MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325954509 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-21-04-258

Synovial Stem Cells in Musculoskeletal Regeneration

2013· article· en· W2325954509 on OpenAlexaff
Kıvanç Ateşok, Nedim M. Doral, Onur Bilge, Ichiro Sekiya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesenchymal stem cellSynovial membraneMedicineCell biologyCell typeCD90PathologySynovial jointCD44Stem cell transplantation for articular cartilage repairCartilageStem cellCellOsteoarthritisInflammationAnatomyCellular differentiationImmunologyAdult stem cellBiologyCD34

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The synovium is a thin layer of connective tissue that lines the joint surface, tendon sheaths, and bursae at freely moving articulations in the body. Embryologic origin of the synovial tissue is the mesenchymal layer, which also gives rise to bone, cartilage, ligament, and muscle tissue. The synovium has several functions, including lubrication of the articulating surfaces, nutrition of articular cartilage, and regulation of immune response within the joint. Synovial Cells The synovium contains two main cell types: type A and type B synoviocytes. Type A synoviocytes are tissue macrophages and have phagocytic functions. Type B synoviocytes are fibroblast-like cells and function in the formation of synovial fluid.1 In 2001, De Bari et al2 isolated mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) from the synovium (Figure 1). Type A synoviocytes can be characterized and eliminated from mixed synovial cell populations through a selective culturing process. However, type B synoviocytes and synovial-MSCs have similar phenotypic features, and specific characteristics to clearly differentiate these two cell types from each other have not been determined yet.1Figure 1: Histologic appearance of human synovial mesenchymal stem cells under the phase contrast microscope 14 days after initial plating.In terms of immune phenotype, there are many similarities between synovial-MSCs and MSCs of other origins. Both cell types are positive for surface markers such as CD44, CD90, and CD105. However, cells derived from synovium, including synovial-MSCs, have higher expression of CD44 (a hyaluronan receptor) and can express uridine diphosphoglucose dehydrogenase, which is a vital enzyme involved in hyaluronan synthesis.3 In vitro studies have shown that synovial-MSCs have superior potential to differentiate into chondrocytes and to produce cartilage compared with MSCs of other origins.4 Moreover, synovial-MSCs have greater proliferation and colony-forming capacity than do other stem cell sources.4 Synovial-MSCs and Cartilage Regeneration Based on the promising results from in vitro studies, investigators have launched animal model studies to evaluate the effects of synovial-MSCs in vivo. In a rabbit model with full-thickness articular cartilage defect, Koga et al5 demonstrated that local transplantation of synovial-MSCs results in extensive cartilage matrix formation at the defect site. These authors also observed that in the deeper zone of the defect, synovial-MSCs differentiated into bone cells, whereas synovial-MSCs at the superficial zones differentiated into chondrocytes. This observation supported the multilineage differentiation potential of synovial-MSCs according to local microenvironments in vivo. In a pig model, transplantation of synovial-MSCs into a full-thickness articular cartilage defect promoted cartilage regeneration based on arthroscopic, MRI, and histologic analysis as early as 3 months after the procedure.6 Bilge et al7 used a rabbit knee model as an in vivo culture medium to evaluate the effects of synovium on chondrocyte growth. These authors observed that cartilage grafts that are in direct contact with the synovium produce more chondrocytes compared with cartilage grafts that are not. Studies of animal meniscal defect models demonstrated that transplanted synovial-MSCs adhere to sites of meniscal injury, differentiate into cells resembling meniscal fibrochondrocytes, and enhance meniscal regeneration.8,9 Sporadic human studies have reported that the number of synovial-MSCs in synovial fluid increases in knees with degenerated cartilage and osteoarthritis and following intraarticular ligament injury.10,11 This observation raises the question whether the number of synovial-MSCs that are mobilized from synovium into synovial fluid increases according to the degree of cartilage degeneration as part of the reparative process. Human trials investigating the effects of intra-articular synovial-MSC transplantation to promote cartilage regeneration and/or to prevent osteoarthritis should answer this question. Application of Synovial-MSCs for Bone, Tendon, and Muscle Regeneration Synovial-MSCs may offer an alternative cell-based treatment strategy for bone, tendon, and muscle regeneration. In a rabbit bone defect model, Matsusaki et al12 demonstrated that using tissue-engineered construct derived from synovial-MSCs with hydroxyapatite accelerates osteoinduction. In a rat Achilles tendon graft model, synovial-MSC implantation into bone tunnel accelerated early remodeling of tendon-to-bone healing.13 Another rat model study showed that synovial-MSCs have myogenic potential and contribute to skeletal muscle regeneration in vivo.14 In spite of these reports, there is not sufficient evidence regarding osteogenic and myogenic potential of synovial-MSCs compared with bone marrow- and muscle-derived MSCs. Future Perspectives In vitro and animal model studies support the use of synovial-MSCs in cartilage regeneration as an important, arguably superior, cell-based treatment alternative. Further investigations in the near future should help in our understanding the complexity of synovial-MSC biology in terms of isolation, characterization, culturing, distinguishing from, and interacting with other cell types before this promising cell-based therapy can be translated into clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207