Isolation of equine bone marrow‐derived mesenchymal stem cells: a comparison between three protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REASON FOR PERFORMING THE STUDY: There is a need to assess and standardise equine bone marrow (BM) mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) isolation protocols in order to permit valid comparisons between therapeutic trials at different sites. OBJECTIVE: To compare 3 protocols of equine BM MSC isolation: adherence to a plastic culture dish (Classic) and 2 gradient density separation protocols (Percoll and Ficoll). MATERIALS AND METHODS: BM aspirates were harvested from the sternum of 6 mares and MSCs isolated by all 3 protocols. The cell viability after isolation, MSC yield, number of MSCs attained after 14 days of culture and the functional characteristics (self-renewal (CFU) and multilineage differentiation capacity) were determined for all 3 protocols. RESULTS: The mean +/- s.d. MSC yield from the Percoll protocol was significantly higher (6.8 +/- 3.8%) than the Classic protocol (1.3 +/- 0.7%). The numbers of MSCs recovered after 14 days culture per 10 ml BM sample were 24.0 +/- 12.1, 14.6 +/- 9.5 and 4.1 +/- 2.5 x 10(6) for the Percoll, Ficoll and Classic protocols, respectively, significantly higher for the Percoll compared with the Classic protocol. Importantly, no significant difference in cell viability or in osteogenic or chondrogenic differentiation was identified between the protocols. At Passage 0, cells retrieved with the Ficoll protocol had lower self-renewal capacity when compared with the Classic protocol but there was no significant difference between protocols at Passage 1. There were no significant differences between the 3 protocols for the global frequencies of CFUs at Passage 0 or 1. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These data suggest that the Percoll gradient density separation protocol was the best in terms of MSC yield and self-renewal potential of the MSCs retrieved and that MSCs retrieved with the Ficoll protocol had the lowest self-renewal but only at passage 0. Then, the 3 protocols were equivalent. However, the Percoll protocol should be considered for equine MSC isolation to minimise culture time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".