Search

Abstract Background Extracellular vesicles (EV) are considered a cell-free alternative to mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) therapy. Numerous reports describe the efficacy of EV in conferring immunomodulation and promoting angiogenesis, yet others report these activities to be conveyed in EV-free bioproducts. We hypothesized that this discrepancy may depend either on the method of isolation or rather the relative impact of the individual bioactive components within the MSC secretome. Methods To answer this question, we performed an inter-laboratory study evaluating EV generated from adipose stromal cells (ASC) by either sequential ultracentrifugation (UC) or size-exclusion chromatography (SEC). The effect of both EV preparations on immunomodulation and angiogenesis in vitro was compared to that of the whole secretome and of the EV-free protein fraction after SEC isolation. Results In the current study, neither the EV preparations, the secretome or the protein fraction were efficacious in inhibiting mitogen-driven T cell proliferation. However, EV generated by SEC stimulated macrophage phagocytic activity to a similar extent as the secretome. In turn, tube formation and wound healing were strongly promoted by the ASC secretome and protein fraction, but not by EV. Within the secretome/protein fraction, VEGF was identified as a potential driver of angiogenesis, and was absent in both EV preparations. Conclusions Our data indicate that the effects of ASC on immunomodulation and angiogenesis are EV-independent. Specific ASC-EV effects need to be dissected for their use as cell-free therapeutics.

Abstract Background Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), commonly sourced from adipose tissue, bone marrow and umbilical cord, have been widely used in many medical conditions due to their therapeutic potential. Yet, the still limited understanding of the underlying mechanisms of action hampers clinical translation. Clinical potency can vary considerably depending on tissue source, donor attributes, but importantly, also culture conditions. Lack of standard procedures hinders inter-study comparability and delays the progression of the field. The aim of this study was A- to assess the impact on MSC characteristics when different laboratories, performed analysis on the same MSC material using harmonised culture conditions and B- to understand source-specific differences. Methods Three independent institutions performed a head-to-head comparison of human-derived adipose (A-), bone marrow (BM-), and umbilical cord (UC-) MSCs using harmonised culture conditions. In each centre, cells from one specific tissue source were isolated and later distributed across the network to assess their biological properties, including cell expansion, immune phenotype, and tri-lineage differentiation (part A). To assess tissue-specific function, angiogenic and immunomodulatory properties and the in vivo biodistribution were compared in one expert lab (part B). Results By implementing a harmonised manufacturing workflow, we obtained largely reproducible results across three independent laboratories in part A of our study. Unique growth patterns and differentiation potential were observed for each tissue source, with similar trends observed between centres. Immune phenotyping verified expression of typical MSC surface markers and absence of contaminating surface markers. Depending on the established protocols in the different laboratories, quantitative data varied slightly. Functional experiments in part B concluded that conditioned media from BM-MSCs significantly enhanced tubulogenesis and endothelial migration in vitro. In contrast, immunomodulatory studies reported superior immunosuppressive abilities for A-MSCs. Biodistribution studies in healthy mice showed lung entrapment after administration of all three types of MSCs, with a significantly faster clearance of BM-MSCs. Conclusion These results show the heterogeneous behaviour and regenerative properties of MSCs as a reflection of intrinsic tissue-origin properties while providing evidence that the use of harmonised culture procedures can reduce but do not eliminate inter-lab and operator differences.