Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26273064›Full record

ArticleStem cells translational medicine2015

Chorion Mesenchymal Stem Cells Show Superior Differentiation, Immunosuppressive, and Angiogenic Potentials in Comparison With Haploidentical Maternal Placental Cells.

Paz L González, Catalina Carvajal, Jimena Cuenca, Francisca Alcayaga-Miranda, Fernando E Figueroa, Jorge Bartolucci, Lorena Salazar-Aravena, Maroun Khoury

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cells translational medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paz L GonzálezLaboratory of Nano-Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Cells for Cells, Santiago, Chile; Facultad de Medicina Universidad de los Andes y Clínica Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Consorcio Regenero, Santiago, Chile.
Catalina CarvajalLaboratory of Nano-Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Cells for Cells, Santiago, Chile; Facultad de Medicina Universidad de los Andes y Clínica Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Consorcio Regenero, Santiago, Chile.
Jimena CuencaLaboratory of Nano-Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Cells for Cells, Santiago, Chile; Facultad de Medicina Universidad de los Andes y Clínica Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Consorcio Regenero, Santiago, Chile.
Francisca Alcayaga-MirandaLaboratory of Nano-Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Cells for Cells, Santiago, Chile; Facultad de Medicina Universidad de los Andes y Clínica Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Consorcio Regenero, Santiago, Chile.
Fernando E FigueroaLaboratory of Nano-Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Cells for Cells, Santiago, Chile; Facultad de Medicina Universidad de los Andes y Clínica Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Consorcio Regenero, Santiago, Chile.
Jorge BartolucciLaboratory of Nano-Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Cells for Cells, Santiago, Chile; Facultad de Medicina Universidad de los Andes y Clínica Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Consorcio Regenero, Santiago, Chile.
Lorena Salazar-AravenaLaboratory of Nano-Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Cells for Cells, Santiago, Chile; Facultad de Medicina Universidad de los Andes y Clínica Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Consorcio Regenero, Santiago, Chile.
Maroun KhouryLaboratory of Nano-Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Cells for Cells, Santiago, Chile; Facultad de Medicina Universidad de los Andes y Clínica Universidad de Los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Consorcio Regenero, Santiago, Chile mkhoury@uandes.cl.
Fraunhofer Chile Research Foundation · CLUniversidad de Los Andes, Chile · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledMesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) of placental origin have become increasingly translational owing to their abundance and accessibility. MSCs of different origin share several features but also present biological differences that might point to distinct clinical properties. Hence, mixing fetal and maternal cells from the same placenta can lead to contradicting results. We analyzed the biological characteristics of haploidentical MSCs isolated from fetal sources, including the umbilical cord (UC-MSCs) and chorion (Ch-MSCs), compared with maternal decidua MSCs (Dc-MSCs). All MSCs were analyzed for general stem cell properties. In addition, immunosuppressive capacity was assessed by the inhibition of T-cell proliferation, and angiogenic potential was evaluated in a Matrigel transplantation assay. The comparison between haploidentical MSCs displayed several distinct features, including (a) marked differences in the expression of CD56, (b) a higher proliferative capacity for Dc-MSCs and UC-MSCs than for Ch-MSCs, (c) a diversity of mesodermal differentiation potential in favor of fetal MSCs, (d) a higher capacity for Ch-MSCs to inhibit T-cell proliferation, and (e) superior angiogenic potential of Ch-MSCs evidenced by a higher capability to form tubular vessel-like structures and an enhanced release of hepatocyte growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor under hypoxic conditions. Our results suggest that assessing the prevalence of fetomaternal contamination within placental MSCs is necessary to increase robustness and limit side effects in their clinical use. Finally, our work presents evidence positioning fetoplacental cells and notably Ch-MSCs in the forefront of the quest for cell types that are superior for applications in regenerative medicine. SIGNIFICANCE: This study analyzed the biological characteristics of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) isolated from fetal and maternal placental origins. The findings can be summarized as follows: (a) important differences were found in the expression of CD56, (b) a different mesodermal differentiation potential was found in favor of fetal MSCs, (c) a higher immunosuppressive capacity for chorion MSCs was noted, and (d) superior angiogenic potential of Ch-MSCs was observed. These results suggest that assessing the prevalence of fetomaternal contamination within placental MSCs is necessary to increase robustness and limit side effects in their clinical use. The evidence should allow clinicians to view fetoplacental cells, notably Ch-MSCs, favorably as candidates for use in regenerative medicine.

Indexed as

CD56 AntigenCell DifferentiationCells, CulturedChorionDeciduaFemaleFetal BloodFetusGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalHumansImmunosuppression TherapyInfant, NewbornMaleMesenchymal Stem CellsNeovascularization, PhysiologicCD56 AntigenNCAM1 protein, humanAngiogenic potentialChorionDeciduaFetalImmunosuppressionMaternalMesenchymal stem cellsPlacental cellsUmbilical cord

Identifiers

PMID26273064
PMCPMC4572900
OpenAlexW2174744595

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.