Native extracellular matrix, synthesized ex vivo by bone marrow or adipose stromal cells, faithfully directs mesenchymal stem cell differentiation

Milos Marinkovic; Olivia N Tran; Travis J Block; Rubie Rakian; Aaron O Gonzalez; David D Dean; Chih-Ko Yeh; Xiao-Dong Chen

doi:10.1016/j.mbplus.2020.100044

Native extracellular matrix, synthesized ex vivo by bone marrow or adipose stromal cells, faithfully directs mesenchymal stem cell differentiation

Matrix Biol Plus. 2020 Jun 24:8:100044. doi: 10.1016/j.mbplus.2020.100044. eCollection 2020 Nov.

Authors

Milos Marinkovic^{1

2}, Olivia N Tran^{1

2}, Travis J Block^{1

2}, Rubie Rakian¹, Aaron O Gonzalez^{1

2}, David D Dean^{1

2}, Chih-Ko Yeh^{1

3}, Xiao-Dong Chen^{1

2

3}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
² Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA.
³ Audie Murphy VA Medical Center, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.

Abstract

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are highly responsive to cues in the microenvironment (niche) that must be recapitulated ex vivo to study their authentic behavior. In this study, we hypothesized that native bone marrow (BM)- and adipose (AD)-derived extracellular matrices (ECM) were unique in their ability to control MSC behavior. To test this, we compared proliferation and differentiation of bone marrow (BM)-derived MSCs when maintained on native decellularized ECM produced by BM versus AD stromal cells (i.e. BM- versus AD-ECM). We found that both ECMs contained similar types of collagens but differed in the relative abundance of each. Type VI collagen was the most abundant (≈60% of the total collagen present), while type I was the next most abundant at ≈30%. These two types of collagen were found in nearly equal proportions in both ECMs. In contrast, type XII collagen was almost exclusively found in AD-ECM, while types IV and V were only found in BM-ECM. Physically and mechanically, BM-ECM was rougher and stiffer, but less adhesive, than AD-ECM. During 14 days in culture, both ECMs supported BM-MSC proliferation better than tissue culture plastic (TCP), although MSC-related surface marker expression remained relatively high on all three culture surfaces. BM-MSCs cultured in osteogenic (OS) differentiation media on BM-ECM displayed a significant increase in calcium deposition in the matrix, indicative of osteogenesis, while BM-MSCs cultured on AD-ECM in the presence of adipogenic (AP) differentiation media showed a significant increase in Oil Red O staining, indicative of adipogenesis. Further, culture on BM-ECM significantly increased BM-MSC-responsiveness to rhBMP-2 (an osteogenic inducer), while culture on AD-ECM enhanced responsiveness to rosiglitazone (an adipogenic inducer). These findings support our hypothesis and indicate that BM- and AD-ECMs retain unique elements, characteristic of their tissue-specific microenvironment (niche), which promote retention of MSC differentiation state (i.e. "stemness") during expansion and direct cell response to lineage-specific inducers. This study provides a new paradigm for precisely controlling MSC fate to a desired cell lineage for tissue-specific cell-based therapies.

Keywords: Cell culture; Differentiation; Mesenchymal stem cells; Microenvironment; Native extracellular matrix; Tissue-specific.

Abstract

Grants and funding