Isolation of Osteoprogenitors from Human Jaw Periosteal Cells: A Comparison of Two Magnetic Separation Methods

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10675.2/836
Title:
Isolation of Osteoprogenitors from Human Jaw Periosteal Cells: A Comparison of Two Magnetic Separation Methods
Authors:
Olbrich, Marcus; Rieger, Melanie; Reinert, Siegmar; Alexander, Dorothea
Abstract:
Human jaw periosteum tissue contains osteoprogenitors that have potential for tissue engineering applications in oral and maxillofacial surgeries. To isolate osteoprogenitor cells from heterogeneous cell populations, we used the specific mesenchymal stem cell antigen-1 (MSCA-1) antibody and compared two magnetic separation methods. We analyzed the obtained MSCA-1+ and MSCA-1â fractions in terms of purity, yield of positive/negative cells and proliferative and mineralization potentials. The analysis of cell viability after separation revealed that the EasySep method yielded higher viability rates, whereas the flow cytometry results showed a higher purity for the MACS-separated cell fractions. The mineralization capacity of the osteogenic induced MSCA-1+ cells compared with the MSCA-1â controls using MACS was 5-fold higher, whereas the same comparison after EasySep showed no significant differences between both fractions. By analyzing cell proliferation, we detected a significant difference between the proliferative potential of the osteogenic cells versus untreated cells after the MACS and EasySep separations. The differentiated cells after MACS separation adjusted their proliferative capacity, whereas the EasySep-separated cells failed to do so. The protein expression analysis showed small differences between the two separation methods. Our findings suggest that MACS is a more suitable separation method to isolate osteoprogenitors from the entire jaw periosteal cell population.
Citation:
PLoS One. 2012 Oct 19; 7(10):e47176
Issue Date:
19-Oct-2012
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10675.2/836
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0047176
PubMed Central ID:
PMC3477152
Type:
Article
ISSN:
1932-6203
Appears in Collections:
Department of Pathology: Faculty Research and Presentations

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorOlbrich, Marcusen_US
dc.contributor.authorRieger, Melanieen_US
dc.contributor.authorReinert, Siegmaren_US
dc.contributor.authorAlexander, Dorotheaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-26T20:35:40Z-
dc.date.available2012-10-26T20:35:40Z-
dc.date.issued2012-10-19en_US
dc.identifier.citationPLoS One. 2012 Oct 19; 7(10):e47176en_US
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0047176en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10675.2/836-
dc.description.abstractHuman jaw periosteum tissue contains osteoprogenitors that have potential for tissue engineering applications in oral and maxillofacial surgeries. To isolate osteoprogenitor cells from heterogeneous cell populations, we used the specific mesenchymal stem cell antigen-1 (MSCA-1) antibody and compared two magnetic separation methods. We analyzed the obtained MSCA-1+ and MSCA-1â fractions in terms of purity, yield of positive/negative cells and proliferative and mineralization potentials. The analysis of cell viability after separation revealed that the EasySep method yielded higher viability rates, whereas the flow cytometry results showed a higher purity for the MACS-separated cell fractions. The mineralization capacity of the osteogenic induced MSCA-1+ cells compared with the MSCA-1â controls using MACS was 5-fold higher, whereas the same comparison after EasySep showed no significant differences between both fractions. By analyzing cell proliferation, we detected a significant difference between the proliferative potential of the osteogenic cells versus untreated cells after the MACS and EasySep separations. The differentiated cells after MACS separation adjusted their proliferative capacity, whereas the EasySep-separated cells failed to do so. The protein expression analysis showed small differences between the two separation methods. Our findings suggest that MACS is a more suitable separation method to isolate osteoprogenitors from the entire jaw periosteal cell population.en_US
dc.subjectResearch Articleen_US
dc.subjectBiologyen_US
dc.subjectAnatomy and Physiologyen_US
dc.subjectPhysiological Processesen_US
dc.subjectBiomineralizationen_US
dc.subjectBiochemistryen_US
dc.subjectMetabolismen_US
dc.subjectBone and Mineral Metabolismen_US
dc.subjectBiotechnologyen_US
dc.subjectTissue Engineeringen_US
dc.subjectDevelopmental Biologyen_US
dc.subjectCell Differentiationen_US
dc.subjectMolecular Cell Biologyen_US
dc.subjectCellular Typesen_US
dc.subjectStem Cellsen_US
dc.subjectAdult Stem Cellsen_US
dc.subjectCell Growthen_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.subjectAnatomy and Physiologyen_US
dc.subjectPhysiological Processesen_US
dc.subjectBiomineralizationen_US
dc.titleIsolation of Osteoprogenitors from Human Jaw Periosteal Cells: A Comparison of Two Magnetic Separation Methodsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC3477152en_US
dc.contributor.corporatenameDepartment of Pathology-
dc.contributor.corporatenameCollege of Graduate Studies-
All Items in Scholarly Commons are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.