Review
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Stem Cells. Jul 26, 2014; 6(3): 322-343
Published online Jul 26, 2014. doi: 10.4252/wjsc.v6.i3.322
Table 1 Minimal criteria for mesenchymal stromal cell definition (International Society for Cellular Therapy)
Adherence to plastic surfaces in standard culture conditions
Positive (> 95% +)Negative (< 2% +)
ImmunophenotypeCD105CD45
CD73CD34
CD90CD14 or CD11b
CD79a or CD19
HLA-DR
In vitro differentiation to osteoblasts, adipocytes and chondroblasts (demonstrated by appropriate staining of cell cultures)
Table 2 Main similarities and differences between bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells from myeloma patients and mesenchymal stromal cells from healthy donors
StudyAssayDescription
Similarities
Adipogenic differentiationOil O Red stainingBoth pMSCs and dMSCs showed accumulation of lipid-rich vacuoles[109,194]
Chondrogenic differentiationToluidine Blue stainingChondrogenic differentiation potential was similar between pMSCs and dMSCs[109]
Differences
Chromosomic alterationsCGH arrays, FISHpMSCs did not carry the genomic abnormalities detectable in their correspondent myeloma cells[111,194,195]. Only pMSCs showed several non-recurrent chromosomal gains and losses (> 1 Mb size) and “hot-spot” regions with discrete (< 1 Mb) genomic alterations[195]
Gene expression profilingGene expression microarrayAmong 145 differentially expressed genes between pMSCs and dMSCs, 46% accounted for tumor-microenvironment cross-talk. Functional assignment revealed their implication in tumor-support (e.g., GDF15), angiogenesis (e.g., ANGPTL4, PAI1, SCG2), and contribution to bone disease (e.g., NPR3, WISP1, EDG2)[111]. Even a distinct transcriptional pattern was found associated to the occurrence of bone lesions in pMSCs[113]
ImmunophenotypeFlow cytometryAlthough few significant differences in cell surface marker expression were found between dMSCs and pMSCs, the latter expressed reduced VCAM1 and fibronectin[196], and higher ICAM1[197] compared to dMSCs
Bone formation markersqPCR, WBExpression of bone formation markers (i.e., osteocalcin and osteopontin), master transcription factors of osteogenic differentiation (i.e., Runx2/Cbfa1 and Osterix) and TAZ (a Runx2/Cbfa1 transcriptional co-activator) was lower in pMSCs than in dMSCs[109]
Expression and secretion of growth factors/cytokines/ chemokinesRT-PCR, ELISACompared to dMSCs, pMSCs showed increased expression of IL-1β[111], IL-3[112], IL-6[111,112,194,198], IL-10[199], BAFF[199], GDF15[111,198], TNFα[112], TGFβ1[112,198], DKK1[111,121,198], RANKL[112], AREG[111], and decreased expression of TGFβ2, TGFβ3 and FasL[112]
Senescence profileβ-gal staining, propidium iodide DNA staining, qPCRpMSCs showed an early senescence state compared to dMSCs, as assessed by increased expression of senescence-associated β-galactosidase, increased cell size and accumulation of cells in S phase[198]
ImmunoabilityCo-cultures of MSCs and lymphocytes or PBMCspMSCs exhibited reduced efficiency to suppress T-cell proliferation compared to that of dMSCs[112,194,198]
Angiogenic potentialqPCR, ELISA, tube formation assayAngiogenic factors (bFGF, HGF and VEGF) were elevated in the CM of pMSCs compared to dMSCs. Besides, CM from pMSCs significantly promoted proliferation, chemotaxis and capillary formation of HUVECs compared to dMSCs[200]
Controversial points
Proliferation rateCell density, CFU-FWhereas some studies did not find differences in CFU-F number and cell density between dMSCs and pMSCs[111], others found a deficient proliferative potential in pMSCs which could be partly explained by the reduced expression of receptors for several growth factors[121]
ALP expression and activityBCIP-NBT staining and pNPP hydrolysisALP expression/activity did not differ between MSCs from both origins[111], whereas other authors found it was significantly reduced in pMSCs compared to dMSCs, with lowest levels in pMSCs from patients with bone lesions[110]
Matrix mineralizationAlizarin Red and Von Kossa stainingSome groups have reported a significative reduction of matrix mineralization by pMSCs relative to dMSCs[110,111,198], although others have not observed those differences[121,194]
Hematopoietic stem cell supportLong-term co-culturesSome authors reported that the ability to support the growth of hematopoietic stem cells did not differ between dMSCs and pMSCs[111,194], whilst others found that pMSCs better supported CD34+ progenitor expansion[198]
Table 3 Therapeutic targets, bone anabolic drugs and preclinical/clinical studies in the context of myeloma bone disease or other bone diseases
DrugMechanism of actionSignaling pathwayCell targetPreclinical studiesPhase of clinical trials
BHQ880Neutralizing anti-DKK1 antibodyWntMSC, MMPC[122,123,125]II[126,127]
Romosozumab (AMG785)Neutralizing anti-sclerostin antibodyMSC[79,83]II (postmenopausal osteoporosis)[129]
LiClGSK3β inhibitorMSC, MMPC[131]NA
DAPTγ-secretase inhibitorNotchMSC, MMPC[110,142]NA
GSI15OC, MMPC[139]
Bortezomib and second generation PIsProteasome inhibitorUPRMSC, OC, MMPC[179,180,201]Bortezomib and carfilzomib: Approved Oprozomib: I/II Ixazomib: III
RAP-011 (mouse) Sotatercept/ACE-011 (human)Decoy receptor neutralizing activin ABMPMSC, OC, MMPC[61,62]II[153,154]
SB431542TGFβ inhibitorMSC[150]NA
Ki26894MSC
MLN3897CCR1 antagonistsCCL3MSC, OC, MMPC[58,160]NA
CCX721 (mouse) CCX354-C (human)OC, MMPC[157]II (rheumatoid arthritis)[161]