Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24763684›Full record

ReviewStem cells translational medicine2014

Concise review: unraveling stem cell cocultures in regenerative medicine: which cell interactions steer cartilage regeneration and how?

Tommy S de Windt, Jeanine A A Hendriks, Xing Zhao, Lucienne A Vonk, Laura B Creemers, Wouter J A Dhert, Mark A Randolph, Daniel B F Saris

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cells translational medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Oxygen Consumption Rate-Defined Phases Couple Metabolism to Matrix Dynamics in Chondrocyte-Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Co-Culture.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Ex Vivo Systems to Study Chondrogenic Differentiation and Cartilage Integration.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tommy S de WindtDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; CellCoTec, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Division of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; MIRA Institute for Biotechnology and Technical Medicine, University Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Jeanine A A HendriksDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; CellCoTec, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Division of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; MIRA Institute for Biotechnology and Technical Medicine, University Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Xing ZhaoDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; CellCoTec, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Division of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; MIRA Institute for Biotechnology and Technical Medicine, University Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Lucienne A VonkDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; CellCoTec, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Division of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; MIRA Institute for Biotechnology and Technical Medicine, University Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Laura B CreemersDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; CellCoTec, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Division of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; MIRA Institute for Biotechnology and Technical Medicine, University Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Wouter J A DhertDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; CellCoTec, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Division of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; MIRA Institute for Biotechnology and Technical Medicine, University Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Mark A RandolphDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; CellCoTec, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Division of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; MIRA Institute for Biotechnology and Technical Medicine, University Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Daniel B F SarisDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; CellCoTec, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Division of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; MIRA Institute for Biotechnology and Technical Medicine, University Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands d.saris@umcutrecht.nl.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLHarvard University · USUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cartilage damage and osteoarthritis (OA) impose an important burden on society, leaving both young, active patients and older patients disabled and affecting quality of life. In particular, cartilage injury not only imparts acute loss of function but also predisposes to OA. The increase in knowledge of the consequences of these diseases and the exponential growth in research of regenerative medicine have given rise to different treatment types. Of these, cell-based treatments are increasingly applied because they have the potential to regenerate cartilage, treat symptoms, and ultimately prevent or delay OA. Although these approaches give promising results, they require a costly in vitro cell culture procedure. The answer may lie in single-stage procedures that, by using cell combinations, render in vitro expansion redundant. In the last two decades, cocultures of cartilage cells and a variety of (mesenchymal) stem cells have shown promising results as different studies report cartilage regeneration in vitro and in vivo. However, there is considerable debate regarding the mechanisms and cellular interactions that lead to chondrogenesis in these models. This review, which included 52 papers, provides a systematic overview of the data presented in the literature and tries to elucidate the mechanisms that lead to chondrogenesis in stem cell cocultures with cartilage cells. It could serve as a basis for research groups and clinicians aiming at designing and implementing combined cellular technologies for single-stage cartilage repair and treatment or prevention of OA.

Indexed as

Cell CommunicationChondrogenesisCoculture TechniquesRegenerationAnimalsCartilageCells, CulturedChondrocytesHumansOsteoarthritisRegenerative MedicineStem CellsStem Cell TransplantationBone marrow stromal cellsCellular therapyChondrogenesisClinical translationMarrow stromal stem cellsMesenchymal stem cellsSkeleton

Identifiers

PMID24763684
PMCPMC4039458
OpenAlexW2164479553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.