Lapine periodontal ligament stem cells for musculoskeletal research in preclinical animal trials.

BACKGROUND

Human periodontal ligament stem cells (hPDLSCs) have been shown to be a reliable source of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). On the other hand, rabbits have been commonly used in preclinical trials for musculoskeletal research. However, there is a lack of sufficient data on using rabbit periodontal ligament stem cells (rPDLSCs) for regenerative dentistry. This study, for the first time, comprehensively compared rPDLSCs against hPDLSCs in terms of clonogenicity, growth potential, multi-differential capacity and surface antigens.

METHODS

Periodontal ligament (PDL) was obtained from the rabbit and human teeth. rPDL and hPDL cells were isolated from PDL using enzymatic digestion method. After culturing for 2 weeks, the cells were first analyzed microscopically. STRO-1CD146 PDLSCs were then sorted from PDL cells by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) followed by examination of CD34, CD45, CD90, vimentin and desmin markers. The cells were also evaluated by immunohistocytochemical and multi-differentiation potential tests. The clonogenicity and growth of PDL cells were analyzed by Independent T test and 2-way repeated measures ANOVA respectively.

RESULTS

rPDL cells were broader and less elongated as compared to hPDL cells. STRO-1CD146 hPDLSCs were isolated from hPDL cells but not from the rPDL cells. Therefore, heterogeneous population of rabbit and human PDL cells were subsequently used for latter comparative studies. FACS analysis and immunohistocytochemistry revealed that rPDL cells were partially positive for STRO-1 as compared to hPDL cells. Furthermore, both rPDL cells and hPDL cells were positive for CD146, CD90, vimentin, and desmin, while negative for CD34 and CD45. No difference in clonogenicity between rPDL and hPDL cells was found (p > 0.05). The proliferative potential of rPDL cells displayed significantly slower growth as compared to hPDL cells (p < 0.05). Osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic differentiation potential was comparatively less in rPDL cells than that of hPDL cells, but the neurogenic differential potential was similar.

CONCLUSION

Although rPDL cells manifested variable differences in expression of stem cell markers and multi-differential potential as compared to hPDL cells, they demonstrated the attributes of stemness. Further studies are also required to validate if the regenerative potential of rPDL cells is similar to rPDLSCs.