Comparative Craniofacial Bone Regeneration Capacities of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Derived from Human Neural Crest Stem Cells and Bone Marrow
- PMID: 33455206
- DOI: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.0c00878
Comparative Craniofacial Bone Regeneration Capacities of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Derived from Human Neural Crest Stem Cells and Bone Marrow
Abstract
Most craniofacial bones are derived from the ectodermal germ layer via neural crest stem cells, which are distinct from mesoderm-derived long bones. However, current craniofacial bone tissue engineering approaches do not account for this difference and utilize mesoderm-derived bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs) as a paradigm cell source. The effect of the embryonic origin (ontogeny) of an MSC population on its osteogenic differentiation potential and regenerative ability still remains unresolved. To clarify the effects of MSC ontogeny on bone regenerative ability, we directly compared the craniofacial bone regenerative abilities of an ecto-mesenchymal stem cell (eMSC) population, which is derived from human embryonic stem cells via a neural crest intermediate, with mesodermal adult BM-MSCs. eMSCs showed comparable osteogenic and chondrogenic ability to BM-MSCs in 2-D in vitro culture, but lower adipogenic ability. They exhibited greater proliferation than BM-MSCs and comparable construct mineralization in a well-established 3-D polycaprolactone-tricalcium phosphate (PCL-TCP) scaffold system in vitro. eMSC-derived 3D osteogenic constructs were maintained for longer in a proliferative osteoblast state and exhibited differential levels of genes related to fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signaling compared to BM-MSCs. Although both eMSC and BM-MSC-seeded scaffold constructs could promote bone regeneration in a rat calvarial defect model, eMSC-derived osseous constructs had significantly higher cellularity due to increased number of proliferative (Ki67+) cells than those seeded with BM-MSCs, and exhibited enhanced new bone formation in the defect area as compared to untreated controls. Overall, our study demonstrates the potential of human eMSCs for future clinical use in craniofacial regeneration applications and indicates the importance of considering MSC origin when selecting an MSC source for regenerative applications.
Keywords: bone marrow MSCs; bone repair; craniofacial; ectomesenchymal stem cells; neural crest; osteogenesis; polycapralactone-tricalcium phosphate.
Similar articles
-
Osteogenic Potential of Sheep Mesenchymal Stem Cells Preconditioned with BMP-2 and FGF-2 and Seeded on an nHAP-Coated PCL/HAP/β-TCP Scaffold.Cells. 2022 Oct 31;11(21):3446. doi: 10.3390/cells11213446. Cells. 2022. PMID: 36359842 Free PMC article.
-
iPSC-neural crest derived cells embedded in 3D printable bio-ink promote cranial bone defect repair.Sci Rep. 2022 Nov 4;12(1):18701. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-22502-8. Sci Rep. 2022. PMID: 36333414 Free PMC article.
-
Co-culture of the bone and bone marrow: a novel way to obtain mesenchymal stem cells with enhanced osteogenic ability for fracture healing in SD rats.J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Sep 3;14(1):293. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1346-z. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019. PMID: 31481070 Free PMC article.
-
Is mandible derived mesenchymal stromal cells superior in proliferation and regeneration to long bone-derived mesenchymal stromal cells?World J Methodol. 2023 Mar 20;13(2):10-17. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v13.i2.10. eCollection 2023 Mar 20. World J Methodol. 2023. PMID: 37035028 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The potential of enriched mesenchymal stem cells with neural crest cell phenotypes as a cell source for regenerative dentistry.Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2017 May;53(2):25-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2016.09.001. Epub 2016 Nov 5. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2017. PMID: 28479933 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
FGF signaling in cranial suture development and related diseases.Front Cell Dev Biol. 2023 Jun 1;11:1112890. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2023.1112890. eCollection 2023. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2023. PMID: 37325554 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Calcium Phosphate Delivery Systems for Regeneration and Biomineralization of Mineralized Tissues of the Craniofacial Complex.Mol Pharm. 2023 Feb 6;20(2):810-828. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.2c00652. Epub 2023 Jan 18. Mol Pharm. 2023. PMID: 36652561 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Tracking of Oral and Craniofacial Stem Cells in Tissue Development, Regeneration, and Diseases.Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2021 Dec;19(6):656-668. doi: 10.1007/s11914-021-00705-8. Epub 2021 Nov 6. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2021. PMID: 34741728 Review.
-
An Evolutionary Conserved Signaling Network Between Mouse and Human Underlies the Differential Osteoskeletal Potential of Frontal and Parietal Calvarial Bones.Front Physiol. 2021 Oct 21;12:747091. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.747091. eCollection 2021. Front Physiol. 2021. PMID: 34744787 Free PMC article.
-
Craniomaxillofacial-Derived MSCs in Congenital Defect Reconstruction.Biomolecules. 2025 Jun 30;15(7):953. doi: 10.3390/biom15070953. Biomolecules. 2025. PMID: 40723825 Free PMC article. Review.