Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: Sources, Characteristics, and Comparison Between Autologous and Allogeneic Cells
Are all mesenchymal stem cells the same?
As we delve deeper into the specialization of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), it is essential to consolidate knowledge regarding their characteristics, functions, and therapeutic applications. However, a comprehensive understanding would be incomplete without exploring the key differences between MSCs derived from various sources and how they vary based on the individual and different life stages. Recognizing these distinctions is fundamental to maximizing their clinical potential and offering an informed and personalized therapeutic approach.
Are all MSCs the same?
The answer is both simple and complex. MSCs must maintain certain phenotypic characteristics to ensure their identity. However, depending on their origin, they exhibit distinct attributes specific to that tissue. In other words, while all MSCs must meet minimal criteria such as size, morphology, adherence, and cellular plasticity (topics we have previously addressed), they must also present a well-characterized variety of molecular markers to confirm their identity as true MSCs. Nonetheless, subtle but crucial differences exist in their functional characteristics depending on their source, allowing us to select the most suitable option for different conditions.
Sources and Isolation of MSCs
MSCs are not confined to a single location within the human body. Specific niches, known as progenitor cell niches, provide a favorable microenvironment for housing these cells.
Over the past decades, researchers have focused on identifying the ideal source for obtaining MSCs. The main differences between sources range from tissue accessibility to cytokine secretion profiles, as well as the number of cells that can be obtained and their proliferative capacity. Some tissues may offer a large number of cells, but their ability to multiply is not always efficient.
The most commonly reported sources for MSC isolation worldwide include:
Adult tissues:
- Bone marrow
- Adipose tissue
- Articular cartilage
- Dental tissue
- Endometrium and menstrual blood
- Skin
Perinatal tissues:
- Amniotic fluid
- Amniotic membranes
- Placenta
- Wharton’s jelly
- Umbilical cord and cord blood
Differences Affecting MSC Quality
Individual-dependent: Studies have shown that the age of the individual at the time of tissue collection affects MSC quality, with younger individuals yielding higher-quality cells. However, even among young individuals, significant differences exist, influenced by lifestyle and overall health. Perinatal tissues generally provide the highest quality cells.
Tissue-dependent: MSCs have different capacities for differentiation and expression of classical surface markers. For example, adipose-derived MSCs are the most abundant, umbilical cord-derived MSCs excel in proliferative capacity, and bone marrow-derived MSCs, along with certain placental sources, demonstrate lower immunomodulatory efficiency.
Autologous vs. Allogeneic Origin: The choice between autologous (from the same individual) or allogeneic (from a donor) cells depends on the individual’s general health condition. For example, the use of autologous MSCs in patients with conditions like systemic lupus erythematosus has not shown clinical efficacy, although it does not produce adverse effects.
Advantages and Disadvantages
The main advantages among sources are related to ease of access and the quantity of cells obtained. However, factors such as the invasiveness of the procedure and the amount retrieved also play a crucial role in source selection. For instance, bone marrow is more invasive, while dental tissues, though useful, do not provide large quantities of cells.
In contrast, MSCs derived from endometrial tissues or menstrual blood offer significant advantages in terms of accessibility and therapeutic potential. These cells stand out for their high proliferative capacity, with cell doubling rates of up to 25 to 30 times and doubling times of less than 24 hours. Additionally, their highly stable phenotype remains intact even after 68 passages, making them a promising option for regenerative and therapeutic applications.
Autologous cells offer greater safety and pose no risk of rejection, but their availability is delayed, and non-functional cells may be present due to the individual’s genetic conditions. Allogeneic cells, on the other hand, are immediately available but carry risks of immune rejection and donor-to-donor variability, as well as potential genetic defects not detected by conventional characterization methods.
Clinical Efficiency Based on Origin
Several studies have demonstrated differences in the efficiency of MSCs derived from different niches and how they impact various conditions. In 2020, Petrenko and colleagues published a study highlighting differences in growth kinetics, immunophenotype, and immunomodulatory capacity among MSCs from adipose tissue, Wharton’s jelly, and bone marrow. They found that all these tissues exhibited similar capabilities for treating neurodegenerative disorders.
Moreover, in 2022, a research group in Spain analyzed studies on the use of MSCs from adipose tissue, bone marrow, and dental tissue for orthopedic and dental applications. They concluded that all these sources were effective for oral and dental regeneration. However, for therapies requiring bone regeneration, bone marrow-derived MSCs were found to be superior due to their greater osteogenic potential.
In late 2015, a team of Australian researchers compiled studies culminating in a publication on the benefits and therapeutic potential of MSCs obtained from endometrial tissues or menstrual blood. These MSCs have shown promise in preclinical models, promoting cardiac, muscular, neuronal, and ovarian regeneration. In a model of premature ovarian failure, they improved ovarian function more effectively than fibroblasts, demonstrating their superior reparative capabilities.
Additionally, studies such as those conducted by Tian K in 2012 and Lin HD in 2016 revealed that umbilical cord-derived MSCs possess the ability to inhibit the proliferation of tumor cells.
Cell Culture and Its Impact on Functionality
The process of cell culture and the stimuli applied to MSCs can positively or negatively alter their quality and functionality. Factors such as the presence of essential nutrients, culture duration, and the use of cytokines that activate or inhibit signaling cascades affect cell differentiation, which can be adjusted based on treatment needs.
At Baja Regenerative, we ensure that our MSCs are carefully identified, isolated, and constantly evaluated to meet the necessary functional specifications for each treatment.
Conclusion
MSCs represent a highly heterogeneous population with a wide range of sources and characteristics that vary based on their origin. It is crucial to consider functional differences arising from the individual, tissue source, and culture stimuli when selecting the most suitable source. Treating MSCs from different tissues as identical would be a mistake, as each may be more effective depending on the condition being treated.
At Baja Regenerative, we are experts in cell culture and regenerative medicine. We evaluate each case rigorously, ensuring that our therapies are personalized and of the highest quality.
Want to know which MSCs are best suited for your patients?
Contact us, and our team of experts will provide you with the most detailed information, working together to offer the best service and benefits for your patients.
References
Petrenko, Yuriy et al. “A Comparative Analysis of Multipotent Mesenchymal Stromal Cells derived from Different Sources, with a Focus on Neuroregenerative Potential.” Scientific reports vol. 10,1 4290. 9 Mar. 2020, doi:10.1038/s41598-020-61167-z
Marquez-Curtis, Leah A et al. “Mesenchymal stromal cells derived from various tissues: Biological, clinical and cryopreservation aspects.” Cryobiology vol. 71,2 (2015): 181-97. doi:10.1016/j.cryobiol.2015.07.003
Li, Jingxuan et al. “The heterogeneity of mesenchymal stem cells: an important issue to be addressed in cell therapy.” Stem cell research & therapy vol. 14,1 381. 20 Dec. 2023, doi:10.1186/s13287-023-03587-y
Costela-Ruiz, Victor J et al. “Different Sources of Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Tissue Regeneration: A Guide to Identifying the Most Favorable One in Orthopedics and Dentistry Applications.” International journal of molecular sciences vol. 23,11 6356. 6 Jun. 2022, doi:10.3390/ijms23116356
Li, Chenghai et al. “Allogeneic vs. autologous mesenchymal stem/stromal cells in their medication practice.” Cell & bioscience vol. 11,1 187. 2 Nov. 2021, doi:10.1186/s13578-021-00698-y
Sun, L Y et al. “Abnormality of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.” Lupus vol. 16,2 (2007): 121-8. doi:10.1177/0961203306075793
Lin, Hao Daniel et al. “Human Umbilical Cord Wharton’s Jelly Stem Cell Conditioned Medium Induces Tumoricidal Effects on Lymphoma Cells Through Hydrogen Peroxide Mediation.” Journal of cellular biochemistry vol. 117,9 (2016): 2045-55. doi:10.1002/jcb.25501
Gargett CE, Schwab KE, Deane JA. Endometrial stem/progenitor cells: the first 10 years. Hum Reprod Update. 2016 Mar-Apr;22(2):137-63. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmv051. Epub 2015 Nov 9. PMID: 26552890; PMCID: PMC4755439.
