Comparison of chondrogenesis-related biological behaviors between human urine-derived stem cells and human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells from the same individual.

BACKGROUND

Stem cells are the main choice for seed cells in tissue engineering, but using most traditional stem cells requires invasive and complicated procedures. Human urine-derived stem cells (hUSCs) are an alternative stem cell source with the advantages of being isolated noninvasively and repetitively from the same individual. The aim of this study was to compare chondrogenesis-related biological behaviors between hUSCs and human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (hBMSCs) from the same individual.

METHODS

hUSCs and hBMSCs were isolated from six patients who underwent iliac bone grafting. Cell morphology, proliferation, colony-forming, migration, and multidifferentiation analyses were performed in vitro. Then, acellular cartilage extracellular matrix (ACM) scaffolds were fabricated for in vivo implantation. The comparisons of cell viability, morphology, proliferation, and chondrogenesis between hUSCs and hBMSCs cultured on scaffolds were performed before implantation. The scaffolds loaded with hUSCs or hBMSCs were implanted into a rabbit knee model to repair cartilage defects. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and micro-computed tomography (μCT) Analyses, inflammation and toxicity assays, gross observation, and histological evaluation were performed to evaluate the cartilage repair effects.

RESULTS

In in vitro experiments, hUSCs had better capacity for proliferation, colony-forming, and migration compared to hBMSCs in the same passage, while hBMSCs had greater osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic abilities compared to hUSCs in the same passage. Both hUSCs and hBMSCs at passage 3 had the strongest potential for proliferation, colony-forming, and multilineage differentiation compared to cells in other passages. The ACM scaffolds loaded with hUSCs or hBMSCs both significantly promoted the repair of cartilage defects in the rabbit knee model at 12 weeks' postimplantation, and the new tissue was mainly hyaline cartilage. However, there was no significant difference in cartilage repair effects between hUSCs and hBMSCs.

CONCLUSIONS

In in vitro experiments, hUSCs presented better capacity for proliferation, while hBMSCs had greater chondrogenic ability. However, hUSCs and hBMSCs had similar cartilage repair effects in vivo. Results indicated that hUSCs can be a stem cell alternative for cartilage regeneration and provide a powerful platform for cartilage tissue engineering and clinical transformation.