Comparison of two cell-free therapeutics derived from adipose tissue: small extracellular vesicles versus conditioned medium.

backgroundCell-free therapy has been inspired as a promising approach to overcome the limitations of traditional stem cell therapy. However, the therapeutic effect between extracellular vesicles and conditioned medium with the same source had not been compared. Our previous studies have shown that both the conditioned medium of adipose tissue (adipose tissue extract, ATE) and its further purification product small extracellular vesicles (sEV-AT) contributed to adipose tissue regeneration. In this study, we aimed to compare the ATE and sEV-AT in composition, inductivity on cells and de novo adipose regenerative potential.

methodsThe characteristics of sEV-AT and ATE were compared through protein and particle yield, particle size distribution and composition. The inductivity of sEV-AT and ATE on cells were compared through co-culture of sEV-AT or ATE with ASC, HUVEC and RAW264.7 in vitro. The capacity of promoting de novo adipogenesis was compared by implanting the silicone tube containing sEV-AT or ATE subcutaneously in vivo.

resultsMore particles and concentrated particle size distribution were detected in sEV-AT. In turn, more soluble factors and multiple peaks in particle size distribution were detected in ATE. In 1662 common proteins of sEV-AT and ATE, there were 984 (59.2%) proteins enriched twice more in sEV-AT than in ATE. With the prerequisite of equivalent protein concentration, sEV-AT outperformed ATE in promoting proliferation, migration and regeneration potential of cells those contributing adipose tissue regeneration in vitro. Furthermore, sEV-AT expedited the de novo adipose tissue regeneration and angiogenesis at the early stage than ATE in vivo, but sEV-AT and ATE group formed similar neoadipose tissue and new vessels at week 12.

conclusionsOur results provided a direct comparison between EV and conditioned medium as cell-free therapeutic strategy. Both sEV and ATE had specific biological signature to facilitate tissue repair. Considering the convenience of extraction and acceptable effect, ATE represented a feasible product of cell-free therapy, providing another option for different situations in clinical application. Furthermore, the complex contents of both sEV-AT and ATE should be studied comprehensively to avoid possible negative effects and to ensure sufficient safety for clinical applications.