedesco et al., “Purification and characterization of adipose-derived stem cells from patients with lipoaspirate transplant,” Cell Transplantation, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 1225–1235, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. M. Tobita, H. Orbay, and H. Mizuno, “Adipose-derived stem cells: current findings and future perspectives,” Discovery Medicine, vol. 11, no. 57, pp. 160–170, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  48. C. T. Gomillion and K. J. L. Burg, “Stem cells and adipose tissue engineering,” Biomaterials, vol. 27, no. 36, pp. 6052–6063, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. Y. Zhu, T. Liu, K. Song, X. Fan, X. Ma, and Z. Cui, “Adipose-derived stem cell: a better stem cell than BMSC,” Cell Biochemistry and Function, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 664–675, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. H. Mizuno, M. Tobita, and A. C. Uysal, “Concise review: adipose-derived stem cells as a novel tool for future regenerative medicine,” Stem Cells, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 804–810, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. J. T. Taiani, R. J. Krawetz, N. I. zur Nieden et al., “Reduced differentiation efficiency of murine embryonic stem cells in stirred suspension bioreactors,” Stem Cells and Development, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 989–998, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. P. Moore, T. D. Ridgway, R. G. Higbee, E. W. Howard, and M. D. Lucroy, “Effect of wavelength on low-intensity laser irradiation-stimulated cell proliferation in vitro,” Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 8–12, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. D. Hawkins and H. Abrahamse, “Biological effects of helium-neon laser irradiation on normal and wounded human skin fibroblasts,” Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 251–259, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. J. T. Hashmi, Y. Huang, B. Z. Osmani, S. K. Sharma, M. A. Naeser, and M. R. Hamblin, “Role of low-level laser therapy in neurorehabilitation,” PM a& R, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. S292–S305, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. F. de. P. Eduarde, D. F. Bueno, P. M. de Freitas et al., “Stem cell proliferation under low intensity laser irradiation: a preliminary study,” Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 433–438, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. A. G. Anwer, M. E. Gosnell, S. M. Perinchery, D. W. Inglis, and E. M. Goldys, “Visible 532 nm laser irradiation of human adipose tissue-derived stem cells: effect on proliferation rates, mitochondria membrane potential and autofluorescence,” Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 769–778, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. S. Rochklnd, D. El-Ani, Z. Nevo, and A. Shahar, “Increase of neuronal sprouting and migration using 780 nm laser phototherapy as procedure for cell therapy,” Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 277–281, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. R. E. von Leden, S. J. Cooney, T. M. Ferrara et al., “808 nm wavelength light induces a dose-dependent alteration in microglial polarization and resultant microglial induced neurite growth,” Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 253–263, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. U. Oron, S. Ilic, L. De Taboada, and J. Streeter, “Ga-As (808 nm) laser irradiation enhances ATP production in human neuronal cells in culture,” Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 180–182, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. B. Mvula, T. Mathope, T. Moore, and H. Abrahamse, “The effect of low level laser irradiation on adult human adipose derived stem cells,” Lasers in Medical Science, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 277–282, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. B. Mvula, T. J. Moore, and H. Abrahamse, “Effect of low-level laser irradiation and epidermal growth factor on adult human adipose-derived stem cells,” Lasers in Medical Science, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 33–39, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. H. Abrahamse, N. N. Houreld, S. Muller, and L. Ndhlovu, “Fluence and wavelength of low intensity laser irradiation affect activity and proliferation of human adipose derived stem cells,” Medical Technology SA, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 9–14, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  63. J. A. de Villiers, N. N. Houreld, and H. Abrahamse, “Influence of low intensity laser irradiation on isolated human adipose derived stem cells over 72 hours and their differentiation potential into smooth muscle cells using retinoic acid,” Stem Cell Review and Reports, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 869–882, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. J. J. Anders, H. Moges, X. Wu et al., “In vitro and in vivo optimization of infrared laser treatment for injured peripheral nerves,” Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 34–45, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  65. L. J. Harris, H. Abdollahi, P. Zhang, S. McIlhenny, T. N. Tulenko, and P. J. DiMuzio, “Differentiation of adult stem cells into smooth muscle for vascular tissue engineering,” Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 306–314, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. H. Nakagami, K. Maeda, R. Morishita et al., “Novel autologous cell therapy in ischemic limb disease through growth factor secretion by cultured adipose tissue-derived stromal cells,” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 2542–2547, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. T. Shoji, M. Ii, Y. Mifune et al., “Local transplantation of human multipotent adipose-derived stem cells accelerates fracture healing via enhanced osteogenesis and angiogenesis,” Laboratory Investigation, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 637–649, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. L. V. Rodríguez, Z. Alfonso, R. Zhang, J. Leung, B. Wu, and L. J. Ignarro, “Clonogenic multipotent stem cells in human adipose tissue differentiate into functional smooth muscle cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103, no. 32, pp. 12167–12172, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. Y. Xu, Z. Liu, L. Liu et al., “Neurospheres from rat adipose-derived stem cells could be induced into functional Schwann cell-like cells in vitro,” BMC Neuroscience, vol. 9, article 21, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. S. K. Kang, L. A. Putnam, J. Ylostalo et al., “Neurogenesis of Rhesus adipose stromal cells,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 117, no. 18, pp. 4289–4299, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. P. H. Ashjian, A. S. Elbarbary, B. Edmonds et al., “In vitro differentiation of human processed lipoaspirate cells into early neural progenitors,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 111, no. 6, pp. 1922–1931, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. S. S. Tholpady, A. J. Katz, and R. C. Ogle, “Mesenchymal stem cells from rat visceral fat exhibit multipotential differentiation in vitro,” Anatomical Record A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology, vol. 272, no. 1, pp. 398–402, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  73. K. M. Safford, K. C. Hicok, S. D. Safford et al., “Neurogenic differentiation of murine and human adipose-derived stromal cells,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 294, no. 2, pp. 371–379, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. F. Guilak, K. E. Lott, H. A. Awad et al., “Clonal analysis of the differentiation potential of human adipose-derived adult stem cells,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 206, no. 1, pp. 229–237, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. S. K. Kang, D. H. Lee, Y. C. Bae, H. K. Kim, S. Y. Baik, and J. S. Jung, “Improvement of neurological deficits by intracerebral transplantation of human adipose tissue-derived stromal cells after cerebral ischemia in rats,” Experimental Neurology, vol. 183, no. 2, pp. 355–366, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. H. Ning, G. Lin, T. F. Lue, and C. Lin, “Neuron-like differentiation of adipose tissue-derived stromal cells and vascular smooth muscle cells,” Differentiation, vol. 74, no. 9-10, pp. 510–518, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. E. Anghileri, S. Marconi, A. Pignatelli et al., “Neuronal differentiation potential of human adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells,” Stem Cells and Development, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 909–916, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. K. J. L. Fernandes, N. R. Kobayashi, C. J. Gallagher et al., “Analysis of the neurogenic potential of multipotent skin-derived precursors,” Experimental Neurology, vol. 201, no. 1, pp. 32–48, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. J. Case, T. L. Horvath, J. C. Howell, M. C. Yoder, K. L. March, and E. F. Srour, “Clonal multilineage differentiation of murine common pluripotent stem cells isolated from skeletal muscle and adipose stromal cells,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1044, pp. 183–200, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. B. Neuhuber, G. Gallo, L. Howard, L. Kostura, A. Mackay, and I. Fischer, “Reevaluation of in vitro differentiation protocols for bone marrow stromal cells: disruption of actin cytoskeleton induces rapid morphological changes and mimics neuronal phenotype,” Journal of Neuroscience Research, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 192–204, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. N. Bertani, P. Malatesta, G. Volpi, P. Sonego, and R. Perris, “Neurogenic potential of human mesenchymal stem cells revisited: analysis by immunostaining, time-lapse video and microarray,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 118, no. 17, pp. 3925–3936, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. S. Jang, H. Cho, Y. Cho, J. Park, and H. Jeong, “Functional neural differentiation of human adipose tissue-derived stem cells using bFGF and forskolin,” BMC Cell Biology, vol. 11, article 25, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. A. J. Cardozo, D. E. Gómez, and P. F. Argibay, “Neurogenic differentiation of human adipose-derived stem cells: relevance of different signaling molecules, transcription factors, and key marker genes,” Gene, vol. 511, no. 2, pp. 427–436, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. C. Ying, W. Hu, B. Cheng, X. Zheng, and S. Li, “Neural Differentiation of Rat Adipose-Derived Stem Cells in Vitro,” Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1255–1263, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. C. Addae, X. Yi, R. Gernapudi, H. Cheng, A. Musto, and E. Martinez-Ceballos, “All-trans-retinoid acid induces the differentiation of encapsulated mouse embryonic stem cells into GABAergic neurons,” Differentiation: Research in Biological Diversity, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 233–241, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2014 T. J. Moore and Heidi Abrahamse. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

2308 Views | 821 Downloads | 4 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19.