Mesenchymal stromal/stem cell tissue source and in vitro expansion impact extracellular vesicle protein and miRNA compositions as well as angiogenic and immunomodulatory capacities.

Recently, therapies utilizing extracellular vesicles (EVs) derived from mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) have begun to show promise in clinical trials. However, EV therapeutic potential varies with MSC tissue source and in vitro expansion through passaging. To find the optimal MSC source for clinically translatable EV‐derived therapies, this study aims to compare the angiogenic and immunomodulatory potentials and the protein and miRNA cargo compositions of EVs isolated from the two most common clinical sources of adult MSCs, bone marrow and adipose tissue, across different passage numbers. Primary bone marrow‐derived MSCs (BMSCs) and adipose‐derived MSCs (ASCs) were isolated from adult female Lewis rats and expanded in vitro to the indicated passage numbers (P2, P4, and P8). EVs were isolated from the culture medium of P2, P4, and P8 BMSCs and ASCs and characterized for EV size, number, surface markers, protein content, and morphology. EVs isolated from different tissue sources showed different EV yields per cell, EV sizes, and protein yield per EV. Gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analyses of proteomics data and miRNA seq data identified key proteins and pathways associated with differences between BMSC‐EVs and ASC‐EVs, as well as differences due to passage number. In vitro tube formation assays employing human umbilical vein endothelial cells suggested that both tissue source and passage number had significant effects on the angiogenic capacity of EVs. With or without lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulation, EVs more significantly impacted expression of M2‐macrophage genes (IL‐10, Arg1, TGFβ) than M1‐macrophage genes (IL‐6, NOS2, TNFα). By correlating the proteomics analyses with the miRNA seq analysis and differences observed in our in vitro immunomodulatory, angiogenic, and proliferation assays, this study highlights the trade‐offs that may be necessary in selecting the optimal MSC source for development of clinical EV therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]