ArticleStem cell research & therapy2026
Transcriptomic and functional comparison of adipose-and bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells for tendon regeneration.
Article in Stem cell research & therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTendons are specialized connective tissues with limited intrinsic healing properties due to hypovascularity and low metabolic activity. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) possess regenerative potential for tendon injuries. Among the diverse sources of MSCs, those derived from the bone marrow (BM-MSCs) and adipose tissue (AD-MSCs) are the leading candidates. However, their relative efficacy remains underexplored, particularly in terms of biological characteristics and tenogenic differentiation. In addition, the signaling pathways driving tenogenic differentiation processes remain poorly understood. This study aimed to comprehensively investigate the regenerative potential of AD-MSCs and BM-MSCs for tendon repair.
methodsAD- and BM-MSCs were isolated from rats and evaluated for stemness based on morphology, viability, immunophenotyping, and tri-lineage differentiation. RNA sequencing was performed to obtain a baseline molecular profile of each MSC type prior to tenogenic differentiation. We evaluated the potential of AD- and BM-MSCs to differentiate into tendon-like cells in vitro using gene expression and immunofluorescence. A rat model of Achilles tendon injury was created to evaluate the regenerative efficacy following each MSC-type injection. After 6 weeks, tendon regeneration was assessed using histological and immunohistochemical analyses.
resultsBoth MSCs displayed similarities in morphology, immunophenotyping, and tri-lineage differentiation capacity. AD-MSCs exhibited a superior proliferation rate and tenogenic differentiation compared with BM-MSCs in vitro. Transcriptomic profiling revealed that AD-MSCs significantly upregulated genes related to extracellular matrix remodeling (COL1, TN-C), immunoregulation (IL-33), and tenogenic signaling (FGF18, TGF-β1). AD-MSCs were also enriched in the PI3K-Akt signaling, MAPK signaling, and focal adhesion pathways, indicating enhanced regenerative and tenogenic potential compared to BM-MSCs. Moreover, our data show that AD-MSCs were more effective than BM-MSCs in improving collagen organization and COL1 expression in an animal model of tendon injury.
conclusionOur findings not only highlight the superior regenerative potential of AD-MSCs for tendon repair but also provide a basis for future mechanistic and therapeutic advancements in regenerative medicine.
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.