Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Stem Cells International
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 3187491, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3187491
Review Article

Mesenchymal Stem Cells Subpopulations: Application for Orthopedic Regenerative Medicine

1Departamento de Bioquímica y Medicina Molecular, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (UANL), Monterrey, NL, Mexico
2Unidad de Terapias Experimentales, Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo en Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (UANL), Monterrey, NL, Mexico
3Unidad de Neurociencias, Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo en Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (UANL), Monterrey, NL, Mexico

Received 27 April 2016; Revised 10 July 2016; Accepted 7 August 2016

Academic Editor: Bin Li

Copyright © 2016 Vanessa Pérez-Silos et al. 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.

Abstract

Research on mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) continues to progress rapidly. Nevertheless, the field faces several challenges, such as inherent cell heterogeneity and the absence of unique MSCs markers. Due to MSCs’ ability to differentiate into multiple tissues, these cells represent a promising tool for new cell-based therapies. However, for tissue engineering applications, it is critical to start with a well-defined cell population. Additionally, evidence that MSCs subpopulations may also feature distinct characteristics and regeneration potential has arisen. In this report, we present an overview of the identification of MSCs based on the expression of several surface markers and their current tissue sources. We review the use of MSCs subpopulations in recent years and the main methodologies that have addressed their isolation, and we emphasize the most-used surface markers for selection, isolation, and characterization. Next, we discuss the osteogenic and chondrogenic differentiation from MSCs subpopulations. We conclude that MSCs subpopulation selection is not a minor concern because each subpopulation has particular potential for promoting the differentiation into osteoblasts and chondrocytes. The accurate selection of the subpopulation advances possibilities suitable for preclinical and clinical studies and determines the safest and most efficacious regeneration process.

1. Introduction

Stem cells are well defined by their ability to self-renew and to differentiate into a range of cell types. In the adult organism, these cells are responsible for maintaining the homeostasis of their respective tissues. The maintenance of stemness and pluripotency of stem cells proceeds in the stem cell niche, where stem cells receive adequate signals from the stroma and other cell types either via receptors or by secreted soluble factors within this microenvironmental niche [1].

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) were generally defined based on their capacity to self-renew and on their phenotype. The International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT) has proposed the following minimum criteria for the definition of the MSCs: (I) adherence to plastic surfaces under standard cell culture conditions; (II) the expression of cell surface markers, such as CD90, CD73, and CD105, and the lack of expression of CD14, CD34, CD45, CD79, or CD19 and HLA-DR, and (III) the capability to differentiate into chondrocytes, osteoblasts, and adipocytes [2].

Considerable effort has been expended to identify specific surface markers that characterize MSCs, yet disagreement in the literature has prevented the creation of definitive standards. In this regard, additional studies have also associated other markers with MSCs, such as CD271, Stro-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), and CD146 [35].

The current review highlights recent findings in the identification and isolation of MSCs subpopulations, which could improve expansion strategies in the near future and the clinical use of MSCs differentiated into osteogenic and chondrogenic lineages.

MSCs subpopulations from several sources in conjunction with specific growth factors and/or scaffold are potentially useful for a variety of clinical orthopedic conditions involving bone and cartilage. There are several clinical trials using MSCs subpopulations to repair critical-sized injuries caused by trauma or infection, aside from replacing chronically degenerated tissue, such as articular cartilage. We recognize that variability in MSC-based clinical trial outcomes is likely due not only to differences amongst various MSCs sources but also to cell heterogeneity and inadequate selection of the subpopulation.

2. Sources of Mesenchymal Stem Cells

MSCs were first depicted by Friedenstein et al. in 1968 as adherent fibroblast-like cells with multipotent differentiation abilities. This study indicated that clonal populations belonging to the colony forming unit-fibroblastoids (CFU-Fs) result in osteoblasts, chondrocytes, and hematopoietic supportive cells in vivo [6]. MSCs were initially isolated from bone marrow (BM), and, in recent years, the isolation of adult mesenchymal stem cells from different sources has been reported. The comparative quality, character, and differentiation potential of MSCs from each of these sources differ and are still debated. MSCs have been isolated from multiple adult human tissues, such as adipose tissue [7, 8], articular cartilage [9], brain [10], endometrium [11], menstrual blood [12], peripheral blood [13], skin and foreskin [14, 15], and synovial fluid [16]. Additionally, perinatal organs and tissues that are normally discarded after delivery, namely, amniotic fluid [17], amniotic membrane [18, 19], full placenta and fetal membrane [20], subamniotic umbilical cord lining membrane [21, 22], and Wharton’s jelly [23], have been shown to be rich sources of proliferative MSCs. Other sources include dental tissue, such as the pulp tissue of permanent human dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) [24], stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth (SHED) [25], periodontal ligament progenitor cells (PDLPs), and PDL stem cells (PDLSCs) [26]. Satellite cells in muscle and pericytes around blood vessels also share multipotent characteristics to differentiate into connective tissue phenotypes under specific conditions [27, 28].

Interestingly, in recent years, the use of bone marrow as a source of MSCs has decreased. A strong trend is observed in the use of various postfetal tissues besides adipose tissue as a major source for isolation.

3. Mesenchymal Stem Cell Subpopulations

MSCs were first identified in the bone marrow as an adherent population of nonhematopoietic stem cells with the capability of differentiating into different cell types of predominantly mesodermal origin. Cultures of MSCs show high heterogeneity, and the application of MSCs cultures in tissue regeneration depends mainly on their differentiation potential. Consequently, researchers are actively attempting to preselect cell subpopulations with higher osteochondrogenic potential in order to achieve a thorough translation of MSC-based therapies for orthopedic applications. Research over the last years has demonstrated that the use of a specific MSCs subpopulation ensures successful differentiation into a particular cell line.

MSCs are classically selected on the basis of their adherence to plastic, which however results in a heterogeneous population of cells. Prospective identification of the antigenic profile of the MSCs population (subpopulations) by FACS-based (fluorescence-activated cell sorting) approaches gives rise to cells with MSCs activity in vitro and would allow for the isolation of very pure populations of MSCs for research or clinical use [29, 30].

Several markers have been proposed to enrich these subpopulations, but the majority of these markers are defined for BM. In addition to a phenotypic variation depending on the MSCs source, the surface markers of freshly isolated MSCs may also differ from those of cultured MSCs. Although there have been attempts to increase MSCs purity by physical means, positive selection based on a specific MSCs marker offers a better alternative. Amongst a number of positive markers proposed in the past, CD271, CD105, CD44, CD90, and CD117 seem to offer adequate selectivity. Moreover, the isolation of homogeneous MSCs is best achieved by cell sorting with a combination of positive and negative markers.

Blood vessels within skeletal muscle anchor several precursor populations. It is reported that pericytes, which surround endothelial cells of capillaries and venules, possess multipotent differentiation potential [28, 31]. In 2012, Corselli et al. reported that, in addition to MSCs being derived from pericytes, adventitial cells could also give rise to MSCs [32]. In a recent article by Zhao et al., it was demonstrated that, during incisor trauma, pericytes and adventitial cells (perivascular stem cells, PSC) are recruited to modulate hemostasis and repair. Further, in vitro, these PSC were shown to exhibit typical MSCs features. Sorting pericytes (CD45/CD146+/CD34) and adventitial cells (CD45/CD146/CD34+) by FACS is a process that requires a few hours [3335] (Figure 1). This isolation method allows simultaneous purification of three multipotent cell populations, from three structural layers of blood vessels: pericytes from media, adventitial cells from adventitia, and myogenic endothelial cells from intima [36]. More recently, König et al. enriched a CD146+ subpopulation (CD146+/NG2+/CD45) of pericytes from an isolated stromal vascular fraction of mouse fat tissue and demonstrated its efficient osteoblasts differentiation in vitro and ability to colonize cancellous bone scaffolds and regenerate large bone defects in vivo [37].

Figure 1: Pericytes and adventitial cells associated with skeletal muscle microvessels. A scheme showing the MSC subpopulations present in the three structural layers of blood vessels: pericytes (green) from media, adventitial cells (yellow) from adventitia, and myogenic endothelial cells from intima. Illustration of the phenotype of the corresponding cells: pericytes (CD45/CD146+/CD34) and adventitial cells (CD45/CD146/CD34+).

In a study conducted by Busser et al. (2015), immunomagnetic selections with 5 single surface markers were performed to isolate MSCs subpopulations from BM and adipose tissue (AT): CD271, SUSD2, MSCA-1, CD44, and CD34. Compared to the whole population of unselected ADSCs, the authors observed that CD271 selection can define AT cell population with higher multipotency and a higher proliferative capability [38].

Cuthbert et al. used FACS for the isolation of the subpopulation /CD73+/CD271+ from BM phenotype in order to enrich MSCs fractions. CD271+ immunomagnetic selection resulted in a substantial increase in MSCs purity and high expression of bone-related transcripts and vascularization, such as BMP-2, COL1A2, VEGFC, and SPARC transcripts [39].

Clearly, the use of strategies based on the coexpression of more than one surface marker improves the purity of the isolated MSCs population.

Mabuchi et al. (2013) reported in fresh human BM an improved clonal isolation technique and demonstrated that the combination of three cell surface markers (LNGFR, THY-1, and VCAM-1) allows the selection of highly enriched clonogenic cells. The marker combination LNGFR+/THY-1+/VCAM-1+ (LTV) represents a valuable strategy for the isolation of MSCs with broad potentiality features that are genetically more stable [40].

Likewise, based on the simultaneous use of three stem cell markers, Leyva-Leyva et al. (2013) selected and sorted by FACS two homogeneous subpopulations of hMSCs which coexpress the CD73+/CD44+/CD105+ (6%–12%) or CD73+/CD44+/CD105 (80%–88%) antigens. This systematic method for the isolation of hMSCs generated homogeneous cultures for osteoblast differentiation with an enhanced ability to mineralize [18].

3.1. Osteogenic Differentiation from Mesenchymal Stem Cell Subpopulations

Unlike many other tissues, bone is an exceptional tissue that regenerates completely in the absence of scar tissue [41]. The bone healing process has three stages: inflammation, bone generation, and bone remodeling. When the bones fracture, bleeding occurs in the area resulting in inflammation and blood clotting at the fracture site. These events provide the primary structural stability and support for the production of new bone. Following an inflammatory stage, there is mesenchymal and angiogenic activation. Blood vessels and MSCs are recruited to the injury site and proliferate. Afterward, MSCs differentiate into either chondrocytes or osteoblasts. Mesenchymal cells differentiate into osteoprogenitors and then proliferate and differentiate into osteoblasts beginning the production and also secretion of osteoid, followed by mineralization, a process termed intramembranous ossification. On the other hand, chondrocytes proliferate and mineralize, and next bone tissue is deposited on the cartilage matrix through a process termed endochondral ossification. Both processes are completed by remodeling the bone to restore normal shape and function.

Most of the approaches of bone tissue engineering use bone marrow-derived cells that are easily accessible, can differentiate into chondrocytes and osteoblasts in vitro, and seem to be an ideal autologous cell type [4144]. Other autologous cell types such as adipose-derived cells, which are also very accessible and possess osteogenic and chondrogenic potential in vitro, represent lately a very attractive source.

Adipose-derived stromal cells (ADSCs) are a very useful stem cell population, as they are abundant and can be easily acquired and isolated. However, at the clonal level, only 21% of the population of plastic-adherent ADSCs clones are determined to be tripotent with an additional 31% and 29% exhibiting bipotent and unipotent features, respectively [45]. Interestingly, only 48% of the clones are osteogenic, which means that the surface marker prognostic for osteogenic potency would improve the efficacy of these cells for bone tissue engineering.

Stem cell-based bone tissue engineering with ADSCs has shown great promise for the treatment of large bone deficits. By FACS, a cells subpopulation with enhanced osteogenic differentiation has been identified. Using single-cell transcriptional analysis, it was found that expression patterns of the cell surface receptor endoglin (CD105) were closely associated with the osteogenic potential of ADSCs (Table 1). By combining microfluidic analysis with FACS, compared with and unsorted cells, ADSCs were found to be capable of enhanced osteogenic differentiation [46]. The isolation of ADSCs negative for CD105 was required to form an osteogenic population. This approach was based on previous studies which demonstrated that CD105 ADSCs possess enhanced adipogenic and osteogenic potential, probably due to the reduced TGF-β/SMAD2 signaling [46, 47].

Table 1: MSC subpopulations with enhanced osteogenic differentiation.

Additionally, Leyva-Leyva et al. (2013) positively selected the surface markers CD73, CD44, and CD105 from human amniotic membrane by FACS [18]. Two subpopulations with dissimilar osteoblastic differentiation potential were isolated: CD44+/CD73+/CD105+ (CD105+) and CD44+/CD73+/CD105 (CD105). Using in vitro analysis, it was found that the CD105 MSCs subpopulation was associated with more effective calcium deposition. Furthermore, through in vivo trials, it was demonstrated that grafts containing CD105 promoted adequate graft integration, improved host vascular infiltration, and showed efficient repair through intramembranous ossification (Table 1). By contrast, grafts containing CD105+ showed abundant fibrocartilaginous tissue and deficient endochondral ossification [48].

CD105+ and CD105 represent independent subpopulations that maintain their properties upon several passages. In addition to the enhanced osteogenic differentiation potential of the CD105 subpopulation, Anderson et al. reported advantageous immunomodulatory properties. Interestingly, compared to CD105+, CD105 murine-derived MSCs suppress the proliferation of CD4+ T cells more efficiently [49]. Meanwhile, in humans, the analysis for HLA system profile revealed that the CD105 subpopulation lacked HLA-ABC and HLA-DR (61.65%), which classifies them as nonimmunogenically active [18].

It seems that the surface marker CD105 might predict weak osteogenesis when the source of the isolation is adipose tissue or amniotic membrane [46, 48, 50]; however, when the source is bone marrow, conflicting data have been reported [51].

Aslan et al. found that, in bone marrow, CD105+ cells displayed enhanced in vitro osteogenic differentiation [52]. Likewise, Jarocha et al. reported that expanded CD105+ populations possess higher expression levels for RUNX2 and OCN (early and late osteogenic molecular markers, resp.) [53].

Dennis et al. found that there was good correlation between in vitro mineralization and in vivo osteogenesis of CD105+ cells [54]. Interestingly, these authors also observed a correlation between in vivo bone scores with the presence of CD105+ cell, suggesting that specific subpopulation seems to be a key aspect in predicting the osteogenic potential of cells

A second cell surface receptor was also found to correlate with the expression of osteogenic markers independent of CD105. CD90 (Thy-1) was originally discovered as a thymocyte antigen, which could be useful to identify and isolate ADSCs subpopulations. ADSCs had greater reprogramming capacity than ADSCs, suggesting that ADSCs have heterogeneous subpopulations [55]. Moreover, Hosoya et al. evaluated the capacity of rat and subodontoblastic dental pulp stem cells to differentiate into hard tissue-forming cells in response to bone morphogenetic protein-2 stimulation and observed that had accelerated ability to mineralize in vitro and in vivo (Table 1) [56].

CD90 and CD105 have been identified as early MSCs markers present on both BM-MSCs and ADSCs. Chung et al. demonstrated that, compared with CD90 or unsorted cells, CD90+ subpopulation isolated from human adipose tissue has enhanced osteogenic potential in vitro and in vivo; in fact, the authors proposed CD90 as a better surface marker to isolate cells with osteogenic potential [57, 58]. Murine-derived ADSCs were sorted for the expression of the surface markers CD90 and CD105 using flow cytometry. ADSCs were sorted into four groups: CD90+/CD105, CD90+/CD105+, CD90/CD105+, and CD90/CD105, in which CD90+/CD105 and CD90+/CD105+ cells had robust osteogenic potential and displayed mineralized nodules, whereas strong expression of CD105 might predict weak osteogenesis [50].

Consistent findings indicate that the absence of CD105 and the expression of CD90 surface markers characterize subpopulations with increased efficiency of differentiation into osteogenic lineage.

It has been advised not to discard the possibility of including other markers as part of an osteogenic profile analysis. Recently, the expression of the human embryonic stem cells marker SSEA-4 in a subpopulation of human adipose tissue (SSEA-4+ hASCs) has been reported. The subpopulation has the ability to differentiate into osteogenic lineages but also into endothelial lineages, which represents a useful approach to obtain these two cell types from the source and consequently is relevant for bone tissue engineering applications (Table 1) [59, 60].

3.2. Chondrogenic Differentiation from Mesenchymal Stem Cell Subpopulations

For clinical success, MSCs must be held in the area of injury and produce extracellular matrix in a physiological context, where low nutrient conditions produced by avascularity, nutrition, and waste production are prevalent. Certain MSCs subpopulations are more resilient to metabolic challenge than others.

Chondrogenic differentiation of BM-MSCs has been extensively studied in vitro in micromass pellet, which promotes cell condensation, aside from cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) connections [61, 62]. Consequently, cells progress into a highly proliferative stage to produce typical components of the cartilaginous matrix (collagen type 2, collagen type 9, aggrecan, and cartilage oligomeric matrix protein). Lastly, cells become round and then go through hypertrophy expressing collagen type X and MMP13 [6367].

Cartilage is susceptible to damage and has a reduced capacity for regeneration. Procedures committed to recruit stem cells from BM by penetration to the subchondral bone have been commonly used to treat localized cartilage defects [68]. More recently, autologous chondrocyte implantation has been introduced [69]. Research on cartilage tissue engineering in recent years has focused on the use of adult MSCs as an alternative source of autologous chondrocytes [70].

MSCs can differentiate into chondrocytes and fibrochondrocytes, resulting in a combination of cartilaginous fibrous and hypertrophic tissues, whereby the clinical success lasted for a short time because these cells do not possess functional mechanical properties [71]. Conversely, compared to MSCs derived from BM, MSCs from synovial tissue have been revealed to enhance chondrogenic potential and diminish the hypertrophic differentiation [72, 73].

Fickert et al. sorted a triplicate positive subpopulation from the synovial membrane (SM) of patients with osteoarthritis (CD9+/CD90+/CD166+). In the micromass of sorted cell cultures, Col2 was located predominantly in the inner areas, indicating that the subpopulation of SM-derived cells has the capacity to differentiate efficiently towards the chondrogenic lineage (Table 2). However, no major differences between sorted and unsorted SM cells were evidenced [74, 75].

Table 2: MSC subpopulations with enhanced chondrogenic differentiation.

In 2010, Arufe et al. analyzed the chondrogenic potential of subpopulations of human synovial membrane MSCs sorted for CD73, CD106, and CD271 markers. Compared with CD106+ and CD271+ subpopulations, CD73+ cells evidenced the highest expression of SOX9 (a key transcription factor that is necessary for early chondrogenesis), aggrecan, and COL2A1 at day 46 of chondrogenic induction. However, the CD73+ cells also showed the expression of COL10A1, indicating the presence of hypertrophy during differentiation [76].

More recently, in 2013, it was reported that the isolation of a different SM subpopulation based on surface markers CD73 and CD39 displayed consistent dynamics over passaging. The CD73+CD39+ cell subpopulation displayed higher expression levels of SOX9 and a significantly greater chondrogenic potency than the CD73+CD39 cell subpopulation (Table 2) [77].

Regarding the CD271 surface marker, compared to the other subpopulations, the CD271+ subpopulation expressed the highest levels of COL2 staining. Spheroids formed from CD271+ and CD73+ subpopulations from normal human synovial membranes that imitate the native cartilage extracellular matrix more closely than CD106+ MSCs, with the result that both are excellent candidates to use in cartilage tissue engineering [76].

Hermida-Gómez et al. strengthened this finding, showing that, during spontaneous cartilage repair, CD271+ provides higher quality chondral repair than the CD271 subpopulation. The implantation of MSCs CD271+ provided such benefits as greater filling of the chondral defect and improved integration between the repair tissue and native cartilage (Table 2) [78].

Meanwhile, Arufe et al. reported the isolation by a magnetic separator of a CD105+ subpopulation from human synovial membrane. These researchers evidenced a homogeneous cellular culture, which expressed Sox9 and had the ability to develop spheroids after 7 days in the presence of chondrogenic medium (Table 2). Interestingly, the extracellular matrix produced is rich in Col2 and showed no evidence of fibrocartilage tissue. The analysis of the CD105 subpopulation was not reported [79].

Tendon-derived progenitor cells (TPCs) from mice contained two subpopulations: one positive and one negative for CD105. Compared to the in vitro case with CD105+, the CD105 negative cells showed superior chondrogenic potential, and it was proposed that differences in the capability of chondrogenic differentiation are due to different modes of smad1/5 and smad2/3 signaling activation as a result of TGFβs (Table 2) [80].

Various parameters have been considered in hMSCs’ chondrogenic differentiation. In particular, it has been evidenced that hMSCs’ expansion in vitro required FGF-2 and IGF-1 to enhance the proliferative and chondrogenic potential [8183]. A highly efficient strategy is based on the preselection during the expansion phase of the MSCs by adding growth factors. In 2013, Hagmann et al. reported that FGF-2 suppressed CD146 expression and significantly improved chondrogenic differentiation [84]. Despite the observations from the preselection with FGF-2 and resulting suppression of CD146, in 2014, these researchers demonstrated that, compared to control MSCs, CD146+ FACS-sorted cells showed significantly increased GAG/DNA content after chondrogenic differentiation [85]. It should be noted that subpopulations, such as CD146+ from human umbilical cords, not only provide more efficient cartilage regeneration process but also provide an anti-inflammatory protective microenvironment resulting from decreased expression of IL-6 (Table 2) [86].

4. Conclusions

The current review highlights recent findings in the isolation and characterization of MSCs subpopulations and the potential applications for osteogenic or chondrogenic differentiation.

It was evident that the source of the MSCs subpopulation had an effect on the differentiation potential, and certainly the use of strategies based on the coexpression of more than one surface marker improves the purity of the isolated MSCs population.

These findings indicate that the absence of the CD105 surface marker characterizes subpopulations with improved osteogenesis when the source of isolation is adipose tissue or amniotic membrane. Furthermore, subpopulations expressing CD271 or CD146 markers appear to provide higher quality for chondral repair.

An accurate selection of the subpopulation puts forward possibilities suitable for preclinical and clinical studies and determines the safest and most efficacious regeneration process.

Abbreviations

ACPC:Articular cartilage progenitor cells
ADSCs:Adipose-derived stromal cells
ALP:Alkaline phosphatase
AM:Amniotic membrane
AT:Adipose tissue
BM:Bone marrow
BM-MSCs:Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells
CD:Cluster of differentiation
CFU-Fs:Colony forming unit-fibroblastoids
DPSCs:Dental pulp stem cells
ECM:Extracellular matrix
FACS:Fluorescence-activated cell sorting
ISCT:International Society for Cellular Therapy
HU-MSCs:Human umbilical mesenchymal stem cells
MSCs:Mesenchymal stem cells
PDLPs:Periodontal ligament progenitor cells
PDLSCs:PDL stem cells
PSC:Perivascular stem cells
OA:Osteoarthritis
SHED:Stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth
SM:Synovial membrane
TPCs:Tendon-derived progenitor cells
VCAM:Vascular cell adhesion molecule.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there are no competing interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors were involved in drafting the paper, and all authors approved the final version to be published.

References

  1. D. L. Jones and A. J. Wagers, “No place like home: anatomy and function of the stem cell niche,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 11–21, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. 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 · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. S. A. Boxall and E. Jones, “Markers for characterization of bone marrow multipotential stromal cells,” Stem Cells International, vol. 2012, Article ID 975871, 12 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. V. Rasini, M. Dominici, T. Kluba et al., “Mesenchymal stromal/stem cells markers in the human bone marrow,” Cytotherapy, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 292–306, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. L. da Silva Meirelles, P. C. Chagastelles, and N. B. Nardi, “Mesenchymal stem cells reside in virtually all post-natal organs and tissues,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 119, no. 11, pp. 2204–2213, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. A. J. Friedenstein, K. V. Petrakova, A. I. Kurolesova, and G. P. Frolova, “Heterotopic of bone marrow. Analysis of precursor cells for osteogenic and hematopoietic tissues,” Transplantation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 230–247, 1968. View at Google Scholar
  7. W. Wagner, F. Wein, A. Seckinger et al., “Comparative characteristics of mesenchymal stem cells from human bone marrow, adipose tissue, and umbilical cord blood,” Experimental Hematology, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 1402–1416, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. X. Zhang, M. Yang, L. Lin et al., “Runx2 overexpression enhances osteoblastic differentiation and mineralization in adipose—derived stem cells in vitro and in vivo,” Calcified Tissue International, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 169–178, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. S. Alsalameh, R. Amin, T. Gemba, and M. Lotz, “Identification of mesenchymal progenitor cells in normal and osteoarthritic human articular cartilage,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1522–1532, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. F. Appaix, M. F. Nissou, B. van der Sanden et al., “Brain mesenchymal stem cells: the other stem cells of the brain?” World Journal of Stem Cells, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 134–143, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. A. N. Schüring, N. Schulte, R. Kelsch, A. Röpke, L. Kiesel, and M. Götte, “Characterization of endometrial mesenchymal stem-like cells obtained by endometrial biopsy during routine diagnostics,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 423–426, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. J. G. Allickson, A. Sanchez, N. Yefimenko, C. V. Borlongan, and P. R. Sanberg, “Recent studies assessing the proliferative capability of a novel adult stem cell identified in menstrual blood,” The Open Stem Cell Journal, vol. 3, pp. 4–10, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. R. Ab Kadir, S. H. Zainal Ariffin, R. Megat Abdul Wahab, S. Kermani, and S. Senafi, “Characterization of mononucleated human peripheral blood cells,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2012, Article ID 843843, 8 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. G. Bartsch Jr., J. J. Yoo, P. De Coppi et al., “Propagation, expansion, and multilineage differentiation of human somatic stem cells from dermal progenitors,” Stem Cells and Development, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 337–348, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. U. Riekstina, R. Muceniece, I. Cakstina, I. Muiznieks, and J. Ancans, “Characterization of human skin-derived mesenchymal stem cell proliferation rate in different growth conditions,” Cytotechnology, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 153–162, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. T. Morito, T. Muneta, K. Hara et al., “Synovial fluid-derived mesenchymal stem cells increase after intra-articular ligament injury in humans,” Rheumatology, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1137–1143, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. M.-S. Tsai, J.-L. Lee, Y.-J. Chang, and S.-M. Hwang, “Isolation of human multipotent mesenchymal stem cells from second-trimester amniotic fluid using a novel two-stage culture protocol,” Human Reproduction, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1450–1456, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. M. Leyva-Leyva, L. Barrera, C. López-Camarillo et al., “Characterization of mesenchymal stem cell subpopulations from human amniotic membrane with dissimilar osteoblastic potential,” Stem Cells and Development, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1275–1287, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. J. Cai, W. Li, H. Su et al., “Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cells from umbilical cord matrix and amniotic membrane mesenchymal cells,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 285, no. 15, pp. 11227–11234, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. C. M. Raynaud, M. Maleki, R. Lis et al., “Comprehensive characterization of mesenchymal stem cells from human placenta and fetal membrane and their response to osteoactivin stimulation,” Stem Cells International, vol. 2012, Article ID 658356, 13 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. K. Kita, G. G. Gauglitz, T. T. Phan, D. N. Herndon, and M. G. Jeschke, “Isolation and characterization of mesenchymal stem cells from the sub-amniotic human umbilical cord lining membrane,” Stem Cells and Development, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 491–502, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. H. Ali and F. Al-Mulla, “Defining umbilical cord blood stem cells,” Stem Cell Discovery, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 15–23, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. H.-S. Wang, S.-C. Hung, S.-T. Peng et al., “Mesenchymal stem cells in the Wharton's jelly of the human umbilical cord,” STEM CELLS, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1330–1337, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. M. Seifrtová, R. Havelek, J. Ćmielová et al., “The response of human ectomesenchymal dental pulp stem cells to cisplatin treatment,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 401–412, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. M. Miura, S. Gronthos, M. Zhao et al., “SHED: stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 100, no. 10, pp. 5807–5812, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. E. Prateeptongkum, C. Klingelhöffer, S. Müller, T. Ettl, and C. Morsczeck, “Characterization of progenitor cells and stem cells from the periodontal ligament tissue derived from a single person,” Journal of Periodontal Research, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 265–272, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  27. S.-I. Fukada, A. Uezumi, M. Ikemoto et al., “Molecular signature of quiescent satellite cells in adult skeletal muscle,” Stem Cells, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 2448–2459, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. M. Crisan, S. Yap, L. Casteilla et al., “A perivascular origin for mesenchymal stem cells in multiple human organs,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 301–313, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. D. C. Colter, I. Sekiya, and D. J. Prockop, “Identification of a subpopulation of rapidly self-renewing and multipotential adult stem cells in colonies of human marrow stromal cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 14, pp. 7841–7845, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. R. R. Pochampally, J. R. Smith, J. Ylostalo, and D. J. Prockop, “Serum deprivation of human marrow stromal cells (hMSCs) selects for a subpopulation of early progenitor cells with enhanced expression of OCT-4 and other embryonic genes,” Blood, vol. 103, no. 5, pp. 1647–1652, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. D. O. Traktuev, S. Merfeld-Clauss, J. Li et al., “A population of multipotent CD34-positive adipose stromal cells share pericyte and mesenchymal surface markers, reside in a periendothelial location, and stabilize endothelial networks,” Circulation Research, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 77–85, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. M. Corselli, C.-W. Chen, B. Sun, S. Yap, J. P. Rubin, and B. Péault, “The tunica adventitia of human arteries and veins as a source of mesenchymal stem cells,” Stem Cells and Development, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1299–1308, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. H. Zhao, J. Feng, K. Seidel et al., “Secretion of shh by a neurovascular bundle niche supports mesenchymal stem cell homeostasis in the adult mouse incisor,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 160–173, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. M. Corselli, M. Crisan, I. R. Murray et al., “Identification of perivascular mesenchymal stromal/stem cells by flow cytometry,” Cytometry Part A, vol. 83, no. 8, pp. 714–720, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. A. Askarinam, A. W. James, J. N. Zara et al., “Human perivascular stem cells show enhanced osteogenesis and vasculogenesis with nel-like molecule I protein,” Tissue Engineering—Part A, vol. 19, no. 11-12, pp. 1386–1397, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. W. C. W. Chen, A. Saparov, M. Corselli et al., “Isolation of blood-vessel-derived multipotent precursors from human skeletal muscle,” Journal of Visualized Experiments, no. 90, Article ID e51195, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  37. M. A. König, D. D. Canepa, D. Cadosch et al., “Direct transplantation of native pericytes from adipose tissue: a new perspective to stimulate healing in critical size bone defects,” Cytotherapy, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 41–52, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. H. Busser, M. Najar, G. Raicevic et al., “Isolation and characterization of human mesenchymal stromal cell subpopulations: comparison of bone marrow and adipose tissue,” Stem Cells and Development, vol. 24, no. 18, pp. 2142–2157, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. R. J. Cuthbert, P. V. Giannoudis, X. N. Wang et al., “Examining the feasibility of clinical grade CD271+ enrichment of mesenchymal stromal cells for bone regeneration,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 3, Article ID e0117855, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. Y. Mabuchi, S. Morikawa, S. Harada et al., “LNGFR+THY-1+VCAM-1hi+ cells reveal functionally distinct subpopulations in mesenchymal stem cells,” Stem Cell Reports, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 152–165, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  41. L. Marzona and B. Pavolini, “Play and players in bone fracture healing match,” Clinical Cases in Mineral and Bone Metabolism, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 159–162, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. M. F. Pittenger, A. M. Mackay, S. C. Beck et al., “Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells,” Science, vol. 284, no. 5411, pp. 143–147, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. P. Bianco and P. G. Robey, “Stem cells in tissue engineering,” Nature, vol. 414, no. 6859, pp. 118–121, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. V. Viateau, G. Guillemin, V. Bousson et al., “Long-bone critical-size defects treated with tissue-engineered grafts: a study on sheep,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 741–749, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. 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 · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. B. Levi, D. C. Wan, J. P. Glotzbach et al., “CD105 protein depletion enhances human adipose-derived stromal cell osteogenesis through reduction of transforming growth factor β1 (TGF-β1) signaling,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 286, no. 45, pp. 39497–39509, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. L. Choy, J. Skillington, and R. Derynck, “Roles of autocrine TGF-β receptor and Smad signaling in adipocyte differentiation,” The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 149, no. 3, pp. 667–682, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. M. Leyva-Leyva, A. López-Diáz, L. Barrera et al., “Differential expression of adhesion-related proteins and MAPK pathways lead to suitable osteoblast differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells subpopulations,” Stem Cells and Development, vol. 24, no. 21, pp. 2577–2590, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. P. Anderson, A. B. Carrillo-Gálvez, A. García-Pérez, M. Cobo, and F. Martín, “CD105 (Endoglin)-negative murine mesenchymal stromal cells define a new multipotent subpopulation with distinct differentiation and immunomodulatory capacities,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 10, Article ID e76979, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. M. Yamamoto, H. Nakata, J. Hao, J. Chou, S. Kasugai, and S. Kuroda, “Osteogenic potential of mouse adipose-derived stem cells sorted for CD90 and CD105 in vitro,” Stem Cells International, vol. 2014, Article ID 576358, 17 pages, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. T. Rada, R. L. Reis, and M. E. Gomes, “Distinct stem cells subpopulations isolated from human adipose tissue exhibit different chondrogenic and osteogenic differentiation potential,” Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 64–76, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. H. Aslan, Y. Zilberman, L. Kandel et al., “Osteogenic differentiation of noncultured immunoisolated bone marrow-derived CD105+ cells,” Stem Cells, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1728–1737, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. D. Jarocha, E. Lukasiewicz, and M. Majka, “Adventage of Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSC) expansion directly from purified bone marrow CD105+ and CD271+ cells,” Folia Histochemica et Cytobiologica, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 307–314, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. J. E. Dennis, K. Esterly, A. Awadallah, C. R. Parrish, G. M. Poynter, and K. L. Goltry, “Clinical-scale expansion of a mixed population of bone marrow-derived stem and progenitor cells for potential use in bone tissue regeneration,” Stem Cells, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 2575–2582, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. K. Kawamoto, K. Konno, H. Nagano et al., “CD90- (Thy-1-) high selection enhances reprogramming capacity of murine adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells,” Disease Markers, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 573–579, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  56. A. Hosoya, T. Hiraga, T. Ninomiya et al., “Thy-1-positive cells in the subodontoblastic layer possess high potential to differentiate into hard tissue-forming cells,” Histochemistry and Cell Biology, vol. 137, no. 6, pp. 733–742, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. 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 · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. M. T. Chung, C. Liu, J. S. Hyun et al., “CD90 (Thy-1)-positive selection enhances osteogenic capacity of human adipose-derived stromal cells,” Tissue Engineering—Part A, vol. 19, no. 7-8, pp. 989–997, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. S. M. Mihaila, A. M. Frias, R. P. Pirraco et al., “Human adipose tissue-derived ssea-4 subpopulation multi-differentiation potential towards the endothelial and osteogenic lineages,” Tissue Engineering—Part A, vol. 19, no. 1-2, pp. 235–246, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. S. M. Mihaila, A. K. Gaharwar, R. L. Reis, A. Khademhosseini, A. P. Marques, and M. E. Gomes, “The osteogenic differentiation of SSEA-4 sub-population of human adipose derived stem cells using silicate nanoplatelets,” Biomaterials, vol. 35, no. 33, pp. 9087–9099, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. J. J. Auletta, L. A. Solchaga, E. A. Zale, and J. F. Welter, “Fibroblast growth factor-2 enhances expansion of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells without diminishing their immunosuppressive potential,” Stem Cells International, vol. 2011, Article ID 235176, 10 pages, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. T. Felka, R. Schfer, P. De Zwart, and W. K. Aicher, “Animal serum-free expansion and differentiation of human mesenchymal stromal cells,” Cytotherapy, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 143–153, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. R. Williams, I. M. Khan, K. Richardson et al., “Identification and clonal characterisation of a progenitor cell sub-population in normal human articular cartilage,” PLoS ONE, vol. 5, no. 10, Article ID e13246, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. B. Grigolo, L. Roseti, M. Fiorini et al., “Transplantation of chondrocytes seeded on a hyaluronan derivative (Hyaff®-11) into cartilage defects in rabbits,” Biomaterials, vol. 22, no. 17, pp. 2417–2424, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. K. W. Kavalkovich, R. E. Boynton, J. M. Murphy, and F. Barry, “Chondrogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells within an alginate layer culture system,” In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology—Animal, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 457–466, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. R. Tuli, W.-J. Li, and R. S. Tuan, “Current state of cartilage tissue engineering,” Arthritis Research and Therapy, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 235–238, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. C. Karlsson, C. Brantsing, T. Svensson et al., “Differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells and articular chondrocytes: analysis of chondrogenic potential and expression pattern of differentiation-related transcription factors,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 152–163, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. A. Schmitt, M. Van Griensven, A. B. Imhoff, and S. Buchmann, “Application of stem cells in orthopedics,” Stem Cells International, vol. 2012, Article ID 394962, 11 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. E. H. Lee and J. H. P. Hui, “The potential of stem cells in orthopaedic surgery,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery—Series B, vol. 88, no. 7, pp. 841–851, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. M. C. Ronzière, E. Perrier, F. Mallein-Gerin, and A.-M. Freyria, “Chondrogenic potential of bone marrow- and adipose tissue-derived adult human mesenchymal stem cells,” Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering, vol. 20, no. 3-4, pp. 145–158, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. D. J. Huey, J. C. Hu, and K. A. Athanasiou, “Unlike bone, cartilage regeneration remains elusive,” Science, vol. 338, no. 6109, pp. 917–921, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. M. Pei, D. Chen, J. Li, and L. Wei, “Histone deacetylase 4 promotes TGF-β1-induced synovium-derived stem cell chondrogenesis but inhibits chondrogenically differentiated stem cell hypertrophy,” Differentiation, vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 260–268, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. D. Studer, C. Millan, E. Öztürk, K. Maniura-Weber, and M. Zenobi-Wong, “Molecular and biophysical mechanisms regulating hypertrophic differentiation in chondrocytes and mesenchymal stem cells,” European Cells and Materials, vol. 24, pp. 118–135, 2012. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. S. Fickert, J. Fiedler, and R. E. Brenner, “Identification, quantification and isolation of mesenchymal progenitor cell from osteoarthritic synovium by fluorescence automated cell sorting,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 790–800, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. S. Fickert, J. Fiedler, and R. E. Brenner, “Identification of subpopulations with characteristics of mesenchymal progenitor cells from human osteoarthritic cartilage using triple staining for cell surface markers,” Arthritis Research & Therapy, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. R422–R432, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. M. C. Arufe, A. De La Fuente, I. Fuentes, F. J. De Toro, and F. J. Blanco, “Chondrogenic potential of subpopulations of cells expressing mesenchymal stem cell markers derived from human synovial membranes,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 111, no. 4, pp. 834–845, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. F. Gullo and C. De Bari, “Prospective purification of a subpopulation of human synovial mesenchymal stem cells with enhanced chondro-osteogenic potency,” Rheumatology, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 1758–1768, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. T. Hermida-Gómez, I. Fuentes-Boquete, M. J. Gimeno-Longas et al., “Bone marrow cells immunomagnetically selected for CD271+ antigen promote in vitro the repair of articular cartilage defects,” Tissue Engineering Part A, vol. 17, no. 7-8, pp. 1169–1179, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. M. C. Arufe, M. C. De La Fuente, I. Fuentes-Boquete, F. J. De Toro, and F. J. Blanco, “Differentiation of synovial CD-105+ human mesenchymal stem cells into chondrocyte-like cells through spheroid formation,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 145–155, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. T. Felka, R. Schäfer, P. De Zwart, and W. K. Aicher, “Animal serum-free expansion and differentiation of human mesenchymal stromal cells,” Cytotherapy, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 143–153, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  81. C. Millan, E. Öztürk, K. Maniura-Weber, and M. Zenobi-Wong, “Molecular and biophysical mechanisms regulating hypertrophic differentiation in chondrocytes and mesenchymal stem cells,” European Cells and Materials, vol. 24, pp. 118–135, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  82. L. A. Solchaga, K. Penick, J. D. Porter, V. M. Goldberg, A. I. Caplan, and J. F. Welter, “FGF-2 enhances the mitotic and chondrogenic potentials of human adult bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 203, no. 2, pp. 398–409, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. I. Garza-Veloz, V. J. Romero-Diaz, M. L. Martinez-Fierro et al., “Analyses of chondrogenic induction of adipose mesenchymal stem cells by combined co-stimulation mediated by adenoviral gene transfer,” Arthritis Research & Therapy, vol. 15, no. 4, article R80, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. S. Hagmann, B. Moradi, S. Frank et al., “FGF-2 addition during expansion of human bone marrow-derived stromal cells alters MSC surface marker distribution and chondrogenic differentiation potential,” Cell Proliferation, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 396–407, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. S. Hagmann, S. Frank, T. Gotterbarm, T. Dreher, V. Eckstein, and B. Moradi, “Fluorescence activated enrichment of CD146+ cells during expansion of human bone-marrow derived mesenchymal stromal cells augments proliferation and GAG/DNA content in chondrogenic media,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, vol. 15, no. 1, article 322, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  86. C.-C. Wu, F.-L. Liu, H.-K. Sytwu, C.-Y. Tsai, and D.-M. Chang, “CD146+ mesenchymal stem cells display greater therapeutic potential than CD146 cells for treating collagen-induced arthritis in mice,” Stem Cell Research & Therapy, vol. 7, article 23, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus