Advertisement

Evaluation of Proliferation and Osteogenic Differentiation of Human Umbilical Cord-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Porous Scaffolds

  • Thuy Thi-Thanh Dao
  • Chau Thi-Hong Nguyen
  • Ngoc Bich Vu
  • Ha Thi-Ngan Le
  • Phuc Dang-Ngoc Nguyen
  • Phuc Van PhamEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1084)

Abstract

Introduction: Human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells (UCMSCs) are multiple potential stem cells that can differentiate into various kinds of functional cells, including adipocytes, osteoblasts, and chondroblasts. Thus, UCMSCs have recently been used in both stem cell therapy and tissue engineering applications to produce various functional tissues. This study aimed to evaluate the proliferation and differentiation of UCMSCs on porous scaffolds.

Methods: UCMSCs were established in a previous study and kept in liquid nitrogen. They were thawed and expanded in vitro to yield enough cells for further experiments. The cells were characterized as having MSC phenotype. They were seeded onto culture medium-treated porous scaffolds or on non-treated porous scaffolds at different densities of UCMSCs (105, 2.1 × 105, and 5 × 105 cells/0.005 g scaffold). The existence of UCMSCs on the scaffold was evaluated by nucleic staining using Hoechst 33342 dye, while cell proliferation on the scaffold was determined by MTT assay. Osteogenic differentiation was evaluated by changes in cellular morphology, accumulation of extracellular calcium, and expression of osteoblast-specific genes (including runx2, osteopontin (OPN), and osteocalcin (OCN)).

Results: The data showed that UCMSCs could attach, proliferate, and differentiate on both treated and non-treated scaffolds but were better on the treated scaffold. At a cell density of 105 cells/0.005 g scaffold, the adherent and proliferative abilities of UCMSCs were higher than that of the other densities after 14 days of culture (p < 0.05). Adherent UCMSCs on the scaffold could be induced into osteoblasts in the osteogenic medium after 21 days of induction. These cells accumulated calcium in the extracellular matrix that was positive with Alizarin Red staining. They also expressed some genes related to osteoblasts, including runx2, OPN, and OCN.

Conclusion: UCMSCs could adhere, proliferate, and differentiate into osteoblasts on porous scaffolds. Therefore, porous scaffolds (such as Variotis) may be suitable scaffolds for producing bone tissue in combination with UCMSCs.

Keywords

3D porous scaffold Osteogenic differentiation UCMSCs Variotis 

Abbreviations

ECM

Extracellular matrix

HAc

Hyaluronic acid

OCN

Osteocalcin

OPN

Osteopontin

PBS

Phosphate-buffered saline

PFA

Paraformaldehyde

UCMSCs

Umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research is funded by the National University Ho Chi Minh City (VNU-HCM) under grant number NV2018-18-2.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ahmadi, M., Seyedjafari, E., Zargar, S. J., Birhanu, G., Zandi-Karimi, A., Beiki, B., & Tuzlakoglu, K. (2017). Osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells cultured on PLLA scaffold coated with Wharton’s Jelly. EXCLI Journal, 16, 785–794.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Amini, A. R., Laurencin, C. T., & Nukavarapu, S. P. (2012). Bone tissue engineering: Recent advances and challenges. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 40(5), 363–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aravamudhan, A., Ramos, D. M., Nip, J., Harmon, M. D., James, R., Deng, M., Laurencin, C. T., Yu, X., & Kumbar, S. G. (2013). Cellulose and collagen derived micro-nano structured scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology, 9(4), 719–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ark, M., Boughton, P., Lauto, A., Tran, G. T., Chen, Y., Cosman, P. H., & Dunstan, C. R. (2016). Characterisation of a novel light activated adhesive scaffold: Potential for device attachment. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 62(Supplement C), 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruderer, M., Richards, R., Alini, M., & Stoddart, M. (2014). Role and regulation of RUNX2 in osteogenesis. European Cells & Materials, 28(28), 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, W., Liu, J., Manuchehrabadi, N., Weir, M. D., Zhu, Z., & Xu, H. H. (2013). Umbilical cord and bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell seeding on macroporous calcium phosphate for bone regeneration in rat cranial defects. Biomaterials, 34(38), 9917–9925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper, G. M. (2000). Cell proliferation in development and differentiation. In The cell: A molecular approach (2nd ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Costa-Pinto, A. R., Reis, R. L., & Neves, N. M. (2011). Scaffolds based bone tissue engineering: The role of chitosan. Tissue Engineering Part B, Reviews, 17(5), 331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. David, J., Magee, J. E. Z., & Quillen, W. S. (2007). Scientific foundations and principles of practice in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. In Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Series (MRS), Chapter 1 (pp. 1–22). Missouri: Saunders Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Ding, H., Chen, S., Yin, J. H., Xie, X. T., Zhu, Z. H., Gao, Y. S., & Zhang, C. Q. (2014). Continuous hypoxia regulates the osteogenic potential of mesenchymal stem cells in a time-dependent manner. Molecular Medicine Reports, 10(4), 2184–2190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dominici, M., Le Blanc, K., Mueller, I., Slaper-Cortenbach, I., Marini, F., Krause, D., Deans, R., Keating, A., Prockop, D., & Horwitz, E. (2006). Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy, 8(4), 315–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ducy, P., Zhang, R., Geoffroy, V., Ridall, A. L., & Karsenty, G. (1997). Osf2/Cbfa1: A transcriptional activator of osteoblast differentiation. Cell, 89(5), 747–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fakhry, M., Hamade, E., Badran, B., Buchet, R., & Magne, D. (2013). Molecular mechanisms of mesenchymal stem cell differentiation towards osteoblasts. World Journal of Stem Cells, 5(4), 136–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldstein, A. S. (2001). Effect of seeding osteoprogenitor cells as dense clusters on cell growth and differentiation. Tissue Engineering, 7(6), 817–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, B. K., & Miyake, T. (2000). All for one and one for all: Condensations and the initiation of skeletal development. BioEssays, 22(2), 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holzmann, P., Niculescu-Morzsa, E., Zwickl, H., Halbwirth, F., Pichler, M., Matzner, M., Gottsauner-Wolf, F., & Nehrer, S. (2010). Investigation of bone allografts representing different steps of the bone bank procedure via the CAM-model. ALTEX-Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, 27(2), 97–103.Google Scholar
  17. Huang, W., Yang, S., Shao, J., & Li, Y.-P. (2007). Signaling and transcriptional regulation in osteoblast commitment and differentiation. Frontiers in Bioscience: a Journal and Virtual Library, 12, 3068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huycke, T. R., Eames, B. F., & Kimmel, C. B. (2012). Hedgehog-dependent proliferation drives modular growth during morphogenesis of a dermal bone. Development, 139(13), 2371–2380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jafary, F., Hanachi, P., & Gorjipour, K. (2017). Osteoblast differentiation on collagen scaffold with immobilized alkaline phosphatase. International Journal of Organ Transplantation Medicine, 8(4), 195–202.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Kong, E., & Hinds, P. (2012). The retinoblastoma protein in osteosarcomagenesis. Rijeka: InTech.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lian, J. B., Stein, G. S., Stewart, C., Puchacz, E., Mackowiak, S., Aronow, M., Von Deck, M., & Shalhoub, V. (1989). Osteocalcin: Characterization and regulated expression of the rat gene. Connective Tissue Research, 21(1–4), 61–68. discussion 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lian, J. B., Stein, G. S., Stein, J. L., & van Wijnen, A. J. (1998). Osteocalcin gene promoter: Unlocking the secrets for regulation of osteoblast growth and differentiation. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry. Supplement, 30–31, 62–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McKee, M. D., & Nanci, A. (1996). Osteopontin: An interfacial extracellular matrix protein in mineralized tissues. Connective Tissue Research, 35(1–4), 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mishra, R., Bishop, T., Valerio, I. L., Fisher, J. P., & Dean, D. (2016). The potential impact of bone tissue engineering in the clinic. Regenerative Medicine, 11(6), 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oldberg, A., Franzén, A., & Heinegård, D. (1986). Cloning and sequence analysis of rat bone sialoprotein (osteopontin) cDNA reveals an Arg-Gly-Asp cell-binding sequence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 83(23), 8819–8823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pavasant, P., Shizari, T. M., & Underhill, C. B. (1994). Distribution of hyaluronan in the epiphysial growth plate: Turnover by CD44-expressing osteoprogenitor cells. Journal of Cell Science, 107(Pt 10), 2669–2677.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Roach, H. (1994). Why does bone matrix contain non-collagenous proteins? The possible roles of osteocalcin, osteonectin, osteopontin and bone sialoprotein in bone mineralisation and resorption. Cell Biology International, 18(6), 617–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robling, A. G., Castillo, A. B., & Turner, C. H. (2006). Biomechanical and molecular regulation of bone remodeling. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 8, 455–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rutkovskiy, A., Stensløkken, K.-O., & Vaage, I. J. (2016). Osteoblast differentiation at a glance. Medical Science Monitor Basic Research, 22, 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sloan, A. J. (2015). Chapter 29: Biology of the dentin-pulp complex. In A. Vishwakarma, P. Sharpe, S. Shi, & M. Ramalingam (Eds.), Stem cell biology and tissue engineering in dental sciences (pp. 371–378). Boston: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Pham, P., Truong, N. C., Le, P. T.-B., Tran, T. D.-X., Vu, N. B., Bui, K. H.-T., & Phan, N. K. (2016). Isolation and proliferation of umbilical cord tissue derived mesenchymal stem cells for clinical applications. Cell and Tissue Banking, 17(2), 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vepari, C., & Kaplan, D. L. (2007). Silk as a biomaterial. Progress in Polymer Science, 32(8–9), 991–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, L., Singh, M., Bonewald, L., & S Detamore, M. (2009). Signaling strategies for osteogenic differentiation of human umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells for 3D bone tissue engineering. Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, 3, 398–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang, L., Dormer, N. H., Bonewald, L. F., & Detamore, M. S. (2010). Osteogenic differentiation of human umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells in polyglycolic acid scaffolds. Tissue Engineering Part A, 16(6), 1937–1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang, P., Zhao, L., Liu, J., Weir, M. D., Zhou, X., & Xu, H. H. K. (2014). Bone tissue engineering via nanostructured calcium phosphate biomaterials and stem cells. Bone Research, 2, 14017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wei, J., & Karsenty, G. (2015). An overview of the metabolic functions of osteocalcin. Reviews in Endocrine & Metabolic Disorders, 16(2), 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yassin, M. A., Leknes, K. N., Pedersen, T. O., Xing, Z., Sun, Y., Lie, S. A., Finne-Wistrand, A., & Mustafa, K. (2015). Cell seeding density is a critical determinant for copolymer scaffolds-induced bone regeneration. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 103(11), 3649–3658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang, M., Boughton, P., Rose, B., Lee, C. S., & Hong, A. M. (2013). The use of porous scaffold as a tumor model. International Journal of Biomaterials, 2013, 396056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang, M., Rose, B., Lee, C. S., & Hong, A. M. (2015). In vitro 3-dimensional tumor model for radiosensitivity of HPV positive OSCC cell lines. Cancer Biology & Therapy, 16(8), 1231–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhou, H., Weir, M. D., & Xu, H. H. (2011). Effect of cell seeding density on proliferation and osteodifferentiation of umbilical cord stem cells on calcium phosphate cement-fiber scaffold. Tissue Engineering Part A, 17(21–22), 2603–2613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ziros, P. G., Basdra, E. K., & Papavassiliou, A. G. (2008). Runx2: Of bone and stretch. The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology, 40(9), 1659–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thuy Thi-Thanh Dao
    • 1
  • Chau Thi-Hong Nguyen
    • 1
  • Ngoc Bich Vu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ha Thi-Ngan Le
    • 1
  • Phuc Dang-Ngoc Nguyen
    • 1
  • Phuc Van Pham
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Stem Cell Institute, University of Science, VNU-HCMHo Chi Minh CityVietnam
  2. 2.Laboratory of Stem cell research and applicationUniversity of Science, VNU-HCMHo Chi Minh CityVietnam
  3. 3.Department of Animal Physiology and Biotechnology, Biology FacultyUniversity of Science, VNU-HCMHo Chi Minh CityVietnam

Personalised recommendations