ArticlePloS one2026
Isolation methods influence the biological properties of Wharton's Jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells: A comparative study of yield, viability, proliferation, differentiation potential, and proteomic profiles.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMesenchymal stem cells derived from Wharton's Jelly (WJ-MSCs) are an attractive cell source for regenerative medicine due to high proliferative capacity, non-invasive accessibility, and minimal ethical constraints. However, their therapeutic efficacy may vary with isolation technique and culture conditions.
methodsWe compared three WJ-MSC isolation methods; two explant approaches (non-scraped and scraped) and one enzymatic method - each cultured with or without basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF). WJ-MSCs were obtained from three full-term umbilical cords, and subsequently evaluated for cell viability, proliferation kinetics, immunophenotypic surface marker expression, multilineage differentiation potential, and proteomic profiles through mass spectrometry coupled with bioinformatics analyses.
resultsAll methods produced viable WJ-MSCs, although enzymatic isolation without bFGF resulted in early culture failure in 2/3 donors and was excluded from downstream analyses. Highest viability was observed with the non-scraped explant method supplemented with bFGF, and bFGF significantly enhanced proliferation by reducing cell doubling time. All groups consistently expressed canonical MSC markers, along with WJ-MSC-specific surface proteins. Osteogenic differentiation was robust across all groups, whereas adipogenic differentiation was limited. Proteomic profiling revealed 2,372 proteins commonly expressed across all groups, indicating a largely stable core proteome, with isolation- and bFGF-dependent modulation observed primarily at the pathway level. Gene set enrichment analysis showed that bFGF-treated cultures were enriched for metabolic pathways, including oxidative phosphorylation and fatty acid metabolism, whereas bFGF-free and enzymatic isolation methods showed increased inflammatory and stress-related signatures. Differential expression analysis further identified 36 proteins uniquely regulated by isolation method and bFGF treatment, associated with cell adhesion, tissue morphogenesis, and immunomodulatory functions.
conclusionThis study clarifies how isolation- and growth factor-driven effects shape the functional properties and paracrine identity of WJ-MSCs. The non-scraped explant method with bFGF emerges as a robust, reproducible approach, yielding high-viability, phenotypically stable, and metabolically resilient MSCs. These findings provide a framework for standardized WJ-MSC production optimized for regenerative and immunomodulatory applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.