isolation, immunophenotyping and lymphocyte suppressive
Post on 01-Jun-2022
8 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Isolation, Immunophenotyping and Lymphocyte Suppressive Properties of Equine
Cord Blood-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells
by
Laurence Tessier
A Thesis
presented to
The University of Guelph
In partial fulfilment of requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
in
Biomedical Sciences
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
© Laurence Tessier, September, 2013
ABSTRACT
Isolation, immunophenotyping and lymphocyte suppressive properties of equine cord blood-
derived mesenchymal stromal cells
Laurence Tessier Advisor:
University of Guelph, 2013 Professor T. G. Koch
Multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have attracted interest for their potential in allogeneic
cytotherapy, partly due to their ability to secrete immunosuppressive factors. However, development of
efficacious and reproducible therapies is hampered by a knowledge-gap in equine MSC characterization.
I hypothesized that equine MSC can be consistently isolated from cord blood, have unique and
reproducible marker expression, which includes cytoplasmic Toll-like receptor (TLR) 3 and TLR4, and
in vitro suppress lymphoproliferation. I aimed to establish the immunophenotype of cord blood-derived-
(CB)-MSC before and after cryopreservation and confirm their ability to suppress in vitro
lymphoproliferation. Cultured CB-MSC expressed CD29, CD44, CD90, and not MHC I, MHC II, CD4,
CD8, CD11a/18, and CD73 before and after cryopreservation. CB-MSC suppressed in vitro
lymphoproliferation and constitutively expressed TLR4. These findings suggest anti-inflammatory
properties of CB-MSC. Lack of MHC I expression suggests reduced risk of allorejection. The
relationship between TLR4 and lymphocyte function requires further investigation.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION OF WORK PERFORMED ..................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................. x
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Characteristics and phenotype of multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells ..................................................... 3
General characteristics and phenotype ................................................................................................................ 3
Flow cytometry ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Antibody-based characterization of equine MSC ............................................................................................... 6
Antigen versus gene expression .......................................................................................................................... 7
Effects of cryopreservation on MSC phenotype ................................................................................................. 8
Temporal phenotype ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Influence of donor age: impact on adult tissue-derived MSC characteristics ..................................................... 9
Embryonic, perinatal and adult sources ............................................................................................................ 10
MSC immunomodulatory properties ................................................................................................................ 10
Selected examples of in vivo MSC immunomodulatory effects ....................................................................... 11
Osteoarthritis ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Graft-versus-host disease .................................................................................................................................. 12
In vitro MSC properties ...................................................................................................................................... 13
MSC secreted soluble factors ........................................................................................................................... 13
MSC effect on different leukocyte subsets ....................................................................................................... 14
MSC polarization paradigm .............................................................................................................................. 16
Toll-like receptors ............................................................................................................................................. 16
TLR expression ................................................................................................................................................. 20
MSC pro-inflammatory and immunosuppressive phenotypes ......................................................................... 21
RATIONALE .......................................................................................................................................................... 25
HYPOTHESIS ........................................................................................................................................................ 25
iv
OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................................................... 25
MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................................................... 26
Experimental design ......................................................................................................................................... 26
Cord-blood collection and shipping .................................................................................................................. 26
CB-MSC isolation and culture .......................................................................................................................... 27
Colony counting, MSC progenitor frequency, population doubling time and cell morphology ...................... 28
Flow cytometric analysis .................................................................................................................................. 28
Real-time polymerase chain reaction relative quantification ............................................................................ 29
Lymphoproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 32
Immunocytochemistry ...................................................................................................................................... 33
Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 34
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................ 36
MSC progenitor frequency population doubling time and cell morphology assessment ................................. 36
Expression of CD90 but loss of leukocyte markers after serial passage and cryopreservation of MSC .......... 36
CD29, CD44 and CD90 are highly and consistently expressed on CB-MSC at passage 5 .............................. 40
CB-MSC decrease lymphocyte proliferation in mixed lymphocyte reactions.................................................. 41
CB-MSC constitutively express TLR4 with minimal up-regulation after LPS stimulation ............................. 43
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND FUTURE EXPERIMENTS ............................................................................ 46
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................................ 52
APPENDIX I - Immune markers and cytokine expression for MSC before and after IL-1B and IL-6
treatment ................................................................................................................................................................. 65
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to the people who have contributed to my graduate experience and
without whom the completion of this program would not have been possible.
I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Thomas G. Koch for giving me the great opportunity to come to
Guelph and work on such exciting research. Thank you for teaching me so much, for being committed
and for propelling me forward. I am very grateful for your patience, encouragements and understanding
during trying times. Your help and guidance of the last two years were always deeply appreciated.
Thank you to my advisory committee members, Drs. Allan King and Dorothee Bienzle, for their patience
and guidance throughout my Master’s program and for sharing with me their broad experience. Thank
you for your feedback and for providing me with help and resources whenever I needed it. Special
thanks to Dr. Bienzle for her generosity and availability at answering my countless interrogations
throughout the program.
Many thanks to Monica Antenos, Tamas Revay, Esther Semple, Helen Coates, Michelle Ross, Laura
Favetta, Liz St-john, Mary Ellen Clark and Betty-Anne McBey for teaching me and helping me through
laboratory techniques. Thank you to all the members of the Biomedical Sciences department for being
great resources. Special thanks to Monica and Tamas for also helping me with PCR data analysis and to
William Sears for his help with statistical analysis.
Special thanks to the current and former Koch lab members: Carmon, Midori, Sarah, Keith, Lynn, and
Crystal for your help, support and feedback. Special thanks to Carmon Co and Midori Buechli for their
friendship and encouragements and for making my time here so special.
vi
None of this would have been possible without the unconditional love and support of my family. Thank
you for always being there for me. Your support keeps pushing me forward and is deeply appreciated.
vii
DECLARATION OF WORK PERFORMED
I declare that all work submitted for assessment of this thesis is my own work with the exception of the
items indicated below.
Mixed lymphocyte reaction plate was stained by Lynn Williams.
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Introduction
Table 1. Studies of equine MSC surface marker expression.
Table 2. Findings on TLR expression in human MSC.
Materials and methods
Table 1. Nucleotide sequence of primers.
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Introduction
Figure 1: Immunomodulatory effects of MSC secreted soluble factors on leukocyte subsets.
Figure 2: TLRs and their ligands.
Figure 3: Human TLR signalling.
Figure 4: TLR4 and TLR3 intracellular signalling.
Figure 5: MSC polarization paradigm.
Materials and methods
Figure 1: Experimental design.
Results
Figure 2: CB-MSC morphology.
Figure 3: Surface marker expression on leukocytes and CB-MSC.
Figure 4: Gene and protein expression of markers on leukocytes and CB-MSC.
Figure 5: High CD90 expression at passage 5.
Figure 6: CD29, CD44 and CD90 are highly and consistently expressed on CB-MSC at passage 5.
Figure 7: CB-MSC decrease lymphocyte proliferation in mixed lymphocyte reactions.
Figure 8: CB-MSC constitutively express TLR4 with minimal up-regulation after LPS stimulation.
x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AGGRECAN Cartilage-specific proteoglycan core protein
ANOVA Analysis of variance
APC Antigen presenting cell
AT-MSC Adipose tissue-derived MSC
B2M Beta-2-microglobulin
BLAST Basic local alignment search tool
BM-MSC Bone marrow-derived MSC
BrdU Bromodeoxyuridine
CB-MSC Cord blood-derived MSC
CCL Chemokine ligand
CD Cluster of differentiation
cDNA Complementary DNA
CFU-F Colony-forming-unit–fibroblast
CI Confidence interval
CIITA Class II major histocompatibility complex transactivator
c-Myc v-myc myelocytomatosis viral oncogene homolog
CXCL Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand
DAB 3,3'-diaminobenzidine
DMEM Dulbecco’s modified eagle medium
DMSO Dimethyl sulfoxide
EDTA Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
FBS Fetal bovine serum
FITC Fluorescein isothiocyanate
xi
HES Hydroxyethyl starch
HGF Hepatocyte growth factor
HLA Human leukocyte antigen
HO-1 Heme oxygenase-1
HPRT1 Hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase 1
HRP Horseradish peroxidase
GVHD Graft-versus-host disease
ICC Immunocytochemistry
IDO Indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase
IFN-γ Interferon gamma
IL Interleukin
IL1RA Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist
IκB Inhibitor of nuclear factor-kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells
IKK Inhibitor of nuclear factor-kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cell kinase
iNOS Inducible nitric oxide synthase
IRAK Interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase
LIF Leukemia inhibitory factor
LPS Lipopolysaccharide
MHC Major histocompatibility complex
MIQE Minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time polymerase chain
reaction experiments
MNC Mononuclear cells
mRNA Messenger RNA
MSC Multipotent mesenchymal stromal cell
MyD88 Myeloid differentiation primary-response protein 88
xii
NANOG Embryonic stem cell specific homeobox protein
NCBI National center for biotechnology information
NF-κB Nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells
OA Osteoarthritis
OCT4 Octamer-binding transcription factor 4
PAMP Pathogen-associated molecular pattern
PBS Phosphate buffered saline
PEQ PrepaCyte-EQ
PGE-2 Prostaglandin E2
Poly (I:C) Polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid
PRDM14 PR domain zinc finger protein 14
qPCR Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction
RPMI Roswell park memorial institute
SSEA Stage-specific embryonic antigen
STRO-1 Stromal cell surface marker-1
TAB Transforming growth factor- -activated kinase -1-binding protein
TAK Transforming growth factor- -activated kinase
TGF-β Transforming growth factor beta
TIR Toll/interleukin-1 receptor
TIRAP Toll/interleukin-1 receptor domain-containing adapter protein
TLR Toll-like receptor
TNAIP6 Tumor necrosis factor-alpha-induced protein 6
TNF-α Tumor necrosis factor alpha
TRAM Toll/interleukin-1 receptor-domain-containing adapter-inducing interferon-β-
related adaptor molecule
xiii
SAS Statistical Analysis System
TRIF Toll/interleukin-1 receptor -domain-containing adapter-inducing interferon-β
UBC Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme
UEV1A Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2 variant 1
1
INTRODUCTION
Osteoarthritis (OA) and post-traumatic OA (PTOA) are some of the most common causes of equine
lameness (Frisbie et al., 2005). Multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have been suggested as
potential therapeutic candidates for joint cartilage and OA in the horse (Frisbie et al., 2009). Stem cells
therapies in veterinary medicine are becoming increasingly popular for a variety of conditions
(Cyranoski, 2013). However, the stem cell area is unregulated and most therapies have almost no
research to justify their use, which has prompted oversight bodies in several countries to carefully follow
the application of veterinary cell-based therapies (Cyranoski, 2013). Investigation on the use of stem
cells in equine veterinary medicine is of particular importance as the horse industry contributes up to $19
billion to the Canadian economy every year. Horse racing by itself contributes up to $300 million in
provincial and federal taxes. In Canada 963,500 horses reside on 145,000 properties (Equine Canada,
2010). Further investigation of equine stem cell therapies to ensure safe and efficacious treatments is
therefore crucial.
MSC are plastic adherent multipotent cells possessing trilineage differentiation potency toward
adipogenic, chondrogenic and osteogenic cell fates (Dominici et al., 2006). In addition, undifferentiated
MSC are attractive cytotherapy candidates as they are capable of secreting immunosuppressive factors
(Caplan et al., 2006). For this reason MSC have been suggested as potential therapeutic candidates for
joint cartilage and OA in the horse (Frisbie et al., 2009). In support of this anti-inflammatory hypothesis,
MSC has convincingly demonstrated immunosuppressive properties in the treatment of human graft-
versus-host disease (GVHD) where the intravenous infusion of bone marrow-derived (BM) MSC is often
curative of steroid refractory GVHD (Ringden et al., 2006).
No complete and consistent phenotype has been reported for equine CB-MSC with regard to antigen and
gene expression. Although MSC immunosuppressive properties have attracted much interest, there is no
2
identified specific predictive MSC marker. MSC immunomodulation phenotype have recently been
associated with TLR expression, specifically TLR3 and TLR4 (Waterman et al., 2010). However, equine
CB-MSC characterization for these markers as well as their link to in vitro lymphocyte suppression and
in vivo immunosuppression has yet to be established.
Better characterization of equine CB-MSC may allow for more reproducible and effective therapies
through selection of cells with known properties. In this study, equine MSC were derived from cord
blood samples in a consistent manner, and cultured over multiple passages. MSC were cryopreserved
and recovered for additional phenotypic and functional studies. MSC were characterized by flow
cytometric interrogation with a panel of antibodies validated for binding specifically to equine antigens.
Furthermore, for each protein assessed flow cytometrically, a qPCR assay was designed and gene
expression was determined. The ability of MSC to suppress allogeneic lymphoproliferation was
determined, and expression of TLR3 and 4 was investigated by qPCR and ICC. Results suggest
consistent phenotype and function of equine CB-MSC, and expression of TLR4 but not TLR3. These
findings contribute to fundamental knowledge of equine stem cells, and will enable future therapeutic
applications.
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Characteristics and phenotype of multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells
The first isolation of multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) from bone marrow was published in
1968 and involved isolation of a hematopoietic precursor population with plastic adherence properties
and fibroblast-like morphology (Friedenstein et al., 1968). MSC have now been isolated from several
sources such as adipose tissue (Zuk et al., 2001), synovial membrane (De Bari et al., 2001), skeletal
muscle (Williams et al., 1999), dental pulp (d’Aquino et al., 2007), perinatal tissues and placenta (In 't
Anker et al., 2004), amniotic fluid (In 't Anker et al., 2003), umbilical cord blood (Rice et al., 2001),
liver, lung, spleen (in 't Anker et al., 2003) and several other organs (Young et al., 1995).
General characteristics and phenotype
Minimal criteria to define human MSC were established by the International Society for Cellular
Therapy (ISCT) in 2005 and 2006 (Dominici et al., 2006; Horwitz et al., 2005). These included
multipotency, plastic adherence and surface expression of CD73, CD90 and CD105 and absence of
expression of CD11b or CD14, CD45, CD34, CD79a or CD19, and human leukocyte antigen-DR (HLA-
DR) (Dominici et al., 2006). Most studies regarding animal MSC have only addressed the first two
criteria due to lack of antibodies with cross-reactivity to equine epitopes. No consistent surface marker
panel has been established yet for animal MSC. Investigations of equine MSC suggested high expression
of CD90, and low or absent expression of CD73 and CD105 (Iacono et al., 2012; Lange-Consiglio et al.,
2013; De Schauwer1 et al., 2012; De Mattos Carvalho et al., 2009; Ranera et al., 2011; Braun et al.,
2010; Ranera et al., 2012; Maia et al., 2013; Radtke et al., 2013; Pascucci et al., 2011; Raabe et al., 2011;
Guest et al., 2008; Carrade et al., 2012; Lovati et al., 2011; Arnhold et al., 2007). Discrepancy was
observed for CD44 and CD73 expression based on assessment of antigen or gene ( Ranera et al., 2011),
potentially explained by lack of cross-reactivity of antibodies, as also suggested by the authors. A
4
consistent surface marker phenotype for antigen and gene expression of equine MSC is still lacking.
Findings on equine MSC surface marker expression published to date are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Studies of equine MSC surface marker expression
Bone marrow Adipose tissue Cord blood
Marker
Surface
antigen
expression
Gene
expression
Surface
antigen
expression
Gene
expression
Surface
antigen
expression
Gene
expression
MHC I ++ to ++++
(14)(15)
+
(1)(13)
++ to ++++
(14)
+ to ++++
(14)(15)
+
(13)
MHC II
-
(14)(15)
Variable
(1)(13)
-
(14)
- to -/+
(2)(14)(15)
+
(2)(13)
CD13 +
(3)
+/- to +
(4)
+
(3)
CD14 -
(15)
+
(5)
+ (% not
specified)
(5)
-to +/-
(6)(15)
CD29 ++++
(3)(14)(15)
+
(1)(3)(13)
++++
(3)(14)
+
(3)
++++
(2)(14)(15)
+
(13)
CD31 -
(3)(7)
-
(3) (7)
CD34 +/-
(3)(8)(9)
-
(3)(5) (7)(10)
+/- to +
(3)(5)(9)
+
(3)(7)
+
(6)
-
(13)
CD44 ++ to ++++
(1)(3)(14)(15)
+
(3)(1)(13)
+ to ++++
(4)(11) (14)
+
(3)(9)
++++
(2)(6)(14)(15)
+
(13)
CD45 +/-
(3)(9)
-
(3)(7)(5)
-/+ to +
(3)(5)(9)
-
(3)(7)
-/+ to +
(2)(6)
CD49d
-
(3)
+
(3)
5
CD73 +
(3)(5)(7)
- (% not
specified)
(5)
+
(3)(7)
Variable
(2)(6)
CD79a -
(15)
-
(2)(15)
CD90 ++++
(3)(8)(9)(14)(15)(16)
+
(3)(5)(7)
++++
(3)(4)(5)(9)(11)(12)(14)
+
(3)(7)(12)
++++
(2)(6)(14)(15)
CD105 +
(1)(3)(5)(7)(13)
(% not
specified)
(5)
+
(3)(7)(12)
Variable
(2)(6)
+
(13)
CD106 +
(3)
+
(3)
CD140b +
(5)
CD146 +
(3)
+
(3)
CD164 +
(5)
(% not
specified)
(5)
CD166 +
(1)(3)(7)
+
(3)(7)
Stromal cell
surface
marker-1
(STRO-1)
+/++
(11)
Surface antigen expression: (-): negative, (+/-): <5%, (+): 5-25%, (++): 25-50%, (+++): 50-75%,
(++++): 75-100%
Gene expression: (-) transcript detected, (+) transcript not detected
References : (1)Lange-Consiglio et al., 2013; (2) De Schauwer1 et al., 2012; (3) Ranera et al., 2011; (4)
De Mattos Carvalho et al., 2009; (5) Braun et al., 2010; (6) Iacono et al., 2012; (7) Ranera et al., 2012;
(8) Maia et al., 2013; (9) Radtke et al., 2013; (10) Violini et al., 2009; (11) Pascucci et al., 2011; (12)
Raabe et al., 2011; (13) Lovati et al., 2011; (14) Carrade et al., 2012; (15) Guest et al., 2008; (16)
Arnhold et al. (2007).
6
Flow cytometry
Flow cytometry is a very powerful technique allowing single cell analysis of multiple parameters within
a heterogeneous cell population. However, it is prone to artefact from non-specific antibody binding, and
cells with high autofluorescence, as reported for human macrophages, may yield false positive signals
(Li et al., 2012). Rigorous controls and confirmation methods should be used, particularly when looking
at intra-cellular epitopes or weak fluorescence, or when using low-affinity antibodies (Li et al., 2012).
Quantitative flow cytometry data should be confirmed with other qualitative or quantitative assays such
as qPCR, Western blot (Li et al., 2012) or confocal microscopy (De Schauwer1 et al., 2012). A protocol
for equine cells phenotyping incorporating antibody-binding assessment on positive control cells and
equine cells by flow cytometry and confocal microscopy was recently reported (De Schauwer1 et al.,
2012). Proper assessment is becoming increasingly necessary, in particular with quantitative multi-color
flow cytometry, since manual compensation and precise population gating are major sources of
variability, even when working with standardized protocols (Maecker et al., 2005).
Antibody-based characterization of equine MSC
A major challenge for equine MSC characterization is the lack of cross-reactive antibodies (Ibrahim et
al., 2007), likely contributing to discrepancies across reports as a consequence of false-positive and
false-negative results. Ranera et al. (2012) found gene expression with qPCR for CD44, CD73 and
CD105, but no antigen expression based on flow cytometry on bone marrow (BM)- and adipose tissue-
(AT)- derived MSC. The authors attributed this discrepancy to lack of antibody cross-reactivity. In
addition, it is important to account for variability in reagents, such as use of directly or indirectly labelled
antibodies, different epitope specificity, and variable lots of antibody, as demonstrated by Radcliffe et al.
(2010). In that study, a CD45RB antibody, previously validated for equine species, yielded inconsistent
flow cytometry results and had non-specific reactivity on Western blot analysis. These results were
validated with gene expression.
7
The use of trypsin/ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) for cell detachment is common practice for
sub-culture of adherent cells. To allow for detachment, proteolytic activity of trypsin causes the cleavage
of surface proteins. This was reported to potentially affect surface expression as detected by flow
cytometry (Corver et al., 1995), inducing additional false-negative results. Generalized proteome
disruption was also reported following sub-culture with 0.05% trypsin-EDTA (Huang1 et al., 2010).
Alternatives to trypsin such as StemPro® Accutase® and Accumax®, marine-origin enzymes with
proteolytic and collagenolytic activity, were reported as more suitable for analysis of surface expression
of CD133 on central nervous system (CNS) cells as compared to trypsin (Panchision et al., 2007; Singh
et al., 2004). Accutase and Accumax were reported to be gentler than trypsin, but the exact composition
of this enzyme mixture is proprietary.
Antigen versus gene expression
Ranera et al. (2012) suggested the lack of antibody-based characterization of equine MSC could be
circumvented by assessing gene expression alone. Gene expression analysis is a very useful tool, but use
as a proxy for protein expression with no additional validation might be inappropriate as many
regulatory processes are involved in the production of a protein from the initial gene transcript. In some
cases, only 40% of protein abundance was accounted for by messenger RNA (mRNA) analysis, while
the remaining 60% were considered due to post-transcriptional regulatory processes (Maier et al., 2009;
Vogel et al., 2013). Estimation of protein levels from mRNA expression, based on the assumption that
mRNA abundance is the main determinant of protein concentration, might therefore be unreliable (Vogel
et al., 2013). In addition, the importance of validating quantitative gene expression assays is still
underestimated (Bar et al., 2012). This review does not cover detailed description of PCR, however
inaccurate estimation of enzyme kinetics, efficiency (Bar et al., 2012; Rutledge et al., 2008) and
thresholds (Ruijter et al., 2009) can profoundly affect robustness of qPCR data.
8
Effects of cryopreservation on MSC phenotype
Cryopreservation allows long-term storage and is a critical step as cryopreserved cells are often used as a
proxy for in vivo experiments. Cell viability and attachment are proposed criteria for indicating
successful cryopreservation of human MSC (Xu et al., 2012). Loss of ability to suppress in vitro
lymphoproliferation immediately after thawing has been reported (François1 et al., 2012). Ability,
however, recovered following a seven-day culture period, suggesting that modifications induced in the
cryopreservation process might be reversible. Conserved CD expression pattern, morphology,
differentiation abilities, alkaline phosphatase activity, telomerase activity, karyotype profile and
proliferation rate, were also reported after cryopreservation (Martinello et al., 2010). A freezing rate of
1°C/min was suggested to preserve spindle shape morphology, in contrast to 5°C/min and 10°C/min
freezing rates (Xu et al., 2012). Cells cryopreserved at a cooling rate of 10°C/min had a more acidic
intra-cellular pH and aggregated mitochondria immediately after cryopreservation (Xu et al., 2012).
Cryo-protectants can be separated into two categories: penetrating cryo-protectants such as dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO), and non-penetrating cryo-protectants, such as hydroxyethyl starch (HES). DMSO
enters the cell removing molecules of water, while HES binds to extracellular molecules of water,
creating a gradient during which intra-cellular water will leave the cell (Stolzing et al., 2012). DMSO is
known to have some toxicity depending on exposure time, temperature, and concentration (Wang et al.,
2007). A concentration of 10% DMSO as compared to 15% and 20% yielded maximum viability post-
cryopreservation for dermal fibroblasts (Wang et al., 2007). HES used alone yielded lower viability post-
thawing as compared to DMSO (Naaldijk et al., 2012). Combination of DMSO and HES up to 10%
concentration resulted in reduced viability when DMSO concentrations were below 4%. Therefore, even
in combination with HES, the DMSO concentration should not be less than 5% of a total of 10% cryo-
protectant volume (Naaldijk et al., 2012).
9
Temporal phenotype
The Hayflick model describes cellular senescence as the number of cell doublings occurring before cell
death by senescence (Hayflick, 1965). This applies to MSC similarly as to other somatic cells. However,
specific mechanisms involved are still poorly understood. In vitro expansion of MSC to increase cell
number is common practice, inducing dynamic changes with time and cell doubling number (Wagner et
al., 2008), ultimately leading to cellular senescence (Hayflick, 1965). Phenotypic drift over time in vitro
was reported (Wagner et al., 2008; Otte et al., 2013; Bonab et al., 2006; Vacanti et al., 2005). Radcliffe
et al. (2010) reported that adherent equine bone marrow-derived MSC after 2 hour in culture were
CD44hi
, CD29hi
, CD90lo
, CD11a/CD18hi
, and CD45RBlo
. Over time, phenotypic drift was noted and at
day 14 the cells were CD44hi
, CD29hi
, and CD90hi
, CD11a/CD18neg
, and CD45RBneg
. While CD29 and
CD44 expression remained homogeneous, CD90 varied in expression and heterogeneity. This is
potentially explained by MSC up-regulation of CD90 or selection for CD90+ cells in culture. MSC were
also suggested to undergo maturation once plated onto plastic with up-regulation of several markers
(Radcliffe et al., 2010). Further cell expansion was not associated with phenotypic changes.
Influence of donor age: impact on adult tissue-derived MSC characteristics
Specifically, aging characteristics of adult tissue-derived MSC, when isolated from donors of different
ages, are not well characterized. Morphological changes were reported after long-term cultures reaching
the maximal lifespan (Stenderup et al., 2003; Baxter et al., 2004) but not for shorter term cultures (Lund
et al., 2010). No differences were observed after 21-28 days of hypoxic culture regarding differentiation
potential, surface marker expression, ability to handle oxidative stress, migratory ability, telomere
length, expression of inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and production of prostaglandin-E2 (PGE-
2) (Lund et al., 2010). When assessed immediately following isolation, or after one passage in vitro, no
differences were reported relative to donor age for expression of octamer-binding transcription factor 4
(OCT4), PR domain zinc finger protein 14 (PRDM14) and embryonic stem cell specific homeobox
10
protein (NANOG), or for differentiation abilities of BM-MSC, suggesting similar differentiation
potency. Similarly, in a mouse model, expression of pluripotency markers such as v-myc
myelocytomatosis viral oncogene homolog (c-Myc) and NANOG was observed for every donor
independently of age (Katsara et al., 2011). Doubling time and colony-forming unit-fibroblast (CFU-F)
were, however, reported to vary significantly according to donor age (Siegel et al., 2013). Molecular
changes related to donor age remain to be characterized. Attempts to establish a gene expression profile
for aging in MSC found no correlation in association with cellular senescence (Alves et al., 2012).
Changes following in vitro expansion will require further characterization.
Embryonic, perinatal and adult sources
MSC variability according to cell source is incompletely characterized. First-trimester fetal MSC from
blood, liver, and bone marrow were found to express pluripotency markers such as OCT4, NANOG, and
stage-specific embryonic antigen (SSEA)-3 and -4 in contrast to adult bone marrow MSC (Guillot et al.,
2007). Additionally, fetal MSC demonstrated more rapid growth, longer telomeres, higher telomerase
activity and myogenic differentiation ability (Chan et al., 2006). Rhesus monkey fetal-derived MSC
demonstrated higher trilineage potential (adipo-, chondro-, and osteo-genesis) and higher growth rates
(Lee et al., 2006). Perinatal tissues were also suggested to contain cell populations expressing embryonic
markers as reported in human cord blood (Baal et al., 2004; McGuckin et al., 2005). In terms of
immunoreactivity, fetal tissue-derived MSC were reported to have greater ability to suppress
lymphoproliferation in vitro as compared to adult-derived MSC (Chan et al., 2012). Contrasting results
have been reported in horses (Koch et al., unpublished results; Carrade et al., 2012; Yoo et al., 2009).
MSC immunomodulatory properties
MSC are receiving intense investigation because of their possible immunomodulatory properties. MSC
are hypothesized to act in two different ways once injected or grafted in vivo. They may directly
11
integrate into functional tissue or secrete trophic and immunomodulating factors which lead to tissue
regeneration (Caplan et al., 2006). The publications concerning the cytokine secretory profile of BM-
MSC by Haynesworth et al. (1996) and one of the first reports on the ability of MSC to suppress
lymphocyte proliferation in vitro in 2002 by Di Nicola et al. laid the basis for use of MSC in various
conditions.
Selected examples of in vivo MSC immunomodulatory effects
Osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a multifactorial condition that often is subdivided into idiopathic OA or
degenerative joint disease (in older individuals), post-traumatic OA (occurring secondary to a joint
injury) and rheumatoid arthritis (Anderson et al., 2011; Nesic et al., 2006; Carrington et al., 2006;
Sacitharan, 2012). Inflammation or inflammatory cytokines such as of IL-1β and tumor necrosis factor-
alpha (TNF-α) (Kapoor et al., 2011; Lawrence et al., 2011) are central agents in the pathogenesis of
idiopathic OA as well as PTOA. Corticosteroids as OA treatments have been reported as beneficial
(Leung et al., 2011) suggesting inflammation as target for treatment and evidences for therapeutic
targeting of IL-1β and TNF-α for idiopathic OA and PTOA are accumulating (Pelletier et al., 1997;
Kobayashi et al., 2005; Westacott et al., 2000). In a dog study, treatment of OA with AT-MSC improved
lameness (Black et al., 2007). In horses, OA arthroscopically treated with BM-MSC had decreased
concentration of PGE-2 in synovial fluid as compared to the control group. However, no other
significant improvement was noted (Frisbie et al., 2009). In another study of horses, the effect of
autologous BM-MSC together with micro-fracture or microfracture along was evaluated in
arthroscopically created joint defects (McIlwraith et al., 2011). Increased accumulation of cartilage-
associated proteoglycan core protein (AGGRECAN) (Kiani et al., 2002) and greater cartilage firmness
were observed in the joint treated with BM-MSC (McIlwraith et al., 2011). A recent pilot study looked at
the effect of intra-articular injection of autologous BM-MSC in 12 human patients with radiologic
12
evidence of OA (Orozco et al., 2013). The authors reported reduced pain and a decrease in the
percentage of poor cartilage for 11 out of 12 patients after 12 months of follow-up (Orozco et al., 2013).
These findings support continued investigations into the overall therapeutic effects, dosage and route of
administration of MSC for the treatment of OA.
Graft-versus-host disease
The first clinical trial using autologous MSC in vivo was reported in 1995 by Lazarus et al. (1995) and
the first report on the use of third party haploidentical MSC for treatment of graft-versus-host disease
(GVHD) was report in 2004 by Le Blanc et al. In the latter study, a 9 year old boy with severe treatment-
resistant grade IV acute GVHD of the gut and liver received MSC. The striking benefit from MSC
treatment suggested high immunosuppressive potency in vivo, and established MSC as potential
treatment for GVHD (Le Blanc et al., 2004). This finding also introduced the use of MSC to treat
steroid-resistant GVHD, and several successful attempts have been reported so far (reviewed in McGuirk
et al., 2011). As this treatment has become more used, observation of failed treatment and differential
response according to different patient cohorts has been reported (Galipeau, 2013). Even though most
reports used BM-MSC, adipose tissue-derived MSC were also applied with similar results. As well,
similar results have been reported for fresh and cryopreserved MSC (McGuirk et al., 2011). As discussed
earlier, perinatal sources offer great advantages, but more studies are required regarding their use in vivo.
MSC offer promising alternatives for treatment of immune-related diseases. However, incomplete
characterization in humans and animal models remains a big problem for application. MSC are
heterogeneous and characterized as a cell population rather than as individual cells, meaning that the
characteristics applied to the population cannot be assumed to apply to each individual cell. Differences
in cell source, donor species and culture conditions also contribute to variation.
13
In vitro MSC properties
MSC secreted soluble factors
MSC secrete a broad range of soluble factors such as hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), PGE-2,
indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase (IDO), nitric oxide (NO), heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), IL-10, IL-6, HLA-
G5, leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) and several chemokines such as chemokine ligands (CCL) 2 and 5
(reviewed in Bassi et al., 2012). These factors act on several leukocyte subsets to promote and/or
suppress inflammation. A summary of current knowledge on immunosuppressive cytokines is shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Immunomodulatory effects of MSC secreted soluble factors on leukocyte subsets. (Bassi et al.,
2012).
14
MSC effect on different leukocyte subsets
Lymphocytes
Subsets of lymphocytes affected by MSC include CD8+ cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTL) and CD4+
helper T-cells (Th), B lymphocytes, regulatory T-cells (Treg), gamma delta T-cells and natural killer
(NK) cells (Wang et al., 2012). The ability of MSC to suppress lymphocyte proliferation in vitro has
been observed consistently (Le Blanc et al., 2007; Ripoll et al., 2011; Le Blanc et al., 2003; Ennis et al.,
2008), and is thought to involve soluble factors such as HGF, IDO, transforming growth factor (TGF)-β,
PGE-2, IL-10, and NO (Kim et al., 2013; Ringden et al.,2011).
T-cells, B-cells, Tregs
Th lymphocyte phenotypes can be divided in two major groups: Th1 pro-inflammatory phenotype and
Th2 anti-inflammatory phenotype with their respective secretion of pro-inflammatory and anti-
inflammatory cytokines (Berger, 2000). MSC are suggested to induce differentiation of naive T cells into
a Th2 rather than Th1 phenotype, as demonstrated by Aggarwal et al. (2005). When co-cultured with
MSC, significant increase in IL-4 secretion along with significant decrease of IFN-γ was observed
(Aggarwal et al., 2005) suggesting a T-cell phenotypic switch from Th1 to Th2 (Mosmann et al., 1989).
MSC were also reported to inhibit lymphocyte differentiation into a CD8+ cytotoxic phenotype
(Rasmusson et al., 2003) to induce T cell differentiation into Treg as demonstrated by Maccario et al.
(2005) and Aggarwal et al. (2005). Treg are a distinct CD4+ T-cell subset, expressing IL-2 receptor α-
chain (CD25) and promoting immunosuppression. MSC also affect Th17 T-cells characterized by IL-17
cytokine secretion (Ghannam et al., 2012). IL-17 was suggested to play a major role in auto-immune
diseases while its deficiency reduced the incidence of joint inflammation and bone erosion in
experimental arthritis, and destructive synovitis (Koender et al., 2005; Lubberts et al., 2005). MSC
inhibited T-cell differentiation into Th17 phenotype in vitro, but also inhibited pro-inflammatory
15
cytokine production of differentiated Th17 T-cells when co-cultured, as demonstrated by down-
regulation of IL-17 and IL-22 along with up-regulation of IL-10 (Ghannam et al., 2010).
MSC arrest B lymphocytes in the G0/G1 phase of the cell cycle (Tabera et al., 2008). This was supported
by the observation that co-culture with MSC did not decrease B cell viability but down-regulated
expression of the proliferation marker Ki67. Proliferation inhibition, increased immunoglobulin
production and increased chemokine receptor expression were also observed in a transwell system,
suggesting soluble factor-mediated interactions (Corcione et al., 2006).
Natural killer cells
The immune system is thought to have evolved around the idea of recognition of “self” as opposed to
“non-self” with associated immune response. The main molecules involved in this mechanism are the
MHC I and II molecules (reviewed in Yin et al., 2012). Cells that do not express surface MHC I were
expected to be ignored by the immune system, even in an allogeneic context. This concept was
challenged regarding NK cell interactions. NK cells are effector lymphocytes of the innate immune
system expressing a broad range of surface markers that control activation, function and proliferation
(reviewed in Lanier et al., 2009). The “Missing Self” theory proposed by Ljunggren et al. (1990)
suggested that NK cells protect the organism by lysing cells lacking MHC I expression as they are not
identified as part of self. Cells with low or absent MHC I expression are then more likely to be targeted
for NK-mediated cell lysis. MHC I expression is typical of MSC. Interestingly, an in vitro study showed
that interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) stimulation of MSC spared them from NK-mediated cell lysis through
increased MHC I expression (Spaggiari et al., 2006). Further studies are required to understand the
interactions between MSC and NK cells in vivo and the potential consequences.
Dendritic cells
16
Dendritic cells (DCs) are derived from CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells (Frelinger et al., 1979) and
act as antigen presenting cells (APC). They play a crucial role in antigen specific T-cell activation
(reviewed by Villadangos et al., 2005 and Spaggiari et al., 2013). MSC interactions with DC result in
indirect suppression of T-cells. The mechanisms of suppression of DCs by MSC are controversial, but it
is thought to involve suppression of precursor maturation, impairment of antigen presenting functions
and decrease of inflammatory abilities.
MSC polarization paradigm
In 2006, a study of human macrophages suggested that there are also two distinct phenotypes: pro-
inflammatory and anti-inflammatory (Verreck et al., 2006). MSC have been widely recognized as
demonstrating an immunosuppressive behavior when exposed to inflammatory environment, but the idea
of a single phenotype was recently challenged by a study which suggested that MSC, similarly to
macrophages, might be classified into a MSC-1-like phenotype with pro-inflammatory features, and a
MSC-2-like phenotype with anti-inflammatory properties (Waterman et al., 2010). TLR3 and TLR4
were suggested to characterize MSC-1 pro-inflammatory and MSC-2 anti-inflammatory phenotypes,
respectively, with each phenotype demonstrating specific cytokine secretion patterns.
Toll-like receptors
TLR are type I transmembrane proteins that play a major role in immunity by recognition of pathogen-
associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) through ectodomains containing leucine-rich repeats (Kawai et
al., 2010). PAMPs include microbe-derived lipids, lipoproteins, proteins and nucleic acids (Kawai et al.,
2010; Akira et al., 2006).
17
Figure 2. TLRs and their ligands. (Takeda et al., 2005).
Each TLR has been associated with a specific ligand (Figure 2). TLR2 is known to recognize
lipoproteins or lipopeptides when forming heterodimers with TLR1 or TLR6. TLR3 recognizes viral
double-stranded RNA, TLR4 recognizes lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and TLR5 recognizes flagellin. TLR7
and TLR8 recognize single stranded RNA, and TLR9 recognizes microbial DNA (reviewed in Uematsu
et al., 2008). While TLR1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are expressed on the cell surface, TLR3, 7, 8 and 9 are intra-
cellular and bind mostly to nucleic acids (Figure 3, Kawai et al., 2010; Akira et al., 2006; Takeda et al.,
2005).
Once bound to a ligand, TLRs dimerize and recruit adaptor proteins, which activate downstream
signalling. There are several intra-cellular adaptor proteins. The best known are myeloid differentiation
primary-response protein 88 (MyD88), Toll/interleukin-1 receptor-domain-containing adapter-inducing
interferon-β (TRIF), TRIF-related adaptor molecule (TRAM) and the TIR domain-containing adapter
protein (TIRAP). MyD88 was the first identified adaptor protein and is involved in signalling for 9 of 10
TLRs. MyD88 signalling (Figure 3) activates the well characterized nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-
18
enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) pathway. MyD88 primarily binds to the intracellular domain of
TLRs, triggering downstream molecule signalling, leading to NF-κB translocation to the nucleus where
it acts as a transcription factor. The MyD88-NF-kB signalling pathway is further summarized in Figure 3
(reviewed by Akira et al., 2004).
Figure 3. Human TLR signalling. (1) Stimulated TLR bind to MyD88 adaptor protein. MyD88 then
recruits IL-1R-associated kinase-(IRAK)-4, creating a complex with IRAK1 and tumor-necrosis-factor
receptor-associated factor-(TRAF)-6. (2) Formation of a protein complex with IRAK1, TRAF6,
transforming growth factor--activated kinase-(TAK)-1, TAK1-binding protein (TAB)-1 and TAB2.
IRAK1 is subsequently degraded and the complex associates with the ubiquitin ligases ubiquitin
conjugating enzyme-(UBC)-13 and ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2 variant 1 (UEV1A). This leads to
the ubiquitylation of TRAF6, which induces the activation of TAK1. (3) TAK1 then phosphorylates the
19
mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinases (4) and the inhibitor of nuclear factor-κB (IκB)-kinase (IKK)
complex. (5) IKK complexe then phosphorylates IκB leading to its degradation, (6) allowing the NF-κB
to translocate to the nucleus and act as a transcription factor (Modified from: Akira et al., 2004).
MyD88-dependent and independent pathways
MyD88 was first identified as an adaptor protein in TLR signalling pathways (Wesche et al., 1997) and
suggested as mandatory for activation of NF-κB (Adachi et al., 1998). However, this was later proven
incorrect as MyD88-deficient mice were still responsive to LPS (Kaisho et al., 2001) and
Polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly (I:C)) (Alexopoulou et al., 2001). An alternative pathway, known
as MyD88-independent pathway, exists for TLR3 and TLR4 and involves TRIF and TRAM adaptor
proteins (Figure 4). In 2001, a study with MyD88-deficient mice demonstrated that LPS-induced IFN
regulatory factor (IRF)-3 and IFN-inducible genes in a MyD88-independent manner, which was
abrogated when inactivating TRIF (Kawai et al., 2001). This suggested signalling of TLR4 through two
specific pathways: MyD88-dependent and independent pathways, the latter being also TRIF-dependent
(Figure 4). MyD88-independent pathway downstream signalling is summarized in Figure 4 for TLR3
and TLR4.
20
Figure 4. TLR4 (A) and TLR3 (B) intra-cellular signalling. Stimulation of TLR4 leads to activation of
two pathways: 1) MyD88-dependant pathway leading to inflammatory cytokines activation through NF-
κB early phase response, and 2) MyD88-independent pathway leading to IFN- production and IFN-
inducible gene expression through NF-κB late phase response. (Akira et al., 2004).
TLR expression
MSC from different sources were reported to express different TLRs at gene and antigen levels, and
expression of these TLRs was suggested to be correlated with their immunomodulatory properties,
particularly TLR3 and TLR4 (Waterman et al., 2010). TLRs expression in human cells is summarized in
Table 2.
Table 2. Findings on TLR expression in human MSC.
Bone marrow Adipose tissue Cord blood Wharton’s jelly
Marker Antigen Gene
expression
Antigen Gene
expression
Antigen Gene
expression
Antigen Gene
expression
TLR1 +
(1) (2) (5)(6)(8)
+
(5) (8)
+
(9)
+
(8)
TLR2 +
(1) (6)
+
(1) (2) (5) (6)(8)
+
(5)
+
(5) (8)
-
(9)
+
(8)
TLR3 +
(1) (6) (8)
+
(1) (2) (5) (6)(8)
+
(5) (8)
+
(5) (8)
+
(9)
+
(8)
+
(8)
TLR4 +
(1) (6) (8)
+
(1)(2)(5)(6)(8)
+
(5) (8)
+
(5) (8)
+
(9)
+
(9)
-
(8)
-
(8)
TLR5 -
(1)
+
(1)(2)(5)(6)(8)
+
(5) (8)
+
(9)
+
(9)
+
(8)
TLR6 + + + +
21
(1)(2)(5)(6)(8) (5) (8) (9)
(8)
TLR7 +
(6)
-
(1) (2) (5)(8)
-
(8)
-
(9)
-
(8)
TLR8 -
(1) (2) (5)(8)
-
(8)
-
(9)
-
(8)
TLR9 +
(6)
- (1)(2)(5)(6)
+ (8)
+
(5)
+
(5) (8)
+
(9)
+
(8)
TLR10 –
(1) (2)(8)
-
(8)
-
(9)
-
(8)
TLR11 -
(1) (2)
Antigen expression level: (-) = antigen expression not detected, (+) = antigen detected. mRNA expression level: (-) = transcript not detected, (+) = transcript detected. References: (1) Raicevic et al., 2010; (2) Liotta et al., 2008; (3) Pevsner-Fischer et al., 2007; (4)
Lombardo et al., 2009; (5) Hwa Cho et al., 2006; (6) Tomchuck et al., 2007; (7) Mastri et al., 2012; (8)
Raicevic et al., 2011; (9) Van den Berk et al., 2009.
MSC pro-inflammatory and immunosuppressive phenotypes
Pro-inflammatory (MSC1-like) and immunosuppressive (MSC2-like) phenotypes are thought be
correlated respectively with TLR4 and TLR3 expression (Figure 5).
22
Figure 5. MSC polarization paradigm. MSC are suggested to present two distinct immunomodulatory
phenotypes: pro-inflammatory (MSC1) driven by TLR4 expression and primed in vitro by LPS, and
immunosuppressive (MSC2) driven by TLR3 expression and primed in vitro by poly(I:C). (Modified
from Bunnell et al., 2010).
This hypothesis was further supported by findings of Waterman et al. (2010) where poly (I:C)-treated
cells demonstrated higher ability to suppress in vitro lymphoproliferation as compared to untreated and
LPS-treated cells. Similarly, LPS-treated cells had reduced ability to suppress in vitro proliferation as
compared to untreated and poly (I:C) treated cells.
In a recent review it was attempted to classify cytokines expressed by MSC according to their
immunosuppressive or pro-inflammatory role: pro-inflammatory cytokines included IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8,
IL-12, type I IFNs and TNF-α while immunosuppressive cytokines included IDO, iNOS, PGE-2, TGF-
β1, HLA-G, HGF, LIF, IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL1RA), CCL2, galectin-3, galectin-1 and semaphorin-
3A and TNF-α-induced protein 6 (TNAIP6) (Bunnell et al., 2010).
In an attempt to characterize each phenotype according to secretion pattern, Waterman et al (2010) used
LPS and poly (I:C) to prime TLR4 and TLR3 expression, respectively. As a result, “TLR3-primed cells”
had increased gene expression of chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand-(CXCL)-10, CCL5, and IL10 as
compared to untreated and LPS-treated cells. This is in accordance with another study where MSC
treatment with poly (I:C) caused up-regulation of gene expression for CCL2 and CXCL10, but also of
IL-6, IL-8 and IFN1β (Tomchuck et al., 2008). In that study levels of IDO and PGE-2 were more
elevated in TLR3-primed cells than TLR4-primed cells. Tomchuck al. (2010) reported that LPS
stimulation to induce TLR4 expression up-regulated gene expression of CXCL10 (IP10), IL-6, IL-8,
IFN1β and NF-κB. Cytokine antibody arrays were subsequently used to test for presence of proteins,
which detected the up-regulation of CXCL10 (IP10), IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-α.
23
There are discrepancies between studies regarding TLR expression patterns, which may, in part, be due
to inconsistent validation of the methods applied. One of the first reports to thoroughly characterize MSC
for TLR expression, and the effect of specific ligand binding, was published in 2008 (Tomchuck et al.,
2008). One finding was the inhibited migration following anti-TLR3 neutralizing antibody treatment.
This suggested involvement of TLR3 in MSC effector functions, as in vivo danger signals are a known
trigger of human MSC migration, invasion, and engraftment into damaged and inflamed tissues
(Tomchuck et al., 2008). However, this report also illustrated the complexity of TLR expression.
Authors reported up-regulation of several TLRs and downstream pathway molecules following
incubation with individual ligand, including LPS and poly (I:C), as assessed by qPCR, as well as a
dynamic pattern of protein localization on immunocytochemical analysis. Donor-donor variation,
referring to variation between individual donors, in response to TLR ligands was also reported
(Tomchuck et al., 2008).
Based on Tomchuck et al. (2008), Waterman et al. (2010) attempted to characterize two distinct MSC
phenotypes following incubation with poly (I:C) and LPS as ligands for TLR3 and 4 respectively. The
two cell phenotypes, designed as “TLR3-primed” and “TLR4-primed”, were suggested to respectively
demonstrate immunosuppressive and pro-inflammatory abilities along with a specific pattern of cytokine
expression. The authors based their induction protocol on the Tomchuck et al. (2008) study, with no
further validation of TLR gene or protein expression, despite reported donor-donor variation. However,
to validate the findings, the study included dominant-negative TLR3 and 4 expression vectors
(Waterman et al., 2010). Therefore, changes regarding CXCL10, CCL5, and IL10 following poly (I:C)
treatment could be attributed to TLR3 (Waterman et al., 2010), which further supported the role of TLR3
in immunosuppression by MSC.
However, considering the complex changes occurring following incubation with ligands, it seems
incorrect to attribute any change of function to a specific TLR, unless it is specifically inhibited. In
24
addition, designating each group as “TLR3-primed” and “TLR4-primed” when TLRs expression was not
determined seems inappropriate. Mastri et al. (2012) reported that the activation of TLR3 resulted in
enhanced cardiac repair. Different concentrations of poly (I:C) at different time points were used, but a
single “representative” qPCR result for TLR3 expression was shown due to presumed similar expression
throughout the experiment. Such consistent expression would be surprising considering the reported
transient changes following poly (I:C) incubation (Tomchuck et al., 2008) as well as donor-related
variation (Tomchuck et al., 2008; Waterman et al., 2010). Furthermore, validation of other TLRs was not
performed. It therefore seems erroneous to attribute the observed functions to TLR3 without further
exploratory experiments such as TLR3-knock-down, and similarly evaluating the role of other TLRs.
Hence, available data on MSC immunomodulatory properties should be carefully analyzed to avoid
misinterpretation.
25
RATIONALE
Osteoarthritis (OA) and post-traumatic OA (PTOA) are some of the most common causes of equine
lameness (Frisbie et al., 2005). Undifferentiated MSC are attractive cytotherapy candidates as they are
capable of secreting immunosuppressive factors (Caplan et al., 2006). For this reason MSC have been
suggested as potential therapeutic candidates for OA in the horse (Frisbie et al., 2009). Advantages of
MSC from cord blood include a non-invasive collection method, high proliferation potential and
differentiation potency, and long-term cryogenic storage (Kern et al., 2006; Kogler et al., 2006; Koch et
al., 2007). Previous inconsistent MSC isolation success from cord blood caused bone marrow and
adipose tissue to be the favoured equine MSC sources. However, an improved CB-MSC protocol was
recently described reporting 100% isolation success for 5 samples (Koch et al., 2009). No consistent
surface marker panel has been established for equine MSC. Better MSC characterization may allow for
more reproducible and effective therapies. Suppressed lymphoproliferation by MSC in vitro is thought to
occur through modulation of T-cell, B-cell, dendritic cell, and NK cell (Le Blanc et al., 2005) function
by secretion of immunosuppressive factors and cell-to-cell contact (Caplan et al., 2006; Caplan, 2009;
Ghannam et al., 2008). It was recently suggested that the human MSC anti-inflammatory phenotype
might be correlated with expression of TLR3 and the pro-inflammatory phenotype with TLR4
(Waterman et al., 2010).
HYPOTHESIS
Equine MSC can be consistently isolated from cord blood, have unique and reproducible marker
expression, which includes cytoplasmic TLR3 and TLR4, and in vitro suppress lymphoproliferation.
OBJECTIVES
1) To establish the immunophenotype of CB-MSC before and after cryopreservation.
2) To determine the in vitro effect on lymphoproliferation of CB-MSC.
3) To determine TLR3 and TLR4 expression of CB-MSC.
26
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental design
Figure 1. Experimental design. CB-MSC cultures were established from nine individual samples and
analyzed for phenotype, gene expression and functional properties as outlined.
Cord-blood collection and shipping
Umbilical cord blood was collected from nine foals immediately after foaling, as previously described
(Koch et al., 2007). Venipuncture of the umbilical vein was performed with a 16G hypodermic needle
attached to a 450 mL blood transfusion collection bag (Fenwal, Baxter, Deerfield, IL) containing citrate
phosphate dextrose adenine as the anticoagulant solution. The blood was stored and transported
overnight by courier at 4-8°C until processed. A Greenbox system (Greenbox system Ltd., ThermoSafe
27
Brands; Arlington Heights, VA) was used for shipping and efficient temperature control for up to 48
hours.
CB-MSC isolation and culture
CB-MSC isolation and culture methods were adapted from a previously described protocol (Koch et al.,
2009) In brief, the NC fraction was isolated using PrepaCyte-EQ (PEQ) medium (BioE Inc., St Paul,
MN). Whole cord-blood was mixed 1:1 with PEQ medium in 50 mL BD Falcon™ conical tubes (BD
Biosciences, Mississauga, ON), mixed for 5 minutes and incubated for 25 minutes at room temperature
(RT). Supernatant was collected, pooled and spun at 400g for 10 minutes at RT. Pellets were suspended
in isolation medium (IM) consisting of Dulbecco’s modified eagle medium (DMEM)-low glucose (1
g/L; Lonza, Wakersville, MD), fetal bovine serum (FBS, 30%; Invitrogen, Burlington, ON), penicillin
(100 IU/mL; Invitrogen), streptomycin (0.1 mg/mL; Invitrogen), L-glutamine (2 mM; Sigma-Aldrich, St.
Louis, MO ) and dexamethasone (10-7
M; Sigma-Aldrich) and incubated at 5% CO2 at 38C in a
humidified atmosphere as previously described (Koch et al., 2009). Live and dead cell counts were
determined using an automated cell counter (NucleoCounter NC-100, Mandel Scientific, Guelph, ON)
and plated at 1x106 live cells/cm
2 in 75 cm² polystyrene cell culture flasks (Corning® Flask, Sigma-
Aldrich) The primary colonies were detached using trypsin/ EDTA (0.04%/0.03%; Sigma-Aldrich) and
hereafter expanded in the same culture medium without dexamethasone (expansion medium, EM).
During expansion, cells were seeded at 5,000/cm2. Cells were cryopreserved in EM with 10% DMSO
(Sigma-Aldrich) using a slow cooling device (Invitrogen) for controlled rate freezing at -80°C for 24
hours, prior to long-term storage in liquid nitrogen. Cell concentration was 1 to 2x10
6/mL.
28
Colony counting, MSC progenitor frequency, population doubling time and cell morphology
After eight days of incubation, cultures were inspected daily for presence of colonies. Confluent colonies
were detached using trypsin/ EDTA (0.04%/0.03%; Sigma-Aldrich) and seeded in one T175 culture
flask. To document cell morphology, digital images were obtained prior to detachment at passage 1, 3, 4
and post-thawing passage 5 using phase-contrast microscopy and Q-Capture software (Q-Imaging,
Surrey, BC). MSC progenitor frequency (PF) was calculated as:
Progenitor frequency (PF)= Colony number x100
Number of initial nucleated cells
Population doubling times were calculated according to:
1) Cell-doubling number (CD) = ln(Nf/Ni)
Ln2
Ln = natural logarithm
Nf = final cell count
Ni = initial cell count
2) Cell-doubling time (DT) = CT/CD
CT = cell culture time
Flow cytometric analysis
Leukocytes (NC fraction) and CB-MSC cultures at passage 2, 3 and 5 were analyzed with flow
cytometry in a FACScan flow cytometer (Becton Dickinson, Mississauga, ON) for the following
antigens: CD4 (clone: CVS4, abdSerotec, Raleigh, NC), CD8 (clone: HTI4A, abdSerotec), CD11a/18
(clone: 116.2D11B10, abdSerotec), CD24 (clone: 4B4- Fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC), Beckman
Coulter Canada, LP, Mississauga, ON), CD44 (clone: CVS18, abdSerotec, Raleigh, NC), CD45 clone:
DH16A; VMRD), CD73 (clone: 10f1; Abcam), CD90 (clone: DH24A; VMRD, Pullman, WA), MHC I
(clone: 117.1B12C11, abdSerotec) and MHC II (clone: 130.8E8C4, abdSerotec). Incubations were at
4°C in the dark for 15 minutes, followed by a wash and secondary antibody incubation at 4°C for 15
minutes in the dark. Rat anti-mouse IgM-FITC or goat anti-mouse IgG1-FITC (both Abcam, Toronto,
29
ON) for CD90 or remaining unconjugated primary antibodies respectively were used as secondary
antibodies. Prior to staining, ammonium chloride (Sigma-Aldrich) red blood cell lysis was performed on
peripheral and cord blood for leukocyte isolation followed by a wash with flow buffer (phosphate buffer
saline (PBS; Sigma Aldrich), 5mM EDTA, 1% horse serum (HS), and 0,1% sodium azide. Similarly,
prior to staining, cultured CB-MSC were chemically detached with Accumax (STEMCELL
Technologies Inc., Vancouver, BC) and washed with flow buffer (PBS, 5mM EDTA, 1% HS, and 0,1%
sodium azide). Leukocytes and MSC at passage 2, 3 and 5 were stained for CD4, CD8, CD11a/18,
CD45, CD90, MHC I and MHC II surface expression. MSC at passage 5 were additionally assessed for
CD24, CD44 and CD73. Cells incubated with only secondary antibodies were included in each
experiment. Cells incubated with isotype-matched non-binding primary antibody and fluorescent
secondary antibody was included in each experiment for IgM and at passage 2, 3 and 5 for IgG isotype.
CD45 and MHC II were respectively used as IgM and IgG isotype-matched non-binding primary
antibody. A minimum of 10,000 events were acquired for each antibody with CellQuest software
(Becton Dickinson) and data were analyzed with FlowJo software (Tree Star Inc., Ashland, OR, USA).
Gates to identify leukocytes or MSC populations were maintained consistent throughout all experiments.
Monoclonal antibody for CD73, previously suggested to cross-react with equine cells (De Schauwer1 et
al., 2012), was initially tested by flow cytometry using human leukocytes as positive control. This was
followed by analysis of equine leukocytes. Samples from humans were collected under University of
Guelph Research Ethics Board (REB; protocol #12FE008). All samples collected from horses were
approved by the University of Guelph Animal Care Committee (protocol #11R034).
Real-time polymerase chain reaction relative quantification
Table 1. Nucleotide sequence of primers.
30
Genes Primers
CD4 5′ CCAGACTGACCAGACTGCAA 3′
5′ TTGGATTCCAGCAGGACTTT 3′
CD8 5′ AGTGGCTGGACTTCGACTGT 3′
5′ CAAACACGTCTTCGGTTCCT 3′
CD11a/18 5′ TTCAGCCAGCAACAAGAAGA 3′
5′ GACAGCTGTGTTCCCACTGA 3′
CD29 5′ CCCTTGCACAAGTGAACAGA 3′
5′ ATTCCTCCAGCCAATCAATG 3′
CD44 5′ ATCCTCACGTCCAACACCTC 3′
5′ CTCGCCTTTCTTGGTGTAGC 3′
CD73 5′ TGATCTTTCCCGAAAACCTG 3′
5′ GGAATCCATCTCCACCATTG 3′
CD90 5′ TGCCTGAGCACACATACCGCTC 3′
5′ GCTTATGCCCTCGCACTTGACC 3′
B2M* 5′ TCGGGCTACTCTCCCTGACT 3′
5′ ATTTCAATCTCAGGCGGATG 3′
CIITA** 5′ GGTGCTACTTCGAGCTTTCG 3′
5′ CCAACGTAGAGTCCGGTGAG 3′
TLR4 5′ CCCACATCAACCAAGGAACT 3′
5′ ATGGTTGAGGCCCTGATATG 3′
TLR3*** 5′ CAAACCCTGGTGGTCCTGTT 3′
5′ GAAGGCCTCTGCTGGGATCT 3′
-actin 5′ TGGGCCAGAAGGACTCATAC 3′
5′ GGGGTGTTGAAGGTCTCAAA 3′
S18 5′ ACTGAGGATGAGGTGGAACG 3′
5′ GCCCGTATCTTCTTCAGTCG 3′
*B2M sequence was used for gene expression detection of MHC I
**CIITA sequence was used for gene expression detection of MHC II
** Previously published sequence in: Figueiredo et al. (2009).
Total RNA was extracted from leukocytes and CB-MSC at passage 3, 4, and 5 using the mirVana
miRNA Isolation Kit (Ambion, Life Technologies, Burlington, ON) following the manufacturer’s
instructions. RNA was quantified using NanoDrop ND-1000 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA)
spectrophotometer, aliquoted and stored at -80°C for subsequent reverse transcription. For
complementary DNA (cDNA) synthesis, RNA was thawed and any potential residual genomic DNA was
31
digested using DNase I amplification grade treatment (Invitrogen), directly followed by reverse
transcription using the SuperScript II Reverse Transcriptase kit (Invitrogen) and random priming of a
constant amount of RNA throughout the experiment. RNA degradation from freezing or thawing was
tested with Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies, Mississauga, ON). RNA integrity numbers
(RIN) were consistently > 9/10 in samples tested.
Relative quantification was performed in a CFX Real-Time PCR Detection System (Bio-Rad, Kitchener,
ON) by two-step real-time qPCR. Primers (Table 1) were designed using Invitrogen OligoPerfect
Designer or the national center for biotechnology information (NCBI) primer-BLAST software or
adapted from previously published sequence (Figueiredo et al, 2009). Beta-2-microglobulin (B2M) and
class II MHC transactivator (CIITA) sequences were used for gene expression detection of MHC I and
II, respectively. For all genes, amplicons were separated by 2% agarose gel electrophoresis, extracted
and purified using the QIAquick Gel Extraction kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). DNA was sequenced
and sequences analyzed using the NCBI basic local alignment search tool (BLAST) tool against equine
sequence. Minimal identity cut-off was set at 96%. CD4 and CD73 primers did not include an intron-
exon spanning junction due to amplification difficulties. Otherwise, all primers were designed to span at
least one intron-exon junction to reduce the likelihood of amplifying genomic DNA. To ensure
specificity of all primers, a sample without reverse transcription (RT-control) and a sample with buffer
but without template (NT-control) was included in each run. PCR assays were performed in triplicate in
a 10 µL total volume consisting of 5 µL of PCR SsoFast EvaGreen Supermix; (Bio-Rad), 0.2 µM of
primer mix, and cDNA template. After an initial incubation at 95 °C for 3 min, reactions were cycled 40
times with denaturation at 95 °C for 5 s, annealing for 5 s at temperatures specific for each primer pair,
and extension at 72 °C for 15 s. Amplification specificity was determined with melting-curve analysis
whereby each amplicon was heated from 65 to 95 °C. Efficiency for each primer pair was determined
from a standard curve generated from peripheral blood leukocytes or cDNA of target samples. qPCR
32
data were analyzed by the delta-delta Ct method (∆∆Ct) (Livak et al., 2001) using two endogenous
reference genes chosen following the minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time
PCR experiment (MIQE) guidelines (Bustin et al., 2009). Expression stability analysis of the reference
genes was performed with GeNorm software. Initial selection of housekeeping genes was based on
review of current literature (Radcliffe et al., 2010; Ranera et al., 2012) and availability of equine
sequence data and thus comprised of, β-actin, S18, B2M, and hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase 1
(HPRT1). Based on GeNorm analysis, only two housekeeping genes were selected based on the lowest
variability in expression across samples. Assessment of variability in expression for the different genes
was based on the M-value calculated as the average pairwise variation of a gene compared to the other
control genes (Nailis et al., 2006). The initial cut-off M-value was < 1.5, and S18 and β-actin were
selected to be used together as reference genes for subsequent relative quantification.
Lymphoproliferation
Blood was obtained from the jugular vein of five adult horses of variable breeds and sex with an 18G
hypodermic needle attached to a 500 to 1000 mL blood transfusion collection bag (Fenwal, Baxter,
Deerfield, IL). Mononuclear cells (MNC) were isolated a using Ficoll-density gradient. At RT 15 mL of
Ficoll-Paque Plus (density 1.078 g/mL, STEMCELL Technologies) was loaded in a 50 mL tube with 35
mL of whole blood. Gradients was centrifuged at 300g for 30 min at RT with no brake. Interphases
containing the MNC fraction was carefully removed, pooled and washed with PBS. Supernatant was
then removed and pellets were washed again with 10 mL of PBS. Pellets were then resuspended in 10
mL of RMPI 1640 medium supplemented with penicillin (100 IU/mL; Invitrogen), streptomycin (0.1
mg/mL; Invitrogen) and 10% FBS (Invitrogen), and a live cell count was performed with an automatic
cell counter (NC-100, Chemometec). Cells were resuspended in freshly prepared cryomedium consisting
of Roswell park memorial institute (RPMI) 1640 media supplemented with penicillin (100 IU/mL)
(Invitrogen), streptomycin (0.1 mg/mL; Invitrogen), 10% FBS (Invitrogen) and 10% DMSO (Sigma-
33
Aldrich) at a concentration of 6x106 cells/mL. One mL of cell suspension was placed in a 2 mL cryovial
(Corning® Flask, Sigma-Aldrich) on ice for 30 minutes before gradual freezing over 12-18 hours, and
storage in liquid nitrogen.
For assessing lymphocyte suppression, triplicate cultures of 1x105 responder MNC were incubated with
either 10,000 irradiated autologous MNC or 10,000 irradiated allogeneic MNC (pooled from three
horses), yielding 10:1 responder:stimulator cell ratios. These cultures served, as negative and positive
controls, respectively. The test wells were comprised of 1x105 MNC unrelated to MSC cultures, 10,000
irradiated pooled allogeneic MNC and 10,000 irradiated MSC. Cells were cultured in RPMI 1640 media
supplemented as above. Reactions were incubated for five days in round-bottom 96 well plates in 250-
300 µL volume. Bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) staining was performed with a FITC BrdU Flow Kit (BD
Biosciences). Parameters for flow cytometry were set according to the manufacturer’s instructions. One
mM of BrdU was added to MNC cultures on day five and cells were incubated for 24 hours. Cells were
then fixed and permeabilized according to the manufacturer’s instructions. FITC-conjugated antibody to
BrdU was incubated with cells for 20 minutes at RT. Subsequently, 7-AAD was added for 5 minutes,
and cells were analyzed. All data were analyzed using the same settings as above with 5,000 events
acquired per triplicate sample. Appropriate negative samples were included in each experiment.
Immunocytochemistry
For ICC staining, 5,000 MSC were cultured in 250 µL of EM in 8-well permanox chamber slides
(Thermo Fisher Scientific) until 60-80% confluency. Cells were exposed to 1 µg/mL of poly (I:C)
(Sigma-Aldrich) and 10 ng/mL of LPS (Sigma-Aldrich) for TLR3 and TLR4 induction for one hour. For
ICC, cells were first washed thrice with PBS and fixed in situ for 5 minutes with 4% paraformaldehyde
(PFA; Invitrogen), washed thrice with PBS and permeabilized with 0.1% Triton for 15 minutes. Cells
were then washed again and treated with 3% hydrogen peroxide for 15 minutes. Non-specific antibody
34
binding was blocked by incubation with 5% FBS for 10 minutes followed by a one hour exposure to
polyclonal primary antibody for TLR3 or TLR4 (both IMGENEX, San Diego, CA). Cells were then
washed three times with PBS and incubated for one hour with goat anti-rabbit secondary antibody
(Abcam). Bound antibody linked to horseradish peroxidase (HRP) was detected using 3,3'-
diaminobenzidine (DAB) chromogen (DAKO, Burlington, ON). Cells were counterstained with Harris
hematoxylin to visualize nuclei and images were acquired on a phase contrast microscope.
Statistical analysis
All data were analysed with SAS software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Effects were considered significant
at P ≤ 0.05. Because flow cytometry data were recorded as percentage values, a logit transform with a
bias correction term was applied (logit = log[(r+k)/(n–r+k)] where r cells, out of n cells counted, were
positive and k is the bias correction term, 0.25). The MSC marker panel of MHC I, MHC II, CD4, CD8,
CD11a/18, CD90 and the mixed lymphocyte reaction data were analyzed using a three-factor factorial
analysis of variance (ANOVA) without replication with covariate (negative control). The MSC marker
panel of CD29, CD44, CD73 and CD90 was analyzed as single assays using a two-factor factorial
ANOVA and Pmax as a covariate. Data were back-transformed and plotted as percentage of positive
staining with 95% confidence intervals (CI); back-transforms of the differences are odds ratios, with
appropriate CIs. All possible two-way interactions among factors were assessed as well as factor by
covariate interactions and the covariate quadratics. All non-significant terms were removed. Relative
quantification of all qPCR data were analyzed using a two-factor factorial in a randomized block with
sub-sampling, accommodating unequal variances amongst targets to meet ANOVA assumption. Multiple
comparisons were subsequently adjusted using Tukey’s HSD method. For CD8 and CIITA, transcripts
were detected only once precluding statistical analysis. Analysis of residuals was performed to assess the
ANOVA assumption. Residuals were plotted against the predicted values and explanatory variables used
in the model. The residuals were tested for normality using the four tests offered by SAS: Shapiro-Wilk,
35
Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-von Mises, and Anderson-Darling. Residual analyses may identify
potential outliers, bimodal distributions, unequal variances, the need for data transformations or other
problems that need addressing.
36
RESULTS
MSC progenitor frequency population doubling time and cell morphology assessment
Nine out of nine cord blood samples yielded colonies with classic spindle-shaped fibroblast-like
morphology (not shown) giving an isolation success rate of a 100%. The number of colonies for each
sample varied between 1 and 14, with a progenitor frequency between 4.44 x10-7
% to 6.22 x10-6
%, e.g.
one MSC per 1.61x105
- 2.25x106
NC. All the CB-MSC cultures were expandable to the point of
cryopreservation in the range of 1.1x106 – 13.8x10
6 at the end of passage 2. The cell-doubling times
(DT) were as follows: passage 2 to 3 (n=9): 1.67 ± 0.15, passage 3 to 4 (n=9): 1.68± 0.15, passage 4 to 5
(n=5): 1.89 ± 0. 58.
Cells also demonstrated spindle-shaped fibroblast-like morphology at passage 1 (Fig. 2A), 3 (Fig. 2B), 4
(Fig. 2C) and post-cryopreservation passage 5 (Fig. 2D).
Morphology was preserved through passaging.
Figure 2. CB-MSC morphology. CB-MSC have
fibroblast-like morphology which is preserved
throughout passage 1 to 5 (A-D); a = 40x, b = 100x.
Images were adjusted for black and white balance,
brightness and contrast.
Expression of CD90 but loss of leukocyte markers after
serial passage and cryopreservation of MSC
Following red blood cell lysis, leukocyte population was
MHC I +, MHC II
+, CD4
+, CD8
+, CD11a/18
+ and
CD90+ at antigen (Fig. 3, 4B) and gene expression level (Fig. 4A). Flow cytometry histograms (Fig. 3)
demonstrate decreased expression for all markers at passage 2 except for CD90. For the leukocyte
A
B
A
C
D
37
population, CD90 staining appears as two distinct peaks, which progressively became the single peak
observed at passage 5, suggesting increased homogeneity of CD90 expression with time in culture.
Expression of other markers remained similar for subsequent passages.
Figure 3. Surface marker expression on leukocytes and CB-MSC. Histograms represent leukocytes, and
CB-MSC at passage 2, 3 and 5 in gate 1: cells incubated with antibody (blue line) compared to control
antibody (black line) for a representative sample. Results were similar for samples from 5 animals.
Numbers in each plot represent the mean percent positive cells for each marker, and the confidence
interval.
MHC I MHC II CD4 CD8 CD11a/18 CD90
Passage 2
Passage 3
Cel
l co
un
t
FL1-H
Leukocyte
99.13 %
[98.32-99.55]95.78 %
[92.11-
97.79]
25.09 %
[14.69-39.44]
30.32 %
[18.28 -45.84]
91.40 %
[84.52-95.38]
47.41 %
[27.68-67.97]
1.46 %
[0.68-3.09]
1.93 %
[0.90-4.07]
0.53%
[0.22-1.24]1.03%
[0.47-2.27]
1.57 %
[0.66 - 3.66]
95.09 %
[89.75-97.71]
3.41 %
[1.79- 6.39]
2.28 %
[1.19-4.32]
1.72 %
[0.89-3.27]
3.23 %
[1.70-6.05]
4.93 %
[2.61-9.10]
93.19 %
[87.55 -
96.38]
G1
G1
G1
4.57 %
[2.14-9.46]
2.56 %
[1.19-5.42]
2.67 %
[1.24-5.64]
2.39 %
[1.11-5.07]
4.40 %
[2.07-9.12]
94.68 %
[89.67 -97.33]Passage 5
G1
38
Surface antigen expression presented in Fig. 3 is also reported in Fig. 4B in combination with gene
expression (Fig. 4A). Antigen (Fig. 4B) and gene expression (Fig. 4A) significantly decreased for all
markers after culture except for CD90, for which expression
significantly increased. Between passage 2 and 3, no
significant change was observed for CD90, MHC I and MHC
II expression. Slight but significant increases in protein
expression was observed for CD8 and CD11a/18 and a
significant increase of gene and protein expression was noted
for CD4. Transcripts for CIITA and CD8 were detectable
only for the leukocyte population.
Figure 4. Gene and protein expression of markers on
leukocytes and CB-MSC. Gene (A) and protein (B)
expression were assessed with qPCR and flow cytometry,
respectively, on leukocytes, and on CB-MSC at passage 2
and 3. A. Gene expression was normalized to S18 and -
actin, and is shown relative to the lowest average CT. B.
Surface protein expression presented as percentage of
positive cells. Bars represent CI. Significance set at p<0.05
and different letters indicate significant differences between
groups. Protein and gene expression of all markers except
CD90 was significantly down-regulated in culture. There was
significant up-regulation of CD90 surface expression at passage 2, slight but significant increase of CD8
and CD11a/18 surface expression at passage 2 and 3, and significant up-regulation of CD4 gene and
-1
4
9
14MHC I
a
-5
45
95
MHC I
b b
-0.001
0.002
0.005
0.008
MHC II
-5
45
95
MHC II
-0.02
0.08
0.18CD4
-5
45
95
CD4
-0.001
0.004
0.009CD8
-5
45
95CD8
-0.1
0.4
0.9
1.4CD11a/18
-5
45
95
CD11a/18
-0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5CD90
-5
35
75
115CD90
b b
a
b c
a
b b
a
a
a
a
a
b b
a
b c
a
b c
a
b c
a
b b
Rel
ativ
e gen
e ex
pre
ssio
n
Posi
tive
cell
s (%
)
A B
Rel
ativ
e m
RN
A e
xpre
ssio
n
39
surface expression at passage 2 and 3. Transcripts for MHC II and CD8 were detected only in the
leukocyte samples.
CD29, CD44 and CD90 are highly and consistently expressed on CB-MSC at passage 5
At passage 5 following cryopreservation (Fig. 5), MHC I, MHC II, CD4, CD8, CD11a/18 demonstrated
low antigen (Fig. 5A) and gene (Fig. 5B) expression as compared to high expression for CD90.
However, due to the lack of a reliable inter-run calibrator, it is impossible to compare expression levels
before and after cryopreservation.
Figure 5. High CD90 expression at passage 5. Protein (A) and gene (B) expression were assessed with
qPCR and flow cytometry, respectively, for CB-MSC at passage 5. A. The percent positive cells. B.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Posi
tive
cell
s (%
)
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Rel
ativ
e m
RN
A e
xpre
ssio
n
B
A
40
Gene expression normalized to S18 and -actin and relative to the lowest average CT. Error bars
represent CI. Protein and gene expression for all markers except CD90 was significantly down-
regulation in culture. There was high CD90 protein and gene expression for CB-MSC at passage 5
compared to MHC I, MHC II, CD4, CD8 and CD11a/18.
CD29, CD44 and CD90 are highly and consistently expressed on CB-MSC at passage 5
CB-MSC were assessed post-cryopreservation at passage 5. Flow cytometry histograms demonstrated a
single peak (Fig.6A), suggesting homogeneity in expression. Antigen expression is also reported in Fig.
6B in combination with gene expression (Fig. 6C). Fig. 6B demonstrates similar high expression of
CD29, CD44, and CD90, but significantly lower expression of CD73 for antigen expression. For gene
expression (Fig. 6C), high expression of MSC markers CD29, CD44 was observed, with significantly
lower expression of CD90 as compared to CD29 and CD44.
0
20
40
60
80
100
po
siti
ve
cell
s (%
)
a a
b
c
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Rel
ativ
e m
RN
A e
xp
ress
ion
aa
a
b
CD29 CD44 CD73 CD90
Cel
l co
unt
Passage 5 91,73 %
[87.16 -94.77]
1,97 %
[1.27-3.06]
99,56 %
[99.30-99.72] 99,55 %
[99.29-99.71]
A
B C
41
Figure 6. CD29, CD44 and CD90 are highly and consistently expressed on CB-MSC at passage 5. A.
Histograms represent the percent of stained (blue line) CB-MSC at passage 5 in gate 1 relative to
negative control (black line). Results are representative of 5 experiments. Numbers in each plot represent
the mean percent positive cells for each marker, and the confidence interval. B. Graphical representation
of flow cytometry results from 5 experiments. C. Relative gene expression, error bars represent CI.
Significance set at p<0.05 and different letters indicate significant differences between groups. CB-MSC
at passage 5 had consistently high expression of CD29, CD44 and CD90 relative to CD73. CD29 and
CD44 had significantly higher protein expression than CD90.
CB-MSC decrease lymphocyte proliferation in mixed lymphocyte reactions
All CB-MSC cultures tested demonstrated significant suppression of lymphocyte proliferation and 3 out
of 4 groups showed proliferation significantly lower than the negative control (autologous) group (Fig.
7).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
% B
rdU
posi
tive
cell
s
c b b
a
a
a,b
A
42
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20%
Brd
U p
osi
tive
cell
s
a
b
a
c c c
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
% B
rdU
posi
tive
cell
s
a
b
aa
a a
43
Figure 7. CB-MSC decrease lymphocyte proliferation in mixed lymphocyte reactions. Four CB-MSC
cultures each suppressed in vitro lymphocyte proliferation (A). Means of all cultures are shown in (B).
Proliferation was detected by BrdU incorporation and flow cytometry. Negative control: autologous
responder and stimulator lymphocytes. Positive control: allogeneic responder and stimulator
lymphocytes. Different letters indicate significant differences (P<0.05) between groups, bars indicate CI.
CB-MSC constitutively express TLR4 with minimal up-regulation after LPS stimulation
TLR3 and TLR4 were assessed for gene expression with qPCR (Fig. 8A, B) and protein expression with
ICC (Fig. 8C, D) before and after incubation with poly (I:C) for and LPS respectively. TLR4 was
constitutively expressed at antigen (Fig. 8D) and gene expression (8B) levels and expression was not
significantly changed after treatment with LPS. TLR3 gene expression was low (<35 Ct) (Fig. 8A) and
correlated with low protein expression (Fig. 8C). Statistical analysis suggested significant up-regulation
following treatment with poly (I:C), however, expression remained over 35 Ct.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9%
Brd
U p
osi
tiv
e ce
lls
a
b
a,c
c c c
B
44
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
2
Rel
ativ
e gen
e ex
pre
ssio
nTLR3
Ct˃35a
Ct˃35b
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Rel
ativ
e m
RN
A e
xpre
ssio
n
TLR4
aaCt<35
Ct<35
B
A
45
Figure 8. CB-MSC constitutively express TLR4 with minimal up-regulation after LPS stimulation. Gene
expression of TLR3 (A) and TLR4 (B) was normalized to S18 and -actin and expressed relative to
untreated samples. Bars indicate CI. Significance set at p<0.05 and different letters indicate significant
differences between groups. B. ICC for TLR3 (C) and TLR4 (D). Negative secondary antibody control
for (a), staining of untreated CB-MSC (b), and staining of CB-MSC after treatment with poly (I:C) or
LPS (c). TLR4 antigen and gene expression was detected in CB-MSC, and showed minimal response to
LPS stimulation. There was significant TLR3 gene up-regulation after poly (I:C) stimulation, but
expression remained very low and inconsistently detectable by ICC.
C D
46
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND FUTURE EXPERIMENTS
I report a 100% success rate of MSC isolation from equine cord blood. MSC isolation success of 100%
from cord blood was first reported in the horse (Koch et al., 2009), and confirmed in this study with a
greater number of samples. This is an important finding since it confirms that this method is robust for
the isolation of equine CB-MSC and not operator-dependent. A major advantage of CB-MSC compared
to adult MSC from bone marrow and adipose tissue is that a highly differentiation potent population of
MSC can be obtained non-invasively and be cryopreserved for later use (Kern et al., 2006; Kogler et al.,
2006; Koch et al., 2007). However, the number of human cord blood samples successfully yielding MSC
was generally reported to be low as no MSC progenitor could be isolated in a number of samples
(Bieback et al., 2004). In equine medicine the use of autologous CB-MSC is now only challenged by the
risk of cord blood collection failure at the time of foaling. Once cord blood is collected CB-MSC can be
reliably isolated.
I report, for the first time, a consistent constellation of antigens expressed on CB-MSC consisting of
CD29, CD44, CD90, along with lack of surface MHC I, MHC II, CD4, CD8, CD11a/18, and CD73.
Consistent with my results, De Schauwer2 et al.
(2012) found no major differences in phenotype before
and after cryopreservation, except for CD73, which demonstrated less variation (De Schauwer2 et al.,
2012). Findings regarding presence of transcripts detection for CD29, CD44 and MHC I (B2M) and
absence of transcripts for MHC II (CIITA in my study) after culture and cryopreservation are in
agreement with a previous report by Lovati et al. (2011). As expected, following the initial leukocyte
isolation, surface antigen expression was; MHC Ihigh
, MHC IIhigh
, CD4high
, CD8high
, CD11a/18high
and
CD90high
. Monolayer culture expansion subsequently negatively selected for these antigens with the
exception of CD90 which expression up-regulated significantly. Phenotype as of passage 2 was then
MHC Ilow/neg
, MHC IIlow/neg
, CD4low/neg
, CD8low/neg
, CD11a/18low/neg
and CD90high
. Between passage 2 and
47
3, antigen and gene expression for CD4, and antigen expression for CD8 and CD11a/18 significantly
increased. However, it was only a slight increase and expression remained very low. As reviewed earlier,
CD90 was expected to be highly expressed as it is known as positive on equine MSC. This result is also
in accordance with a previous study looking at temporal phenotype of equine BM-MSC reported CD44hi
,
CD29hi
, CD90low
, CD11a/CD18hi
, and CD45RBlow
expression 2 hours after culture, which became
CD44hi
, CD29hi
, and CD90hi
, CD11a/CD18neg
, and CD45RBneg
after 14 days in culture (Radcliffe et al.,
2010). My results showed a similar pattern of expression. Expression of the lymphocyte markers CD4
and CD8 has not previously been reported in equine MSC, but my results are consistent with the
observation that CD4 and CD8 positive lymphocytes do not adhere to plastic. These cells were therefore
likely removed through media changes and sub-culturing.
The consistently low CB-MSC MHC I antigen expression following culture contrasts the findings of a
previous study on equine CB-MSC that found surface expression of MHC I (49-95%) (Carrade et al.,
2012). In the same study, similar expression was also reported for equine BM-, AT- and CB-MSC
(Carrade et al., 2012). In this thesis, all surface antigens detected were also interrogated with qPCR-
assays for gene expression, hence, MHC I expression can be regarded as a robust finding. Differences in
surface expression between two independent studies can be influenced by several factors such as culture
conditions and variability in reagents. Variation can occur between different antibody sources, clones or
lot numbers. However, even if the antibody I used was different than the one used by Carrade et al., it
does not explain the observed discrepancy, since I also found consistent low B2M gene expression.
Since B2M expression is required for surface expression of MHC I molecules (Otten et al., 1992), this
supports the MHC I result and suggests the low MHC I expression is real. A notable difference between
my culture method and that of Carrade et al. (2012) is the presence of dexamethasone in my isolation
medium. The possible influence of dexamethasone on MHC I expression was not investigated. However,
48
unrestricted somatic stem cells (USSC), pluripotent cells present in cord blood, are also isolated in
presence of dexamethasone and express surface MHC I (Kögler et al., 2004).
An immunoprivileged phenotype of these equine CB-MSC is suggested by the low MHC I expression
(Hass et al., 2011). Neural stem cells negative for MHC I were reported to not be recognized by
cytotoxic T lymphocytes and NK cell in vitro in a mouse model (Mammolenti et al., 2004). However,
more work is needed to determine if MHC I high or low expression is related to different culture
conditions, and whether this phenotype is stable in time. The immunoprivileged phenotype has been
suggested to be unstable and equine CB-MSC MHC I expression has been found to be up-regulated
following inflammation (Carrade et al., 2012). In addition, MSC differentiation has been associated with
increased immunoreactivity, which may be due to altered MHC expression. For example, adipo-, osteo-
and chondro-genic differentiation of human MSC increased MHC I expression, but not MHC II in vitro
(Le Blanc et al., 2003). However, the same report suggests efficient in vitro suppression of
lymphoproliferation by MSC even after 2 weeks in differentiation medium (Le Blanc et al., 2003).
Transition from an immunoprivileged to an immunoreactive phenotype is suggested to occur gradually.
Injection of allogeneic MSC into rat infarcted myocardium did not elicit an immune response after 1
week, but did after 5 weeks as evaluated by cytokine expression in the heart and presence of alloantibody
in the recipient circulation. Allogeneic, but not syngeneic, MSC failed to restore cardiac function 6
months after induced myocardium infarct (Huang2 et al., 2010), suggesting involvement of MHC I and II
in the reported failure. Thus, long-term transition of MSC to an alloreactive phenotype remains an
important area of research in order to determine the key factors that limit or facilitate successful MSC
allogeneic treatments.
In addition, I report consistent ability of equine MSC to suppress lymphocyte proliferation in vitro,
consistent with similar report on equine cord blood-derived MSC (Carrade et al., 2012). I also report
49
constitutive TLR4 expression and low/absent TLR3 expression. This is in contrast with my hypothesis
based on human reports. This is the first report regarding TLR3 and TLR4 expression on equine CB-
MSC, and suggests potential inter-species differences. In vitro suppression of lymphoproliferation is
used as a proxy for possible anti-inflammatory effect of MSC in vivo. The mechanisms by which MSC
exert their immunomodulation abilities is still largely unknown, but it was recently suggested that
expression of TLRs might be important determinants. TLR3 has been suggested as involved in the MSC
immunomodulation abilities, while TLR4 associated with a pro-inflammatory phenotype (Tomchuck et
al., 2008; Waterman et al., 2010). Interestingly, I observed constitutive expression of TLR4 at both
antigen and gene expression level as well as very low and inconsistent TLR3 mRNA expression along
with lack of consistent ICC staining. Similar to my results, constitutive TLR4 expression has been
reported in human BM-, AT-, and CB-MSC as well as in mouse BM-derived MSC. However, contrary to
my results, some reports also demonstrated constitutive expression of TLR3 (Raicevic et al., 2010; Liotta
et al., 2008; Hwa Cho et al., 2006; Tomchuck et al., 2007; Pevsner-Fischer et al., 2007; Raicevic et al.,
2011; van den Berk et al., 2009). More investigation into the relation of TLR3 and TLR4 expression
with MSC immunomodulation properties are required. Knock-down of TLR3 and TLR4 separately with
subsequent assessment in mixed lymphocyte reaction is suggested to test TLR3 and 4 involvements in
equine CB-MSC ability to suppress in vitro lymphoproliferation. TLR3- and TLR4-knocked-out cells
reactivity to IFN- treatment should also be tested. Similar assessment could be performed with MyD88-
and TRIF-knocked-out cells to test whether or not MyD88 involvement is more decisive of immune
abilities than an individual TLR.
In addition, based on previous reports, it was unexpected that TLR4 and TLR3 mRNA and protein
expression was not upregulated following stimulation with LPS and poly (I:C), respectively. Only one
concentration and assessment time point was used. Dose titration and temporal assessment may reveal
50
differences. At this point in time, no consensus protocol exists for TLR up-regulation using specific
ligands, as reports on the responses are conflicting. It appears to depend on several factors, such as cell
source and species as reported by Waterman et al. (2010). Both TLR3 and TLR4 are also specifically
known to exert inter-species differences (Lundberg et al., 2007; Ferwerda et al., 2008).
From a clinical point of view, identification of a specific cell population by detection of a surface marker
would be desirable, since it might allow cell sorting. However, no constitutively expressed markers have
been correlated with immunosuppressive abilities of MSC. Responsiveness to IFN- would currently not
allow single cell analysis and marker-based cell isolation, but would be very useful to assess the general
immune abilities of MSC-derived from a particular donor. MSC from individuals yielding higher
immunosuppressive abilities could then be used in priority for allogeneic cytotherapy, as suggested by
Galipeau (2013) regarding human donors. Human MSC abilities to suppress lymphocyte proliferation
were suggested to correlate to IDO responsiveness after IFN- treatment (François2 et al., 2012).
However, this possible surrogate marker to quantify the response seems variable across species, as
indicated by variability between humans and mice (Ren et al., 2008). In horses, no report specifically
answered this question. However, a report by Carrade et al. (2012) suggests IL-6 and PGE-2 as potential
candidates rather than IDO or iNOS. I also report up-regulation of IL-6 gene expression in response to
IL-1 (Appendix III). Measurement of IDO, iNOS, IL-6 and PGE-2 quantitative expression following
incubation with IFN- in vitro with qPCR and western blots is suggested. Subsequently, each cytokine
could be separately knocked-down and knocked-out CB-MSC assessed in a mixed lymphocyte reaction
to assess potential lost of immunomodulatory abilities.
In conclusion, CB-MSC can consistently be isolated and possess specific surface phenotype post-
cryopreservation. The CB-MSC phenotype of CD90high
, and MHC I low/absent
, MHC II low/absent
, CD4
51
low/absent, CD8
low/absent and CD11a/18
low/absent was unaffected by cryopreservation. In addition, CB-MSC at
passage 5 post-cryopreservation highly expressed CD29 and CD44 with low/absent expression of CD73.
In contrast to my hypothesis, I found constitutive expression of TLR4 on equine CB-MSC along with
lack of TLR3 expression. Further studies are required to characterize TLR expression on CB-MSC as
well as their functional abilities, and involvement in immunomodulatory phenotype. Low MHC I
expression suggests a reduced risk of CB-MSC being immediately rejected in vivo. Further
characterization of mechanisms by which MSC exert their immunomodulatory properties is required.
The work presented is an important step toward clinical use of CB-MSC and further investigation of the
role of TLR3 and TLR4 in equine MSC immunomodulatory mechanism.
52
REFERENCES
Adachi O, Kawai T, Takeda K, Matsumoto M, Tsutsui H, Sakagami M, Nakanishi K, Akira S: Targeted
disruption of the MyD88 gene results in loss of IL-1- and IL-18-mediated function. Immunity 1998,
9(1):143-150.
Aggarwal S, Pittenger MF: Human mesenchymal stem cells modulate allogeneic immune cell responses.
Blood 2005, 105(4):1815-1822.
Akira S, Uematsu S, Takeuchi O: Pathogen recognition and innate immunity. Cell 2006, 124(4):783-801.
Alexopoulou L, Holt AC, Medzhitov R, Flavell RA: Recognition of double-stranded RNA and activation
of NF-kappaB by Toll-like receptor 3. Nature 2001, 413(6857):732-738.
Alves H, van Ginkel J, Groen N, Hulsman M, Mentink A, Reinders M, van Blitterswijk C, de Boer J: A
mesenchymal stromal cell gene signature for donor age. PLoS One 2012, 7(8):e42908.
Anderson DD, Chubinskaya S, Guilak F, Martin JA, Oegema TR, Olson SA, Buckwalter JA: Post-
traumatic osteoarthritis: improved understanding and opportunities for early intervention. J Orthop Res
2011, 29(6):802-809.
Arnhold SJ, Goletz I, Klein H, Stumpf G, Beluche LA, Rohde C, Addicks K, Litzke LF: Isolation and
characterization of bone marrow-derived equine mesenchymal stem cells. Am J Vet Res 2007,
68(10):1095-1105.
Baal N, Reisinger K, Jahr H, Bohle RM, Liang O, Munstedt K, Rao CV, Preissner KT, Zygmunt MT:
Expression of transcription factor Oct-4 and other embryonic genes in CD133 positive cells from human
umbilical cord blood. Thromb Haemost 2004, 92(4):767-775.
Bar T, Kubista M, Tichopad A: Validation of kinetics similarity in qPCR. Nucleic Acids Res 2012,
40(4):1395-1406.
Bassi EJ, de Almeida DC, Moraes-Vieira PM, Camara NO: Exploring the role of soluble factors
associated with immune regulatory properties of mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cell Rev 2012,
8(2):329-342.
Baxter MA, Wynn RF, Jowitt SN, Wraith JE, Fairbairn LJ, Bellantuono I: Study of telomere length
reveals rapid aging of human marrow stromal cells following in vitro expansion. Stem Cells 2004,
22(5):675-682.
Berger A: Th1 and Th2 responses: what are they? BMJ 2000, 321(7258):424.
Bieback K, Kern S, Kluter H, Eichler H: Critical parameters for the isolation of mesenchymal stem cells
from umbilical cord blood. Stem Cells 2004, 22(4):625-634.
Black LL, Gaynor J, Gahring D, Adams C, Aron D, Harman S, Gingerich DA, Harman R: Effect of
adipose-derived mesenchymal stem and regenerative cells on lameness in dogs with chronic
53
osteoarthritis of the coxofemoral joints: a randomized, double-blinded, multicenter, controlled trial. Vet
Ther 2007, 8(4):272-284.
Bonab MM, Alimoghaddam K, Talebian F, Ghaffari SH, Ghavamzadeh A, Nikbin B: Aging of
mesenchymal stem cell in vitro. BMC Cell Biol 2006, 7:14.
Braun J, Hack A, Weis-Klemm M, Conrad S, Treml S, Kohler K, Walliser U, Skutella T, Aicher WK:
Evaluation of the osteogenic and chondrogenic differentiation capacities of equine adipose tissue-derived
mesenchymal stem cells. Am J Vet Res 2010, 71(10):1228-1236.
Bunnell BA, Betancourt AM, Sullivan DE: New concepts on the immune modulation mediated by
mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther 2010, 1(5):34.
Caplan AI: Why are MSCs therapeutic? New data: new insight. J Pathol 2009, 217(2):318-324.
Caplan AI, Dennis JE: Mesenchymal stem cells as trophic mediators. J Cell Biochem 2006, 98(5):1076-
1084.
Carrade DD, Lame MW, Kent MS, Clark KC, Walker NJ, Borjesson DL: Comparative Analysis of the
Immunomodulatory Properties of Equine Adult-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells(). Cell Med 2012,
4(1):1-11.
Carrington JL: Aging bone and cartilage: cross-cutting issues. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005,
328(3):700-708.
Cassatella MA, Mosna F, Micheletti A, Lisi V, Tamassia N, Cont C, Calzetti F, Pelletier M, Pizzolo G,
Krampera M: Toll-like receptor-3-activated human mesenchymal stromal cells significantly prolong the
survival and function of neutrophils. Stem Cells 2011, 29(6):1001-1011.
Chan CK, Wu KH, Lee YS, Hwang SM, Lee MS, Liao SK, Cheng EH, See LC, Tsai CN, Kuo ML,
Huang JL: The comparison of interleukin 6-associated immunosuppressive effects of human ESCs, fetal-
type MSCs, and adult-type MSCs. Transplantation 2012, 94(2):132-138.
Chan J, O'Donoghue K, Gavina M, Torrente Y, Kennea N, Mehmet H, Stewart H, Watt DJ, Morgan JE,
Fisk NM: Galectin-1 induces skeletal muscle differentiation in human fetal mesenchymal stem cells and
increases muscle regeneration. Stem Cells 2006, 24(8):1879-1891.
Corcione A, Benvenuto F, Ferretti E, Giunti D, Cappiello V, Cazzanti F, Risso M, Gualandi F, Mancardi
GL, Pistoia V, Uccelli A: Human mesenchymal stem cells modulate B-cell functions. Blood 2006,
107(1):367-372.
Corver WE, Cornelisse CJ, Hermans J, Fleuren GJ: Limited loss of nine tumor-associated surface
antigenic determinants after tryptic cell dissociation. Cytometry 1995, 19(3):267-272.
Cyranoski D: Stem cells boom in vet clinics. Nature 2013, 496(7444):148-149.
d'Aquino R, Graziano A, Sampaolesi M, Laino G, Pirozzi G, De Rosa A, Papaccio G: Human postnatal
dental pulp cells co-differentiate into osteoblasts and endotheliocytes: a pivotal synergy leading to adult
bone tissue formation. Cell Death Differ 2007, 14(6):1162-1171.
54
De Bari C, Dell'Accio F, Tylzanowski P, Luyten FP: Multipotent mesenchymal stem cells from adult
human synovial membrane. Arthritis Rheum 2001, 44(8):1928-1942.
DelaRosa O, Lombardo E, Beraza A, Mancheno-Corvo P, Ramirez C, Menta R, Rico L, Camarillo E,
Garcia L, Abad JL, Trigueros C, Delgado M, Buscher D: Requirement of IFN-gamma-mediated
indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase expression in the modulation of lymphocyte proliferation by human
adipose-derived stem cells. Tissue Eng Part A 2009, 15(10):2795-2806.
de Mattos Carvalho A, Alves AL, Golim MA, Moroz A, Hussni CA, de Oliveira PG, Deffune E:
Isolation and immunophenotypic characterization of mesenchymal stem cells derived from equine
species adipose tissue. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2009, 132(2-4):303-306.
De Schauwer1 C, Piepers S, Van de Walle GR, Demeyere K, Hoogewijs MK, Govaere JL, Braeckmans
K, Van Soom A, Meyer E: In search for cross-reactivity to immunophenotype equine mesenchymal
stromal cells by multicolor flow cytometry. Cytometry A 2012, 81(4):312-323.
De Schauwer2 C, van de Walle GR, Piepers S, Hoogewijs MK, Govaere JL, Meyer E, van Soom A:
Successful isolation of equine mesenchymal stromal cells from cryopreserved umbilical cord blood-
derived mononuclear cell fractions. Equine Vet J 2013, 45(4):518-522.
Di Nicola M, Carlo-Stella C, Magni M, Milanesi M, Longoni PD, Matteucci P, Grisanti S, Gianni AM:
Human bone marrow stromal cells suppress T-lymphocyte proliferation induced by cellular or
nonspecific mitogenic stimuli. Blood 2002, 99(10):3838-3843.
Dominici M, Le Blanc K, Mueller I, Slaper-Cortenbach I, Marini F, Krause D, Deans R, Keating A,
Prockop D, Horwitz E: Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The
International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy 2006, 8(4):315-317.
Ennis J, Gotherstrom C, Le Blanc K, Davies JE: In vitro immunologic properties of human umbilical
cord perivascular cells. Cytotherapy 2008, 10(2):174-181.
Equine Canada: 2010 Canadian Equine Industry Profile Study. Retrieved from:
http://www.equinecanada.ca/industry/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=103&Itemid=5
59&lang=en; august 26 2013, 9pm.
Ferwerda B, McCall MB, Verheijen K, Kullberg BJ, van der Ven AJ, Van der Meer JW, Netea MG:
Functional consequences of toll-like receptor 4 polymorphisms. Mol Med 2008, 14(5-6):346-352.
Figueiredo MD, Salter CE, Andrietti AL, Vandenplas ML, Hurley DJ, Moore JN: Validation of a reliable
set of primer pairs for measuring gene expression by real-time quantitative RT-PCR in equine
leukocytes. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2009, 131(1-2):65-72.
Fortier LA, Nixon AJ, Williams J, Cable CS: Isolation and chondrocytic differentiation of equine bone
marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Am J Vet Res 1998, 59(9):1182-1187.
Francois1 M, Copland IB, Yuan S, Romieu-Mourez R, Waller EK, Galipeau J: Cryopreserved
mesenchymal stromal cells display impaired immunosuppressive properties as a result of heat-shock
response and impaired interferon-gamma licensing. Cytotherapy 2012, 14(2):147-152.
55
Francois2 M, Romieu-Mourez R, Li M, Galipeau J: Human MSC suppression correlates with cytokine
induction of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase and bystander M2 macrophage differentiation. Mol Ther
2012, 20(1):187-195.
Frelinger JG, Hood L, Hill S, Frelinger JA: Mouse epidermal Ia molecules have a bone marrow origin.
Nature 1979, 282(5736):321-323.
Friedenstein AJ, Petrakova KV, Kurolesova AI, Frolova GP: Heterotopic of bone marrow. Analysis of
precursor cells for osteogenic and hematopoietic tissues. Transplantation 1968, 6(2):230-247.
Frisbie DD: Future directions in treatment of joint disease in horses. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract
2005, 21(3):713-24, viii.
Frisbie DD, Kisiday JD, Kawcak CE, Werpy NM, McIlwraith CW: Evaluation of adipose-derived
stromal vascular fraction or bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells for treatment of osteoarthritis.
J Orthop Res 2009, 27(12):1675-1680.
Galipeau J: The mesenchymal stromal cells dilemma--does a negative phase III trial of random donor
mesenchymal stromal cells in steroid-resistant graft-versus-host disease represent a death knell or a
bump in the road? Cytotherapy 2013, 15(1):2-8.
Ghannam S, Pene J, Torcy-Moquet G, Jorgensen C, Yssel H: Mesenchymal stem cells inhibit human
Th17 cell differentiation and function and induce a T regulatory cell phenotype. J Immunol 2010,
185(1):302-312.
Guest DJ, Smith MR, Allen WR: Monitoring the fate of autologous and allogeneic mesenchymal
progenitor cells injected into the superficial digital flexor tendon of horses: preliminary study. Equine
Vet J 2008, 40(2):178-181.
Guillot PV, Gotherstrom C, Chan J, Kurata H, Fisk NM: Human first-trimester fetal MSC express
pluripotency markers and grow faster and have longer telomeres than adult MSC. Stem Cells 2007,
25(3):646-654.
Guo B, Slevin M, Li C, Parameshwar S, Liu D, Kumar P, Bernabeu C, Kumar S: CD105 inhibits
transforming growth factor-beta-Smad3 signalling. Anticancer Res 2004, 24(3a):1337-1345.
Hass R, Kasper C, Bohm S, Jacobs R: Different populations and sources of human mesenchymal stem
cells (MSC): A comparison of adult and neonatal tissue-derived MSC. Cell Commun Signal 2011, 9:12-
811X-9-12.
Hayflick L: The Limited in Vitro Lifetime of Human Diploid Cell Strains. Exp Cell Res 1965, 37:614-
636.
Haynesworth SE, Baber MA, Caplan AI: Cytokine expression by human marrow-derived mesenchymal
progenitor cells in vitro: effects of dexamethasone and IL-1 alpha. J Cell Physiol 1996, 166(3):585-592.
56
Horwitz EM, Le Blanc K, Dominici M, Mueller I, Slaper-Cortenbach I, Marini FC, Deans RJ, Krause
DS, Keating A, International Society for Cellular Therapy: Clarification of the nomenclature for MSC:
The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy 2005, 7(5):393-395.
Huang1 HL, Hsing HW, Lai TC, Chen YW, Lee TR, Chan HT, Lyu PC, Wu CL, Lu YC, Lin ST, Lin
CW, Lai CH, Chang HT, Chou HC, Chan HL: Trypsin-induced proteome alteration during cell
subculture in mammalian cells. J Biomed Sci 2010, 17:36-0127-17-36.
Huang2 XP, Sun Z, Miyagi Y, McDonald Kinkaid H, Zhang L, Weisel RD, Li RK: Differentiation of
allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells induces immunogenicity and limits their long-term benefits for
myocardial repair. Circulation 2010, 122(23):2419-2429.
Hwa Cho H, Bae YC, Jung JS: Role of toll-like receptors on human adipose-derived stromal cells. Stem
Cells 2006, 24(12):2744-2752.
Ibrahim S, Saunders K, Kydd JH, Lunn DP, Steinbach F: Screening of anti-human leukocyte monoclonal
antibodies for reactivity with equine leukocytes. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2007, 119(1-2):63-80.
in 't Anker PS, Noort WA, Scherjon SA, Kleijburg-van der Keur C, Kruisselbrink AB, van Bezooijen
RL, Beekhuizen W, Willemze R, Kanhai HH, Fibbe WE: Mesenchymal stem cells in human second-
trimester bone marrow, liver, lung, and spleen exhibit a similar immunophenotype but a heterogeneous
multilineage differentiation potential. Haematologica 2003, 88(8):845-852.
Kaisho T, Takeuchi O, Kawai T, Hoshino K, Akira S: Endotoxin-induced maturation of MyD88-
deficient dendritic cells. J Immunol 2001, 166(9):5688-5694.
Kapoor M, Martel-Pelletier J, Lajeunesse D, Pelletier JP, Fahmi H: Role of proinflammatory cytokines
in the pathophysiology of osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2011, 7(1):33-42.
Katsara O, Mahaira LG, Iliopoulou EG, Moustaki A, Antsaklis A, Loutradis D, Stefanidis K, Baxevanis
CN, Papamichail M, Perez SA: Effects of donor age, gender, and in vitro cellular aging on the
phenotypic, functional, and molecular characteristics of mouse bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem
cells. Stem Cells Dev 2011, 20(9):1549-1561.
Kawai T, Akira S: The role of pattern-recognition receptors in innate immunity: update on Toll-like
receptors. Nat Immunol 2010, 11(5):373-384.
Kern S, Eichler H, Stoeve J, Kluter H, Bieback K: Comparative analysis of mesenchymal stem cells
from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, or adipose tissue. Stem Cells 2006, 24(5):1294-1301.
Kiani C, Chen L, Wu YJ, Yee AJ, Yang BB: Structure and function of aggrecan. Cell Res 2002,
12(1):19-32.
Kim N, Im KI, Lim JY, Jeon EJ, Nam YS, Kim EJ, Cho SG: Mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment
and prevention of graft-versus-host disease: experiments and practice. Ann Hematol 2013.
Kobayashi M, Squires GR, Mousa A, Tanzer M, Zukor DJ, Antoniou J, Feige U, Poole AR: Role of
interleukin-1 and tumor necrosis factor alpha in matrix degradation of human osteoarthritic cartilage.
Arthritis Rheum 2005, 52(1):128-135.
57
Koch TG, Heerkens T, Thomsen PD, Betts DH: Isolation of mesenchymal stem cells from equine
umbilical cord blood. BMC Biotechnol 2007, 7:26.
Koch TG, Thomsen PD, Betts DH: Improved isolation protocol for equine cord blood-derived
mesenchymal stromal cells. Cytotherapy 2009, 11(4):443-447.
Koenders MI, Lubberts E, Oppers-Walgreen B, van den Bersselaar L, Helsen MM, Di Padova FE, Boots
AM, Gram H, Joosten LA, van den Berg WB: Blocking of interleukin-17 during reactivation of
experimental arthritis prevents joint inflammation and bone erosion by decreasing RANKL and
interleukin-1. Am J Pathol 2005, 167(1):141-149.
Kogler G, Sensken S, Airey JA, Trapp T, Muschen M, Feldhahn N, Liedtke S, Sorg RV, Fischer J,
Rosenbaum C, Greschat S, Knipper A, Bender J, Degistirici O, Gao J, Caplan AI, Colletti EJ, Almeida-
Porada G, Muller HW, Zanjani E, Wernet P: A new human somatic stem cell from placental cord blood
with intrinsic pluripotent differentiation potential. J Exp Med 2004, 200(2):123-135.
Kogler G, Sensken S, Wernet P: Comparative generation and characterization of pluripotent unrestricted
somatic stem cells with mesenchymal stem cells from human cord blood. Exp Hematol 2006,
34(11):1589-1595.
Krampera M, Cosmi L, Angeli R, Pasini A, Liotta F, Andreini A, Santarlasci V, Mazzinghi B, Pizzolo G,
Vinante F, Romagnani P, Maggi E, Romagnani S, Annunziato F: Role for interferon-gamma in the
immunomodulatory activity of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells 2006,
24(2):386-398.
Krampera M, Glennie S, Dyson J, Scott D, Laylor R, Simpson E, Dazzi F: Bone marrow mesenchymal
stem cells inhibit the response of naive and memory antigen-specific T cells to their cognate peptide.
Blood 2003, 101(9):3722-3729.
Lange-Consiglio A, Corradetti B, Meucci A, Perego R, Bizzaro D, Cremonesi F: Characteristics of
equine mesenchymal stem cells derived from amnion and bone marrow: in vitro proliferative and
multilineage potential assessment. Equine Vet J 2013.
Lanier LL: NK cell recognition. Annu Rev Immunol 2005, 23:225-274.
Lawrence JT, Birmingham J, Toth AP: Emerging ideas: prevention of posttraumatic arthritis through
interleukin-1 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibition. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011, 469(12):3522-
3526.
Lazarus HM, Haynesworth SE, Gerson SL, Rosenthal NS, Caplan AI: Ex vivo expansion and subsequent
infusion of human bone marrow-derived stromal progenitor cells (mesenchymal progenitor cells):
implications for therapeutic use. Bone Marrow Transplant 1995, 16(4):557-564.
Le Blanc K, Pittenger M: Mesenchymal stem cells: progress toward promise. Cytotherapy 2005, 7(1):36-
45.
58
Le Blanc K, Rasmusson I, Sundberg B, Gotherstrom C, Hassan M, Uzunel M, Ringden O: Treatment of
severe acute graft-versus-host disease with third party haploidentical mesenchymal stem cells. Lancet
2004, 363(9419):1439-1441.
Le Blanc K, Ringden O: Immunomodulation by mesenchymal stem cells and clinical experience. J Intern
Med 2007, 262(5):509-525.
Le Blanc K, Tammik C, Rosendahl K, Zetterberg E, Ringden O: HLA expression and immunologic
properties of differentiated and undifferentiated mesenchymal stem cells. Exp Hematol 2003,
31(10):890-896.
Lee CC, Ye F, Tarantal AF: Comparison of growth and differentiation of fetal and adult rhesus monkey
mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells Dev 2006, 15(2):209-220.
Leung A, Liew D, Lim J, Page C, Boukris-Sayag V, Mundae M, Wong M, Choong P, Dowsey M,
Clemens L, Lim K: The effect of joint aspiration and corticosteroid injections in osteoarthritis of the
knee. Int J Rheum Dis 2011, 14(4):384-389.
Li F, Yang M, Wang L, Williamson I, Tian F, Qin M, Shah PK, Sharifi BG: Autofluorescence
contributes to false-positive intracellular Foxp3 staining in macrophages: a lesson learned from flow
cytometry. J Immunol Methods 2012, 386(1-2):101-107.
Liotta F, Angeli R, Cosmi L, Fili L, Manuelli C, Frosali F, Mazzinghi B, Maggi L, Pasini A, Lisi V,
Santarlasci V, Consoloni L, Angelotti ML, Romagnani P, Parronchi P, Krampera M, Maggi E,
Romagnani S, Annunziato F: Toll-like receptors 3 and 4 are expressed by human bone marrow-derived
mesenchymal stem cells and can inhibit their T-cell modulatory activity by impairing Notch signaling.
Stem Cells 2008, 26(1):279-289.
Ljunggren HG, Karre K: In search of the 'missing self': MHC molecules and NK cell recognition.
Immunol Today 1990, 11(7):237-244.
Lombardo E, DelaRosa O, Mancheno-Corvo P, Menta R, Ramirez C, Buscher D: Toll-like receptor-
mediated signaling in human adipose-derived stem cells: implications for immunogenicity and
immunosuppressive potential. Tissue Eng Part A 2009, 15(7):1579-1589.
Lovati AB, Corradetti B, Lange Consiglio A, Recordati C, Bonacina E, Bizzaro D, Cremonesi F:
Comparison of equine bone marrow-, umbilical cord matrix and amniotic fluid-derived progenitor cells.
Vet Res Commun 2011, 35(2):103-121.
Lubberts E, Schwarzenberger P, Huang W, Schurr JR, Peschon JJ, van den Berg WB, Kolls JK:
Requirement of IL-17 receptor signaling in radiation-resistant cells in the joint for full progression of
destructive synovitis. J Immunol 2005, 175(5):3360-3368.
Lund TC, Kobs A, Blazar BR, Tolar J: Mesenchymal stromal cells from donors varying widely in age
are of equal cellular fitness after in vitro expansion under hypoxic conditions. Cytotherapy 2010,
12(8):971-981.
59
Lundberg AM, Drexler SK, Monaco C, Williams LM, Sacre SM, Feldmann M, Foxwell BM: Key
differences in TLR3/poly I:C signaling and cytokine induction by human primary cells: a phenomenon
absent from murine cell systems. Blood 2007, 110(9):3245-3252.
Maccario R, Podesta M, Moretta A, Cometa A, Comoli P, Montagna D, Daudt L, Ibatici A, Piaggio G,
Pozzi S, Frassoni F, Locatelli F: Interaction of human mesenchymal stem cells with cells involved in
alloantigen-specific immune response favors the differentiation of CD4+ T-cell subsets expressing a
regulatory/suppressive phenotype. Haematologica 2005, 90(4):516-525.
Maecker HT, Rinfret A, D'Souza P, Darden J, Roig E, Landry C, Hayes P, Birungi J, Anzala O, Garcia
M, Harari A, Frank I, Baydo R, Baker M, Holbrook J, Ottinger J, Lamoreaux L, Epling CL, Sinclair E,
Suni MA, Punt K, Calarota S, El-Bahi S, Alter G, Maila H, Kuta E, Cox J, Gray C, Altfeld M,
Nougarede N, Boyer J, Tussey L, Tobery T, Bredt B, Roederer M, Koup R, Maino VC, Weinhold K,
Pantaleo G, Gilmour J, Horton H, Sekaly RP: Standardization of cytokine flow cytometry assays. BMC
Immunol 2005, 6:13.
Maia L, Landim-Alvarenga FC, Da Mota LS, De Assis Golim M, Laufer-Amorim R, De Vita B,
Barberini DJ, Listoni AJ, De Moraes CN, Heckler MC, Amorim RM: Immunophenotypic,
immunocytochemistry, ultrastructural, and cytogenetic characterization of mesenchymal stem cells from
equine bone marrow. Microsc Res Tech 2013, 76(6):618-624.
Maier T, Guell M, Serrano L: Correlation of mRNA and protein in complex biological samples. FEBS
Lett 2009, 583(24):3966-3973.
Mammolenti M, Gajavelli S, Tsoulfas P, Levy R: Absence of major histocompatibility complex class I
on neural stem cells does not permit natural killer cell killing and prevents recognition by alloreactive
cytotoxic T lymphocytes in vitro. Stem Cells 2004, 22(6):1101-1110.
Martinello T, Bronzini I, Maccatrozzo L, Iacopetti I, Sampaolesi M, Mascarello F, Patruno M:
Cryopreservation does not affect the stem characteristics of multipotent cells isolated from equine
peripheral blood. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2010, 16(4):771-781.
Mastri M, Shah Z, McLaughlin T, Greene CJ, Baum L, Suzuki G, Lee T: Activation of Toll-like receptor
3 amplifies mesenchymal stem cell trophic factors and enhances therapeutic potency. Am J Physiol Cell
Physiol 2012, 303(10):C1021-33.
McGuckin CP, Forraz N, Baradez MO, Navran S, Zhao J, Urban R, Tilton R, Denner L: Production of
stem cells with embryonic characteristics from human umbilical cord blood. Cell Prolif 2005, 38(4):245-
255.
McGuirk JP, Weiss ML: Promising cellular therapeutics for prevention or management of graft-versus-
host disease (a review). Placenta 2011, 32 Suppl 4:S304-10.
McIlwraith CW, Frisbie DD, Rodkey WG, Kisiday JD, Werpy NM, Kawcak CE, Steadman JR:
Evaluation of intra-articular mesenchymal stem cells to augment healing of microfractured chondral
defects. Arthroscopy 2011, 27(11):1552-1561.
Mosmann TR, Coffman RL: TH1 and TH2 cells: different patterns of lymphokine secretion lead to
different functional properties. Annu Rev Immunol 1989, 7:145-173.
60
Naaldijk Y, Staude M, Fedorova V, Stolzing A: Effect of different freezing rates during cryopreservation
of rat mesenchymal stem cells using combinations of hydroxyethyl starch and dimethylsulfoxide. BMC
Biotechnol 2012, 12:49-6750-12-49.
Nailis H, Coenye T, Van Nieuwerburgh F, Deforce D, Nelis HJ: Development and evaluation of
different normalization strategies for gene expression studies in Candida albicans biofilms by real-time
PCR. BMC Mol Biol 2006, 7:25.
Nesic D, Whiteside R, Brittberg M, Wendt D, Martin I, Mainil-Varlet P: Cartilage tissue engineering for
degenerative joint disease. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2006, 58(2):300-322.
Orozco L, Munar A, Soler R, Alberca M, Soler F, Huguet M, Sentis J, Sanchez A, Garcia-Sancho J:
Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with autologous mesenchymal stem cells: a pilot study. Transplantation
2013, 95(12):1535-1541.
Otte A, Bucan V, Reimers K, Hass R: Mesenchymal Stem Cells Maintain Long-Term In Vitro Stemness
During Explant Culture. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2013.
Otten GR, Bikoff E, Ribaudo RK, Kozlowski S, Margulies DH, Germain RN: Peptide and beta 2-
microglobulin regulation of cell surface MHC class I conformation and expression. J Immunol 1992,
148(12):3723-3732.
Panchision DM, Chen HL, Pistollato F, Papini D, Ni HT, Hawley TS: Optimized flow cytometric
analysis of central nervous system tissue reveals novel functional relationships among cells expressing
CD133, CD15, and CD24. Stem Cells 2007, 25(6):1560-1570.
Pascucci L, Curina G, Mercati F, Marini C, Dall'Aglio C, Paternesi B, Ceccarelli P: Flow cytometric
characterization of culture expanded multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) from horse adipose
tissue: towards the definition of minimal stemness criteria. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2011, 144(3-
4):499-506.
Pelletier JP, Caron JP, Evans C, Robbins PD, Georgescu HI, Jovanovic D, Fernandes JC, Martel-
Pelletier J: In vivo suppression of early experimental osteoarthritis by interleukin-1 receptor antagonist
using gene therapy. Arthritis Rheum 1997, 40(6):1012-1019.
Pevsner-Fischer M, Morad V, Cohen-Sfady M, Rousso-Noori L, Zanin-Zhorov A, Cohen S, Cohen IR,
Zipori D: Toll-like receptors and their ligands control mesenchymal stem cell functions. Blood 2007,
109(4):1422-1432.
Raabe O, Shell K, Wurtz A, Reich CM, Wenisch S, Arnhold S: Further insights into the characterization
of equine adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Vet Res Commun 2011, 35(6):355-365.
Radcliffe CH, Flaminio MJ, Fortier LA: Temporal analysis of equine bone marrow aspirate during
establishment of putative mesenchymal progenitor cell populations. Stem Cells Dev 2010, 19(2):269-
282.
Radtke CL, Nino-Fong R, Esparza Gonzalez BP, Stryhn H, McDuffee LA: Characterization and
osteogenic potential of equine muscle tissue- and periosteal tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells in
61
comparison with bone marrow- and adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Am J Vet Res 2013,
74(5):790-800.
Raicevic G, Najar M, Stamatopoulos B, De Bruyn C, Meuleman N, Bron D, Toungouz M, Lagneaux L:
The source of human mesenchymal stromal cells influences their TLR profile as well as their functional
properties. Cell Immunol 2011, 270(2):207-216.
Raicevic G, Rouas R, Najar M, Stordeur P, Boufker HI, Bron D, Martiat P, Goldman M, Nevessignsky
MT, Lagneaux L: Inflammation modifies the pattern and the function of Toll-like receptors expressed by
human mesenchymal stromal cells. Hum Immunol 2010, 71(3):235-244.
Ranera B, Lyahyai J, Romero A, Vazquez FJ, Remacha AR, Bernal ML, Zaragoza P, Rodellar C,
Martin-Burriel I: Immunophenotype and gene expression profiles of cell surface markers of
mesenchymal stem cells derived from equine bone marrow and adipose tissue. Vet Immunol
Immunopathol 2011, 144(1-2):147-154.
Ranera B, Ordovas L, Lyahyai J, Bernal ML, Fernandes F, Remacha AR, Romero A, Vazquez FJ, Osta
R, Cons C, Varona L, Zaragoza P, Martin-Burriel I, Rodellar C: Comparative study of equine bone
marrow and adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stromal cells. Equine Vet J 2012, 44(1):33-42.
Rasmusson I, Ringden O, Sundberg B, Le Blanc K: Mesenchymal stem cells inhibit the formation of
cytotoxic T lymphocytes, but not activated cytotoxic T lymphocytes or natural killer cells.
Transplantation 2003, 76(8):1208-1213.
Ren G, Zhang L, Zhao X, Xu G, Zhang Y, Roberts AI, Zhao RC, Shi Y: Mesenchymal stem cell-
mediated immunosuppression occurs via concerted action of chemokines and nitric oxide. Cell Stem Cell
2008, 2(2):141-150.
Rice AM, Wood JA, Milross CG, Collins CJ, Case J, Vowels MR, Nordon RE: Prolonged ex vivo
culture of cord blood CD34(+) cells facilitates myeloid and megakaryocytic engraftment in the non-
obese diabetic severe combined immunodeficient mouse model. Br J Haematol 2001, 114(2):433-443.
Ringden O, Uzunel M, Rasmusson I, Remberger M, Sundberg B, Lonnies H, Marschall HU, Dlugosz A,
Szakos A, Hassan Z, Omazic B, Aschan J, Barkholt L, Le Blanc K: Mesenchymal stem cells for
treatment of therapy-resistant graft-versus-host disease. Transplantation 2006, 81(10):1390-1397.
Ripoll CB, Flaat M, Klopf-Eiermann J, Fisher-Perkins JM, Trygg CB, Scruggs BA, McCants ML,
Leonard HP, Lin AF, Zhang S, Eagle ME, Alvarez X, Li YT, Li SC, Gimble JM, Bunnell BA:
Mesenchymal lineage have pronounced anti-inflammatory effects in the twitcher mouse model of
Krabbe's disease. Stem Cells 2011, 29(1):67-77.
Ruijter JM, Ramakers C, Hoogaars WM, Karlen Y, Bakker O, van den Hoff MJ, Moorman AF:
Amplification efficiency: linking baseline and bias in the analysis of quantitative PCR data. Nucleic
Acids Res 2009, 37(6):e45.
Rutledge RG, Stewart D: Critical evaluation of methods used to determine amplification efficiency
refutes the exponential character of real-time PCR. BMC Mol Biol 2008, 9:96-2199-9-96.
62
Sabapathy V, Ravi S, Srivastava V, Srivastava A, Kumar S: Long-term cultured human term placenta-
derived mesenchymal stem cells of maternal origin displays plasticity. Stem Cells Int 2012,
2012:174328.
Sacitharan PK, Snelling SJ, Edwards JR: Aging mechanisms in arthritic disease. Discov Med 2012,
14(78):345-352.
Sakkas LI, Scanzello C, Johanson N, Burkholder J, Mitra A, Salgame P, Katsetos CD, Platsoucas CD: T
cells and T-cell cytokine transcripts in the synovial membrane in patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Diagn
Lab Immunol 1998, 5(4):430-437.
Salcedo M, Andersson M, Lemieux S, Van Kaer L, Chambers BJ, Ljunggren HG: Fine tuning of natural
killer cell specificity and maintenance of self tolerance in MHC class I-deficient mice. Eur J Immunol
1998, 28(4):1315-1321.
Siegel G, Kluba T, Hermanutz-Klein U, Bieback K, Northoff H, Schafer R: Phenotype, donor age and
gender affect function of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells. BMC Med 2013,
11:146-7015-11-146.
Singh SK, Hawkins C, Clarke ID, Squire JA, Bayani J, Hide T, Henkelman RM, Cusimano MD, Dirks
PB: Identification of human brain tumour initiating cells. Nature 2004, 432(7015):396-401.
Spaggiari GM, Capobianco A, Becchetti S, Mingari MC, Moretta L: Mesenchymal stem cell-natural
killer cell interactions: evidence that activated NK cells are capable of killing MSCs, whereas MSCs can
inhibit IL-2-induced NK-cell proliferation. Blood 2006, 107(4):1484-1490.
Stenderup K, Justesen J, Clausen C, Kassem M: Aging is associated with decreased maximal life span
and accelerated senescence of bone marrow stromal cells. Bone 2003, 33(6):919-926.
Stolzing A, Naaldijk Y, Fedorova V, Sethe S: Hydroxyethylstarch in cryopreservation - mechanisms,
benefits and problems. Transfus Apher Sci 2012, 46(2):137-147.
Tabera S, Perez-Simon JA, Diez-Campelo M, Sanchez-Abarca LI, Blanco B, Lopez A, Benito A, Ocio
E, Sanchez-Guijo FM, Canizo C, San Miguel JF: The effect of mesenchymal on the viability,
proliferation and differentiation of B-lymphocytes. Haematologica 2008, 93(9):1301-1309.
Takeda K, Akira S: Toll-like receptors in innate immunity. Int Immunol 2005, 17(1):1-14.
Tarnok A: A focus on automated recognition. Cytometry A 2007, 71(10):769-770.
Tomchuck SL, Zwezdaryk KJ, Coffelt SB, Waterman RS, Danka ES, Scandurro AB: Toll-like receptors
on human mesenchymal stem cells drive their migration and immunomodulating responses. Stem Cells
2008, 26(1):99-107.
Uematsu S, Akira S: Toll-Like receptors (TLRs) and their ligands. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2008,
(183)(183):1-20.
63
Vacanti V, Kong E, Suzuki G, Sato K, Canty JM, Lee T: Phenotypic changes of adult porcine
mesenchymal stem cells induced by prolonged passaging in culture. J Cell Physiol 2005, 205(2):194-
201.
Van den Berk LC, Jansen BJ, Siebers-Vermeulen KG, Netea MG, Latuhihin T, Bergevoet S, Raymakers
RA, Kogler G, Figdor CC, Adema GJ, Torensma R: Toll-like receptor triggering in cord blood
mesenchymal stem cells. J Cell Mol Med 2009, 13(9B):3415-3426.
Verreck FA, de Boer T, Langenberg DM, van der Zanden L, Ottenhoff TH: Phenotypic and functional
profiling of human proinflammatory type-1 and anti-inflammatory type-2 macrophages in response to
microbial antigens and IFN-gamma- and CD40L-mediated costimulation. J Leukoc Biol 2006,
79(2):285-293.
Villadangos JA, Schnorrer P, Wilson NS: Control of MHC class II antigen presentation in dendritic
cells: a balance between creative and destructive forces. Immunol Rev 2005, 207:191-205.
Violini S, Ramelli P, Pisani LF, Gorni C, Mariani P: Horse bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells
express embryo stem cell markers and show the ability for tenogenic differentiation by in vitro exposure
to BMP-12. BMC Cell Biol 2009, 10:29-2121-10-29.
Vogel C, Marcotte EM: Insights into the regulation of protein abundance from proteomic and
transcriptomic analyses. Nat Rev Genet 2012, 13(4):227-232.
Wagner W, Horn P, Castoldi M, Diehlmann A, Bork S, Saffrich R, Benes V, Blake J, Pfister S, Eckstein
V, Ho AD: Replicative senescence of mesenchymal stem cells: a continuous and organized process.
PLoS One 2008, 3(5):e2213.
Wang L, Zhao Y, Shi S: Interplay between mesenchymal stem cells and lymphocytes: implications for
immunotherapy and tissue regeneration. J Dent Res 2012, 91(11):1003-1010.
Wang X, Hua TC, Sun DW, Liu B, Yang G, Cao Y: Cryopreservation of tissue-engineered dermal
replacement in Me2SO: Toxicity study and effects of concentration and cooling rates on cell viability.
Cryobiology 2007, 55(1):60-65.
Waterman RS, Tomchuck SL, Henkle SL, Betancourt AM: A new mesenchymal stem cell (MSC)
paradigm: polarization into a pro-inflammatory MSC1 or an Immunosuppressive MSC2 phenotype.
PLoS One 2010, 5(4):e10088.
Wesche H, Henzel WJ, Shillinglaw W, Li S, Cao Z: MyD88: an adapter that recruits IRAK to the IL-1
receptor complex. Immunity 1997, 7(6):837-847.
Westacott CI, Barakat AF, Wood L, Perry MJ, Neison P, Bisbinas I, Armstrong L, Millar AB, Elson CJ:
Tumor necrosis factor alpha can contribute to focal loss of cartilage in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis
Cartilage 2000, 8(3):213-221.
Wilke MM, Nydam DV, Nixon AJ: Enhanced early chondrogenesis in articular defects following
arthroscopic mesenchymal stem cell implantation in an equine model. J Orthop Res 2007, 25(7):913-
925.
64
Williams JT, Southerland SS, Souza J, Calcutt AF, Cartledge RG: Cells isolated from adult human
skeletal muscle capable of differentiating into multiple mesodermal phenotypes. Am Surg 1999,
65(1):22-26.
Xu X, Liu Y, Cui Z, Wei Y, Zhang L: Effects of osmotic and cold shock on adherent human
mesenchymal stem cells during cryopreservation. J Biotechnol 2012, 162(2-3):224-231.
Yin Y, Li Y, Mariuzza RA: Structural basis for self-recognition by autoimmune T-cell receptors.
Immunol Rev 2012, 250(1):32-48.
Yoo KH, Jang IK, Lee MW, Kim HE, Yang MS, Eom Y, Lee JE, Kim YJ, Yang SK, Jung HL, Sung
KW, Kim CW, Koo HH: Comparison of immunomodulatory properties of mesenchymal stem cells
derived from adult human tissues. Cell Immunol 2009, 259(2):150-156.
Young HE, Mancini ML, Wright RP, Smith JC, Black AC,Jr, Reagan CR, Lucas PA: Mesenchymal stem
cells reside within the connective tissues of many organs. Dev Dyn 1995, 202(2):137-144.
Zuk PA, Zhu M, Mizuno H, Huang J, Futrell JW, Katz AJ, Benhaim P, Lorenz HP, Hedrick MH:
Multilineage cells from human adipose tissue: implications for cell-based therapies. Tissue Eng 2001,
7(2):211-2.
65
APPENDIX I - Immune markers and cytokine expression for MSC before and after IL-1B and IL-
6 treatment
CB-MSC were assessed for gene expression of markers potentially correlated with immunomodulation
abilities. Expression was measured before and after incubation with IL-1B or IL-6.
MSC markers and cytokines gene expression (n = 1)
Gene Untreated MSC IL-1B treatment IL-6 treatment
B2M + + +
TAP1 + + +
CIITA - - +/-
TLR3 +/- +/- -
TLR4 + + +
MyD88 + + +
TRIF + + +
TRAM + + +
IL-1B - - -
IL-6 +/- ++ +/-
TGFB1 ++ + +
HO-1 + + +
CXCL10 +/- + -
Fe-H ++ ++ +
TFR1 + + +/-
Gene expression:
(-): transcript not detected
+/-: transcript detected >35 Ct
+: transcript detected 25 >Ct < 35
++: transcript detected < 25 Ct
CB-MSC were separated in three groups and assessed separately: untreated cells, IL-1B treated cells and
IL-6 treated cells. CB-MSC were cultured in EM until 60-70% confluency and subsequently incubated
for 24h in: EM, EM supplemented with 10ng/mL of recombinant equine IL-1B or 20ng/ml of
recombinant equine IL-6. Gene expression was analyzed with qPCR. Potential changes in expression
were observed for IL-6, TGFB1, Fe-H, CXCL10.
top related