A Robust and Highly Efficient Approach for Isolation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells from Wharton’s Jelly for Tissue Repair

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-882696/v1

Download PDF

Research

A Robust and Highly Efficient Approach for Isolation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells from Wharton’s Jelly for Tissue Repair

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-882696/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 01 Jan, 2022

Read the published version in Cell Transplantation →

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) derived from umbilical cord Wharton’s Jelly (WJ-MSCs) are emerging as promising therapeutics for a variety of diseases due to their ability of regeneration and immunomodulation and their non-tumorigenic and non-immunogenic properties. Although multiple protocols have been developed for WJ-MSCs isolation, insufficient cell numbers, heterogeneous cell population, and variations in procedures between different laboratories impede further clinical applications.

Methods

We compared six widely used WJ-MSCs isolation methods regarding cell morphology, yield, purity, proliferation rate, and differentiation potential. Based on these analyses, we developed a new isolation approach called “Mince-Soak-Digest (MSD)”, and compared its efficiency with the existing methods. Furthermore, we transplanted WJ-MSCs isolated by different methods to the rat uterus to test their ability for tissue repair.

Results

Based on the comparison and analysis of the six widely used isolation protocols, we identified that the inefficiency of the digestion of the extracellular matrix results in low cell yield. Thus, we have developed a robust and highly efficient method to isolate MSCs from WJ by incorporating a soaking step to facilitate the digestion of the extracellular matrix and release of the cells. Our newly developed method generates significantly higher cell yield (4 to 10-fold higher) than six widely used methods that we tested with high purity and consistency. Importantly, by transplantation of WJ-MSCs isolated by MSD to the rat uterus, we repair the endometrial injury and restore the fertility of the rats.

Conclusion

Our results provide a robust and highly efficient approach for isolating WJ-MSCs to restore injured tissue. The higher efficiency of MSD assures the abundance of WJ-MSCs for clinical applications. Furthermore, the reliability of MSD contributes to the standardization of WJ-MSCs isolation, which eliminates the discrepancies due to isolation procedures, thus facilitates the evaluation of the efficacy of WJ-MSCs across various human clinical applications.

Stem Cell & Developmental Cell Biology

Mesenchymal stem cells

Wharton’s Jelly

tissue repair

intrauterine adhesions

The recent advance of stem cell technology has revolutionized the treatment of various diseases and laid the foundation for regenerative medicine, especially tissue repair^1–3. Among many types of stem cells, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have attracted much interest for preclinical/clinical studies as a potential treatment for a variety of diseases owing to their following properties: 1) Easy accessibility: MSCs exist in almost all tissues, including bone marrow, umbilical cord, endometrium, menstrual blood, and adipose⁴. 2) Self-renewal: MSCs are able to proliferate while maintaining the stem cell properties⁵. 3) Multipotency: MSCs exhibit the potential to differentiate into various lineages of mesoderm, ectoderm, and endoderm, such as bone, fat, chondrocyte, muscle, islet cells, and liver cells in vitro under appropriate stimuli^6,7. 4) Immunomodulation: MSCs are shown to aid tissue regeneration by immune suppression of both innate and adaptive systems, primarily through paracrine effect^8,9. 5) Low immunogenicity: MSCs are considered immune-privileged due to their limited expression of major histocompatibility complex Class I (MHC I), lack of MHC II and co-stimulatory antigens expression ^10,11. These properties make them an ideal candidate for allogeneic cell therapy. 6) Tropism: MSCs have the ability to migrate to damaged or diseased tissues or cells¹².

Initially, MSCs were isolated from bone marrow and frequently used for autologous cell therapy^13,14. However, the application has been hampered mainly due to their invasive and painful isolation procedure associated with significant morbidity and risk of infection¹⁵. A possible solution resides in the use of allogeneic MSCs from Wharton’s jelly (WJ), the connective tissue of the umbilical cord^16,17. WJ is considered an advantageous source for MSCs in terms of accessibility, non-invasive isolation procedure, and abundance of cells^18–20.

Isolation of MSCs from WJ is the first and critical step to assure optimal quantity and quality for the following applications in regenerative medicine. Currently, several protocols have been developed to isolate WJ-derived MSCs (WJ-MSCs), categorized into three primary techniques: enzymatic^21–23, explant^24–26, and enzymatic-explant^27–29. In the enzymatic method, cells are dissociated from tissues by a combination of enzymes, such as collagenases, hyaluronidase and trypsin, and then cultured in appropriate medium for proliferation. In the explant method, tissues are excised into a smaller size to allow attachment to the culture dish, and then cells migrate from tissues and adhere to the surface. In enzymatic-explant, the tissue is cut into small pieces and exposed to the enzymatic solution for incubation. Then, the enzymes are washed, and the tissue pieces are plated until the cells migrate out. Although these protocols are commonly used in a few laboratories, there is wide variation in procedures to harvest WJ-MSCs, resulting in different compositions of the resultant cells and inconsistent results between studies^30,31. In addition, insufficient cells isolated from original tissues and limited proliferation ability of WJ-MSCs when cultured in vitro is one of the bottlenecks for application of WJ-MSCs to large-scale clinical trials^32,33. Thus, a robust and more efficient protocol that could acquire sufficient cell numbers with high purity can be generalized as the standard approach for WJ-MSCs isolation, and it will be beneficial for the evaluation of the efficacy of WJ-MSCs across various clinical applications.

Here, we have compared six widely used WJ-MSCs isolation methods with regards to cell morphology, yield, purity, and proliferation rate. Moreover, we develop a new isolation approach that significantly increases the yield of cells by 4- to 10-fold. We further investigate the therapeutic potential of these cells by transplantation of them to the uterus of a rat endometrium-injury model. Our results demonstrate that WJ-MSCs isolated by our approach could facilitate endometrium regeneration and fertility restoration. In summary, our study provides a robust and highly efficient approach for the isolation of WJ-MSCs to restore injured tissue, which would be beneficial to promote the large-scale application of WJ-MSCs to a broader field in regenerative medicine.

2.1 Collection of umbilical cord

Umbilical cord samples from women with healthy pregnancies were retrieved at the time of cesarean section from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the first affiliated hospital of USTC. Umbilical cord samples were collected in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) containing 500 IU heparin (Sigma–Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), 300Units/mL penicillin, and 300mg/mL streptomycin (Invitrogen, Grand Island, NY, USA) and were immediately transferred to the laboratory. Umbilical cord samples were processed within 12 hours of collection.

2.2 Isolation of WJ from umbilical cord

Each human umbilical cord was transferred into a sterile laminar flow hood and washed twice in PBS to remove contaminating blood cells. The umbilical cord was cut into approximately 5-cm long segments, which were subsequently cut longitudinally to expose the umbilical vein. Blood vessels (two arteries and one vein) were removed from each segment, and Wharton’s jelly was carefully separated from the amniotic membrane³⁴.

2.3 Six widely used WJ-MSCs isolation methods

M1 (explant method): 2g WJ was excised to about 1-2mm size pieces, and they were transferred to 100mm dishes (Corning) coated with 0.2% gelatin. 2g weight of tissues were plated per dish and covered entirely with the culture medium. Half of the medium was changed on day 5 without disturbing the tissue pieces. On day 8, all the tissue pieces were removed, and the medium was completely replaced with fresh medium.

M2(explant method): 2g WJ was excised to about 1-2mm size pieces, then homogenized in DMEM/F12 + 20%FBS and grinded crosswise for about 40 times using a homogenizer into a fine granular shape (1–2mm in diameter). Then the sample was rinsed repeatedly with DMEM/F12 + 20%FBS and placed as tissue pieces on the 100mm dishes (Corning) coated with 0.2% gelatin. Half of the culture medium was replaced on day 5 without disturbing the tissue pieces. On day 8, all the tissue pieces were removed, and the medium was completely replaced with fresh medium. Every 2 days thereafter, the cells were observed and passaged according to their growth.

M3(enzymatic-explant method): 2g of WJ was excised to about 1-2mm and incubated with 1mg/mL collagenase II (Sigma–Aldrich) at 4°C overnight. The next day, the tissue was filtered through a 100-mesh sieve to filter out large pieces of tissue and washed three times by PBS and one time by culture medium (DMEM/F12 + 20%FBS). Then, the tissue was plated to a 100mm dish coated with 0.2% gelatin and covered by 5ml medium. The next day, cells started to dissociate from the tissue, and another 2-3ml medium was added to the plate. After two days, more cells were dissociated from the tissue, and another 2-3ml medium was added. The medium was changed every three days until day 8, or the cells grew to approximately 80–90% confluence.

M4 (enzymatic-explant method): WJ was excised to about 1-2mm pieces, and about 2g tissue pieces were transferred to a 15ml falcon tube to which 3ml enzymes mix (1mg/mL collagenase II and 0.25mg/mL trypsin) was added. The sample was incubated for 15min in the shaker at 37°C, shaking at 200 rpm. The reaction was neutralized by 7ml culture medium. The dissociated cells and tissue pieces were collected by centrifugation at 750g and transferred to a 10cm dish coated with 0.2% gelatin at the density of 0.5-1.5pieces/cm². 5mL culture medium was added to the plate, and the sample was placed in a 5% CO₂ incubator for 4–5 days until the cells were attached. The culture medium was replaced on Day 5 and changed every 2 days thereafter.

M5 (enzymatic method): 2g of WJ was soaked in culture medium and excised to about 1-2mm. The tissue pieces were washed three times by PBS to remove the culture medium completely. Then, the tissue pieces were transferred to a 15ml falcon tube to which 1.6ml enzymes mix (0.4mL collagenase I (10mg/mL), 0.4mL collagenase IV (10mg/mL), 0.4mL hyaluronidase (3mg/mL), 0.4mL DNAse I (1mg/mL) and 2.4mL trypsin (0.25%)) was added. The sample was incubated for 2hrs in the incubator shaker at 37°C, with agitation at 200rpm. The isolated cells were washed three times with PBS and the cell pellet was resuspended in the culture medium. The cells were cultured in 100mm tissue culture plate and incubated in a 37°C incubator with 5% CO₂, with a medium change every three days.

M6 (enzymatic method): 2g WJ was soaked in culture medium and excised to about 1-2mm. The tissue pieces were washed three times by PBS to completely remove the culture medium. Then, the tissue pieces were transferred to a 15ml falcon tube and subjected to two steps of digestion. In the first step, 0.5mL collagenase II (10mg/mL), 4.5mL trypsin (0.25%) and 0.5% ethanol was used. In the second step, 0.5mL collagenase II (10mg/mL), 0.5mL hyaluronidase (3mg/mL), 0.5mL DNAse I (1mg/mL), and 3.5mL culture medium was used. The sample was incubated in the incubator shaker at 37°C, with agitation at 200rpm, for 90min. The cells were collected by centrifugation at 700g and resuspended in 10ml culture medium. Then, the cells were cultured in 100mm tissue culture plate and incubated in a 37°C incubator with 5% CO₂, with a medium change every three days.

2.4 Isolation of WJ-MSCs by “Mince-Soak-Digest (MSD)”

2g WJ tissue sample was minced to about 1-2mm and soaked in culture medium for 7 days on 100mm tissue culture dish. Then, the tissue pieces were collected into a 15ml falcon tube and subject to enzymatic digestion with a combination of collagenase II, III, and VI at 2mg/ml and DNAse I (0.1mg/mL) at 37°C for 1.5hours, under 200rpm agitation. The digestion mixture was filtered through a 40um filter to remove undigested tissue, and cells were washed three times by PBS to completely remove the digestion enzymes. Cells were then collected by centrifugation at 700g and resuspended in 10ml culture medium. Cells were cultured in 100mm tissue culture dish coated with 0.2% gelatin and incubated in a 37°C incubator with 5% CO₂, with a medium change every three days for additional 7 days.

2.5 Culture of WJ-MSCs

WJ-MSCs were maintained in low-glucose Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM-LG; Invitrogen), supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS; Sigma), 100Units/mL penicillin, and 100mg/mL streptomycin. Cultures were grown at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO₂. The medium was changed every three days until 80% confluence was reached. To passage the cells, 0.05% Trypsin-EDTA (Invitrogen) was used to dissociate the cells and neutralized them with the culture medium. The cells were then washed once with PBS and collected by centrifugation. The cells were seeded at 1×10⁴ cells/cm².

2.6 Cell growth curves

MSCs generated with different methods at passage 3 were seeded at 1000 cells/well in 96-well plates in 100 µL of culture medium. Cell numbers with each method were counted for 14 days with each sample in triplicates, using a hemocytometer. Doubling time was estimated, and Typan Blue staining assay (Invitrogen) was used to check the viability of the cells.

2.7 Flow cytometry analysis

Flow cytometry analysis was performed using Human MSC Analysis Kit (BD Biosciences, Cat. No. 562245) based on the manufacture’s protocol. Briefly, cells were dissociated using Accutase (BD Biosciences, Cat. No 561527) at 37°C for 5 mins and collected by centrifugation at 200g. Then, the cells were passed through 70 µm strainers to ensure they were digested as single cells before they were subject to flow cytometry analysis. Dissociated cells were incubated in 1% BSA in PBS containing primary antibodies on ice for 20 min. Cells were then analyzed using a BD FACSAriaII cell sorter. Analysis was performed using FlowJo software (Tree Star).

2.8 BCA (Bicinchoninic Acid) protein assays

BCA protein assays were performed to quantify the total protein concentration using Pierce BCA Protein Assay Kit (Prod #23225) based on the manufacture’s protocol.

2.9 Differentiation assays for WJ-MSCs

WJ-MSCs were differentiated into multiple mesenchymal lineages (adipogenic, osteogenic, and chondrogenic) using Human MSC Functional Identification kit (Catalog # SC006, R&D Systems) based on the manufacture’s protocol.

2.10 Animals

The animals were housed in an environment-controlled room at 22°C with a 12hrs light and dark cycle. Animal handlers were blinded to the experimental group. Tissues obtained were examined in a blinded fashion.

2.11 Staging of the estrous cycle of the rats

8 to10-week-old Sprague Dawley female Rats were used for this study. Vaginal smear/cytology is applied to stage the estrous cycle of the rats as previously described³⁵. Briefly, a cotton-tipped swab wetted with saline was introduced into the vagina of the rat. The swab was gently twisted against the vaginal wall to scratch the cells. The cells were collected onto a dry glass slide by gently rub the swab across the slide. The slide is air-dried, stained, and viewed under a microscope. The estrus phase is determined by the presence of abundant anucleated cornified epithelial cells. Rats at the estrus phase were used for establishing the endometrium-injury model.

2.12 Establishment of the rat intrauterine adhesions (IUA) model

The rat model of endometrium-injury was established based on previously published protocols^36–38 with a few major modifications. Essentially, to increase the survival rate and reduce the complication rate due to the surgery, we exposed a relatively small incision (3-5mm versus 3cm in published protocols) and inserted a tweezer to scrape the inner uterine surface instead of a surgical scalpel blade. Briefly, 10% chloral hydrate (300mg/kg) was injected in the lower left abdominal quadrant of the rat to induce anesthesia. After anesthesia, the left uterine endometrium was exposed by a 3-5mm longitudinal incision on the uterine horns. A tweezer was inserted through the incision and the inner uterine surface was scratched by pulling the tweezer back and forth, left and right for 10 times at each direction. Then, wash the uterine surface with saline and close the uterine horn by 3–4 intermittent stitches using absorbable sutures.

2.13 Transplantation of WJ-MSCs (MSD) to the rat uterus

Twelve rats were randomly assigned to two groups: the control (IUA-model) group and the transplantation group (transplanted with WJ-MSCs (MSD)). The left uterine horns of all rats were incised open and then closed by 3–4 intermittent stitches using absorbable sutures as a sham control. For the control group, the inner uterine surface on the right was injured as described above, and MSC culture media was injected as control. For the transplantation group, immediately after the uterine horn was exposed and injured, 2×10⁶ WJ-MSCs (MSD) in 200 ul media were injected inside of the uterine horn, then the uterine horn was sutured. Two weeks post-surgery, half of the rats in each group were used for fertility tests, and the other half were used for H&E staining and immunofluorescence analysis.

2.14 Fertility test

Rats in estrus were mated with 10-week-old fertile male Sprague-Dawley rats. Day 0 of pregnancy was defined as the day a vaginal plug was found. Rats were then euthanized on gestation day 15–19, and uterine horns were examined to record the number of embryos.

2.15 Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) and Masson’s trichrome staining

Formalin-fixed rat uterine tissues were paraffin-embedded and sectioned into serial cross-sections of 5–10 µm thickness each. Samples were stained as described previously [Animals 2020, 10(4), 683; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040683]. From the images of H&E staining, the mean thickness of the endometrium was determined from four measurements at 0 °, 90 °, 180 °, and 270 °in horizontal sections, and the number of glands was counted from horizontal sections under a 40×magnification.

2.16 Immunofluorescent staining

Rat uterine sections were deparaffinized in xylene, rehydrated through an ethanol-graded series. For all samples, antigen retrieval was performed by boiling the sections in 0.01 M sodium citrate buffer (pH 6.0) for 20 min, followed by incubation at room temperature for 30 min. A 10% solution of normal donkey serum (Jackson ImmunoResearch) in PBS was used as a blocking buffer. Sections were incubated with the following primary antibodies diluted in blocking solution (1.0% Normal Donkey Serum, 0.1% Triton X-100, and sterile PBS) overnight at 4°C. The sections were washed and labeled with Alexa dye-conjugated secondary antibodies. Sections were mounted in ProLong Gold Antifade mounting media containing DAPI (Life Technologies). Negative controls included incubation with rabbit immunoglobulin G antibodies and omission of the primary antibody for all samples.

2.17 RNA extraction, reverse transcription, and quantitative real-time PCR

Total RNA was extracted using TRIzol Reagent (Invitrogen) and purified with the RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen). Reverse transcription was performed using the SuperScript II Kit (Invitrogen). Quantitative PCR analyses were performed in real-time using an ABI PRISM 7900 sequence detection system and SYBR green master mix (Life Technologies). The primer information is provided in the Supplementary Table. Data are presented as the mean ± SEM and derived from three independent experiments.

2.18 Data Analysis

Data are presented as mean ± SD for at least three independent experiments (different patient samples) performed in triplicate unless stated otherwise. Statistical significance is determined by analysis of variance and set at p < .05.

3.1 Comparison of six widely used WJ-MSCs isolation methods.

We started to compare the six widely used WJ-MSCs isolation methods in terms of cell morphology, cell yields, purity, and proliferation rate. Two explant methods (M1 and M2), two enzymatic-explant methods (M3) and M4), and two enzymatic methods (M5) and (M6) were tested for comparison. 2g umbilical cord tissue was used for each method, and the experiments were repeated three times for statistical analysis. In terms of cell morphology, all six methods generate spindle-like stromal cells with no obvious morphological difference after 14 days of tissue culture (Fig. 1A). However, cell yields vary significantly among different isolation methods. M1 and M2 (explant methods) generate similar cell numbers after 14 days of culture; approximately 5x10⁵ cells were isolated from 2g WJ (Fig. 1B). This result suggests that additional homogenization procedure in M2 is not beneficial for releasing more cells from the WJ tissue in the explant/mechanical methods. M3, which digests the tissue by collagenase before explant, doesn’t seem reliable or robust isolation method, as the cell yield varies significantly between technical repeats. We noticed that the jelly-like structure remains after collagenase treatment, and the cells may be trapped within the jelly structure. This indicates that 4ºC overnight collagenase treatment is not efficient enough to digest the WJ tissue completely. The other enzymatic-explant method, M4, which combines trypsin digestion and explant method, generates the least cell numbers. Two enzymatic methods, M5 and M6, yield more cells compared to the explant and enzymatic-explant methods. M6 generates the most cells, with an average number of 1.3x10⁶ cells after 14 days of culture (Fig. 1B).

Cell proliferation rate is another critical factor in determining the quality of the cells. M1 and M6 were selected to represent the explant and enzymatic methods for cell proliferation analysis. Explant-enzymatic methods were not chosen as their performance in cell yield is not as good as the other methods. The results showed that cells isolated by M6 have higher cell proliferation rate than M1, suggesting that enzymatic treatment does not compromise the ability of cell growth (Fig. 1C).

Furthermore, to compare the purity of MSCs generated by different methods, we performed flow cytometry analysis to profile the surface markers on the cells at passage 2³². Based on the analysis, more than 90% of the cells generated by M2, M3, M5 and M6 are positive for the established MSCs markers (CD44, CD90, CD73 and CD105), and less than 1% of the cells are positive for other lineage markers, such as CD34, CD11b, CD19, CD45 and HLA-DR (Fig. 2 and Table 1). However, the purity was lower in the cells generated by M1 and M4, with less than 90% of the cells are positive for MSC markers (Table 1, Fig. 2).

Table 1

The percentage of the cells positive for the surface proteins
	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6
CD44	95.1%	99.62%	98.50%	52.35%	99.78%	99.28%
CD73	95.51%	99.54%	99.47%	86.28%	99.48%	98.89%
CD90	85.33%	99.82%	95.71%	84.48%	94.11%	95.78%
CD105	60.73%	99.28%	93.95%	90.11%	92.14%	99.87%
HLA-DR	0.48%	0.12%	0.51%	0.31%	0.20%	0.14%

Taken together, M6, which releases MSCs from WJ tissue by two steps of enzymatic digestion, has the best performance among all the methods tested in terms of cell morphology, cell yield, cell proliferation rate, as well as cell purity. This indicates that the synergy of different enzymes helps disrupt the WJ tissue matrix and release the cells. However, harsh treatment of multiple enzymes on the solid tissue could compromise the quality of the cells for use in subsequent cellular studies or clinical applications, especially stem cells that are more sensitive to enzymatic treatment. Besides, using multiple enzymes for isolation costs relatively more to recover the same number of cells.

3.2 Development of “Mince-Soak-Digest (MSD)” method

While using the existing methods to isolate WJ-MSCs, we noticed that many cells were trapped in the remaining tissue after migration in the explant methods (Fig. 3A). Similarly, big tissue pieces containing many cells were not digested completely even after long-time incubation with a combination of enzymes in the enzymatic methods. The thick collagen fibers seem to be the physical barrier for the cells to dissociate from the tissue. It is reported that collagen constitutes 95% wet weight of WJ ³⁹, and our mRNA expression analysis confirmed that COL1A1 (representing Collagen type I) is the predominant protein expressed in WJ (Fig. 3B)⁴⁰.

We also noticed that the density of collagen fibers in WJ tissues is reduced significantly when soaked in the media for 7 days in the explant methods (Fig. 3C). The soaking media becomes viscous, and the protein concentration gains, indicating that collagen proteins are released from WJ tissue during the process of soaking (Fig. 3D). These observations prompt us to test whether a soaking procedure would facilitate the subsequent extracellular matrix digestion by collagenase, thus enhancing the resultant cell yield from WJ tissue.

Thus, we develop a new WJ-MSC isolation method that incorporates a soaking procedure in the enzymatic method, and we name it “Mince-Soak-Digest (MSD)”. Briefly, we mince the WJ into small pieces and soak them in the MSC culture media for 7 days. After soaking, we digest the collagen-reduced WJ tissue with Collagenase II and VI to collect the cells (Fig. 3E).

3.3 MSD method is advantageous to the six widely used isolation methods.

We went on to compare MSD with the other six methods in terms of cell yield, proliferation rate, as well as purity. We found that MSD generates significantly higher cell numbers consistently. An average of 4.7x10⁶ cells were obtained from 2g tissues. This yield is 4 to 10-fold higher than the six widely used methods (Fig. 4A). Importantly, WJ-MSCs isolated by MSD (WJ-MSCs (MSD)) has comparable proliferation rate (Fig. 4B) and purity (> 95% of the cells are positive for CD44, CD90, CD73 and CD105, and 0.86% cells are positive for CD34, CD11b, CD19, CD45 and HLA-DR) with M6, which has the best performance among the six tested methods (Fig. 4C).

To further confirm the stem cell potential of WJ-MSCs isolated by MSD, we tested the differentiation abilities of these cells to become osteogenic, chondrogenic, and adipogenic cells. To our expectation, these cells are able to differentiate into all three lineages, as demonstrated by the immunofluorescent staining of FABP-4 as adipocyte marker, Aggrecan as chondrocyte marker, and Osteocalcin as osteocyte marker (Fig. 4D).

Collectively, we have developed a robust and highly efficient method to isolate MSCs from WJ with significantly higher cell yield (4 to 10-fold higher) than any of the widely used methods that we tested.

3.4 Transplantation of WJ-MSCs (MSD) promotes endometrium regeneration in IUA rats.

MSCs from multiple sources, including WJ-MSCs, have been shown to facilitate endometrial regeneration and fertility restoration in rat and rhesus monkey intrauterine adhesions (IUA) models, primarily due to their paracrine effects at the lesion site^41–45. To further test the therapeutic potential of WJ-MSCs (MSD) for tissue regeneration, we established a rat IUA model and transplanted WJ-MSCs generated by M6 and MSD into the uterus of the rats. The rat IUA model is developed by mechanical injury based on previously published protocols with some modifications. We confirmed by H&E staining that the thickness of the uterine in the IUA model was thinner, and gland numbers were decreased compared to the uterine in the sham group (Fig. 5A-C). After transplantation of WJ-MSCs, generated either by MSD or M6, into the injured uterine of the IUA model, the uterine thickness, as well as the number of the uterine glands, was recovered to the level comparable to the sham group (Fig. 5A-C). Note that although there is no significant difference between MSD- and M6-generated WJ-MSCs in terms of the recovery effect, MSD has the advantage of generating higher cell yield compared to M6 and other methods.

3.5 Transplantation of WJ-MSCs (MSD) restores the fertility of IUA rats.

Fertility assessment is one of the “gold standards”to test the function of the regenerated endometrium. Two weeks after surgery, we went on to perform a fertility test for sham, control (IUA model), and transplantation groups. The pregnancy rate for the sham side is 100%, as all the left uterine horns are able to receive embryos. However, due to the injury, the pregnancy rate for the control (IUA model) group is only about 7%, which verified the reliability of our IUA model. Significantly, after transplantation of WJ-MSCs, generated either from MSD or M6, the pregnancy rate has increased to more than 80% (Fig. 6B). Furthermore, we examined the implantation efficiency by quantification of the well-developed embryos, which have comparable weights and dimensions as normal embryos developed in the sham group (Fig. 6A). The results showed that each uterine horn from the sham group received seven embryos on average, while only 1 out of the 6 uterine horns in control (IUA model) group received 2 embryos. Significantly, each uterine horn from the transplantation group received five well-developed embryos on average.

Taken together, these results demonstrate that WJ-MSCs have therapeutic potential to restore endometrium tissue injury and fertility capability. Again, although there is no significant difference between MSD- and M6-generated WJ-MSCs in terms of the therapeutic effect, MSD increases the quantity of the cell yield without compromising the quality. These results suggest that MSD could be generalized as an isolation method to obtain WJ-MSCs for large-scale clinical trials for tissue repair.

WJ-MSCs show promising efficacy in animal models for a variety of degenerative diseases. However, in most studies, they do not produce the same results when translated to the human system^46,47. One possible problem is the heterogeneity of the cells, which largely results from the current isolation methods. Besides, the limited sources and in vitro proliferation ability of WJ-MSCs makes the cell number a bottleneck for large-scale clinical application. Based on carefully analyzing multiple widely used isolation protocols, we find that the biggest obstacle for WJ-MSCs isolation is the inefficiency in the digestion of the extracellular matrix. Thus, we have developed MSD, which disrupts the extracellular matrix of WJ by soaking before enzymatic digestion. This results in a significant increase of cell yield by 4- to 10-fold with high purity and consistency. Importantly, we show that the isolated MSCs have the powerful regenerative potential for tissue repair and could be generalized for large-scale clinical trials.

Explant culture and enzymatic digestion are the two prevalent methods to isolate WJ-MSCs. The absence of proteolytic stress and the presence of tissue origin is supposed to increase the viability of the cells in the explant culture method. However, the structure of the extracellular matrix within the tissue creates a big physical barrier for cells to migrate out, which results in only a small percentage of total cells manage to grow out of the entire tissue piece. The enzymatic method, on the other hand, is more efficient to obtain a single cell population from the tissue, but the concentration of the enzymes and the incubation time for digestion are difficult to optimize to achieve high cell viability. Moreover, dense collagen fibers are difficult to be digested completely, leaving many of the cells to remain in the collagen fibers. In many cases, the two methods are combined (explant-enzymatic) to complement each other. However, in our test, the combination of explant and enzymatic M3 and M4 are not as good as the other methods in terms of cell yield, reproducibility, and purity. Essentially, among all the tested methods, we find that there are considerable variations in the technical details from published protocols, including the type and concentration of collagenase used, as well as the temperature and duration of enzymatic digestion or explant incubation, which leads to variable sizes of undigested tissues. These variations in different laboratories produce inconsistent results between studies.

An important step that we integrate into our method is the soaking step, which has been proven to facilitate the disruption of the extracellular matrix in the WJ tissue. While soaking, the collagen fibers leach out to the media and leave the remaining loose matrix easier to be digested. This step makes the dissociation of cells much simpler and more controllable. Thus, we propose that the combination of a soaking step with enzymatic digestion contributes to the elimination of the variations between studies due to the cell heterogeneity.

Intrauterine adhesions, also called Asherman’s syndrome⁴⁸, is characterized by partial or complete bonding of the uterine cavity due to the formation of scar tissue inside the uterus caused by uterine surgery⁴⁹. Severe recurrent IUA hinders embryos implantation and leads to miscarriage⁵⁰. The primary goal of IUA treatment is to restore endometrial regeneration, and stem cell-based therapy has become one of the promising adjuvant therapies for IUA treatment⁵¹. Substantial progress has been made in preclinical and clinical studies of using UC-MSCs for the treatment of IUA. However, large-scale, double-blind, randomized trials are urgently needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the treatment. Our results show that our WJ-MSC (MSD) is capable of recovering the regeneration of the endometrium and restore fertility. We propose that sufficient clinical-grade WJ-MSCs could be generated by MSD and apply to large-scale clinical trials for degenerative diseases.

In summary, we have established a robust and highly efficient approach, “Mince-Soak-Digest (MSD)” to isolate WJ-MSCs. Compared to the current widely used approaches, MSD could significantly increase the cell yield by 4- to 10-fold with high purity and consistency. Importantly, we show that the isolated MSCs have the powerful regenerative potential for endometrial tissue repair. Taken together, our study contributes to the standardization of WJ-MSCs isolation, which assures the abundance of WJ-MSCs and eliminates the discrepancies due to isolation procedures, thus facilitates the evaluation of the efficacy of WJ-MSCs across various human clinical applications.

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs);

Wharton’s Jelly (WJ)

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) derived from umbilical cord Wharton’s Jelly (WJ-MSCs)

Mince-Soak-Digest (MSD)

Major histocompatibility complex Class I (MHC I)

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)

University of Science and Technology of China (USTC)

Intrauterine adhesions (IUA)

Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E)

Ethic approval

All procedures involving the human umbilical cord were conducted in accordance with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines for the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC). Collection of the umbilical cord was approved under IRB code no. 1603-IGX-016-CS. All animal experiments were compliant with all relevant ethical regulations regarding animal research approved by the ethics committee of USTC under IRB code no. USTACUC202101023.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

The original data are available from the corresponding author on request.

Funding

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 32070830 and Grant No. 81971339), the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province (Grant No. 1808085MH242), and the research funds from the University of Science and Technology of China WK9110000141, and YD9100002007.

Authors’ contributions

Shengxia Zheng: Conception and design, provision of study material or patients, final approval of the manuscript

Yanyan Gao: Provision of study material or patients, collection and assembly of data, data analysis and interpretation

Kai Chen: Collection and/or assembly of data, data analysis, and interpretation

Yusheng Liu: Conception and design, provision of study material or patients

Ninuo Xia: Conception and design, collection and/or assembly of data, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing，final approval of the manuscript

Fang Fang: Conception and design, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing,

final approval of the manuscript

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Lingling Zhu (USTC) for her kind help in this study.

Competing Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

Biteau B, Hochmuth CE, Jasper H. Maintaining tissue homeostasis: dynamic control of somatic stem cell activity. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;9:402–11. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2011.10.004.
Phinney DG, Prockop DJ. Concise review: mesenchymal stem/multipotent stromal cells: the state of transdifferentiation and modes of tissue repair–current views. Stem Cells. 2007;25:2896–902. doi:10.1634/stemcells.2007-0637.
Dimarino AM, Caplan AI, Bonfield TL. Mesenchymal stem cells in tissue repair. Front Immunol. 2013;4:201. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2013.00201.
da Silva Meirelles L, Chagastelles PC, Nardi NB. Mesenchymal stem cells reside in virtually all post-natal organs and tissues. J Cell Sci. 2006;119:2204–13. doi:10.1242/jcs.02932.
Lakshmipathy U, Verfaillie C. Stem cell plasticity. Blood Rev. 2005;19:29–38. doi:10.1016/j.blre.2004.03.001.
Jiang Y, et al. Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult marrow. Nature. 2002;418:41–9. doi:10.1038/nature00870.
Pittenger MF, et al. Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science. 1999;284:143–7. doi:10.1126/science.284.5411.143.
Tse WT, Pendleton JD, Beyer WM, Egalka MC, Guinan EC. Suppression of allogeneic T-cell proliferation by human marrow stromal cells: implications in transplantation. Transplantation. 2003;75:389–97. doi:10.1097/01.TP.0000045055.63901.A9.
Le Blanc K. Immunomodulatory effects of fetal and adult mesenchymal stem cells. Cytotherapy. 2003;5:485–9. doi:10.1080/14653240310003611.
Ryan JM, Barry FP, Murphy JM, Mahon BP. Mesenchymal stem cells avoid allogeneic rejection. J Inflamm (Lond). 2005;2:8. doi:10.1186/1476-9255-2-8.
Berglund AK, Fortier LA, Antczak DF, Schnabel LV. Immunoprivileged no more: measuring the immunogenicity of allogeneic adult mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2017;8:288. doi:10.1186/s13287-017-0742-8.
Caplan AI, Dennis JE. Mesenchymal stem cells as trophic mediators. J Cell Biochem. 2006;98:1076–84. doi:10.1002/jcb.20886.
Friedenstein AJ, Piatetzky S, II & Petrakova K. V. Osteogenesis in transplants of bone marrow cells. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1966;16:381–90.
Li H, Ghazanfari R, Zacharaki D, Lim HC, Scheding S. Isolation and characterization of primary bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2016;1370:109–18. doi:10.1111/nyas.13102.
Romanov YA, Svintsitskaya VA, Smirnov VN. Searching for alternative sources of postnatal human mesenchymal stem cells: candidate MSC-like cells from umbilical cord. Stem Cells. 2003;21:105–10. doi:10.1634/stemcells.21-1-105.
Simoes IN, et al. Human mesenchymal stem cells from the umbilical cord matrix: successful isolation and ex vivo expansion using serum-/xeno-free culture media. Biotechnol J. 2013;8:448–58. doi:10.1002/biot.201200340.
Deuse T, et al. Immunogenicity and immunomodulatory properties of umbilical cord lining mesenchymal stem cells. Cell Transplant. 2011;20:655–67. doi:10.3727/096368910X536473.
Fong CY, Richards M, Manasi N, Biswas A, Bongso A. Comparative growth behaviour and characterization of stem cells from human Wharton's jelly. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15:708–18. doi:10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60539-1.
Fong CY, et al. Derivation efficiency, cell proliferation, freeze-thaw survival, stem-cell properties and differentiation of human Wharton's jelly stem cells. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21:391–401. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.04.010.
Fong CY, et al. Human Wharton's jelly stem cells have unique transcriptome profiles compared to human embryonic stem cells and other mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2011;7:1–16. doi:10.1007/s12015-010-9166-x.
Wang HS, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells in the Wharton's jelly of the human umbilical cord. Stem Cells. 2004;22:1330–7. doi:10.1634/stemcells.2004-0013.
Seshareddy K, Troyer D, Weiss ML. Method to isolate mesenchymal-like cells from Wharton's Jelly of umbilical cord. Methods Cell Biol. 2008;86:101–19. doi:10.1016/S0091-679X(08)00006-X.
Tsagias N, Koliakos I, Karagiannis V, Eleftheriadou M, Koliakos GG. Isolation of mesenchymal stem cells using the total length of umbilical cord for transplantation purposes. Transfus Med. 2011;21:253–61. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3148.2011.01076.x.
Hassan G, Kasem I, Soukkarieh C, Aljamali MA. Simple Method to Isolate and Expand Human Umbilical Cord Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Using Explant Method and Umbilical Cord Blood Serum. Int J Stem Cells. 2017;10:184–92. doi:10.15283/ijsc17028.
Hendijani F. Explant culture: An advantageous method for isolation of mesenchymal stem cells from human tissues. Cell Prolif 50, doi:10.1111/cpr.12334 (2017).
Marmotti A, et al. Minced umbilical cord fragments as a source of cells for orthopaedic tissue engineering: an in vitro study. Stem Cells Int 2012, 326813, doi:10.1155/2012/326813 (2012).
Varaa N, Azandeh S, Khodabandeh Z, Gharravi AM. Wharton's Jelly Mesenchymal Stem Cell: Various Protocols for Isolation and Differentiation of Hepatocyte-Like Cells; Narrative Review. Iran J Med Sci. 2019;44:437–48. doi:10.30476/ijms.2019.44952.
Smith JR, Cromer A, Weiss ML. Human Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Isolation, Expansion, Cryopreservation, and Characterization. Curr Protoc Stem Cell Biol. 2017;41(1F 18 11-11F):18 23. doi:10.1002/cpsc.24.
Beeravolu N, et al. Isolation and Characterization of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells from Human Umbilical Cord and Fetal Placenta. J Vis Exp. 2017. doi:10.3791/55224.
Bharti D, et al. Comparative analysis of human Wharton's jelly mesenchymal stem cells derived from different parts of the same umbilical cord. Cell Tissue Res. 2018;372:51–65. doi:10.1007/s00441-017-2699-4.
Yi X, et al. Comparative separation methods and biological characteristics of human placental and umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells in serum-free culture conditions. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2020;11:183. doi:10.1186/s13287-020-01690-y.
Mushahary D, Spittler A, Kasper C, Weber V, Charwat V. Isolation, cultivation, and characterization of human mesenchymal stem cells. Cytometry A. 2018;93:19–31. doi:10.1002/cyto.a.23242.
Nekanti U, et al. Optimization and scale-up of Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells for clinical applications. Stem Cell Res. 2010;5:244–54. doi:10.1016/j.scr.2010.08.005.
Troyer DL, Weiss ML. Wharton's jelly-derived cells are a primitive stromal cell population. Stem Cells. 2008;26:591–9. doi:10.1634/stemcells.2007-0439.
Ajayi AF, Akhigbe RE. Staging of the estrous cycle and induction of estrus in experimental rodents: an update. Fertil Res Pract. 2020;6:5. doi:10.1186/s40738-020-00074-3.
Kuramoto G, et al. Preventive effect of oral mucosal epithelial cell sheets on intrauterine adhesions. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:406–16. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu326.
Feng Q, et al. Establishment of an animal model of intrauterine adhesions after surgical abortion and curettage in pregnant rats. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8:56. doi:10.21037/atm.2020.01.134.
Yang H, et al. Vitamin C plus hydrogel facilitates bone marrow stromal cell-mediated endometrium regeneration in rats. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2017;8:267. doi:10.1186/s13287-017-0718-8.
Davies JE, Walker JT, Keating A, Concise Review. Wharton's Jelly: The Rich, but Enigmatic, Source of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2017;6:1620–30. doi:10.1002/sctm.16-0492.
Bankowski E, Romanowicz L, Jaworski S. Collagen of umbilical cord arteries and its alterations in EPH-gestosis. J Perinat Med. 1993;21:491–8. doi:10.1515/jpme.1993.21.6.491.
Xin L, et al. A collagen scaffold loaded with human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells facilitates endometrial regeneration and restores fertility. Acta Biomater. 2019;92:160–71. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2019.05.012.
Cao Y, et al. Allogeneic cell therapy using umbilical cord MSCs on collagen scaffolds for patients with recurrent uterine adhesion: a phase I clinical trial. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2018;9:192. doi:10.1186/s13287-018-0904-3.
Benor A, Gay S, DeCherney A. An update on stem cell therapy for Asherman syndrome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:1511–29. doi:10.1007/s10815-020-01801-x.
Keyhanvar N, et al. Cell-based endometrial regeneration: current status and future perspectives. Cell Tissue Res. 2021;384:241–54. doi:10.1007/s00441-021-03419-6.
Wang L, et al. In situ repair abilities of human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells and autocrosslinked hyaluronic acid gel complex in rhesus monkeys with intrauterine adhesion. Sci Adv. 2020;6:eaba6357. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aba6357.
Kim DW, et al. Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells: phenotypic characterization and optimizing their therapeutic potential for clinical applications. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14:11692–712. doi:10.3390/ijms140611692.
Kamal MM, Kassem DH. Therapeutic Potential of Wharton's Jelly Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Diabetes: Achievements and Challenges. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020;8:16. doi:10.3389/fcell.2020.00016.
Asherman JG. Traumatic intra-uterine adhesions. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1950;57:892–6. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1950.tb06053.x.
Schenker JG, Margalioth EJ. Intrauterine adhesions: an updated appraisal. Fertil Steril. 1982;37:593–610. doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)46268-0.
Di Guardo F, et al. Evaluation and treatment of infertile women with Asherman syndrome: an updated review focusing on the role of hysteroscopy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41:55–61. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.03.021.
Zhao Y, et al. Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Stem Cell-Based Therapy in Treating Asherman Syndrome: A System Review and Meta-Analysis. Stem Cells Int 2020, 8820538, doi:10.1155/2020/8820538 (2020).

Supplementaltable1.docx

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 01 Jan, 2022

Read the published version in Cell Transplantation →

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

A Robust and Highly Efficient Approach for Isolation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells from Wharton’s Jelly for Tissue Repair

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Material And Methods

2.1 Collection of umbilical cord

2.2 Isolation of WJ from umbilical cord

2.3 Six widely used WJ-MSCs isolation methods

2.4 Isolation of WJ-MSCs by “Mince-Soak-Digest (MSD)”

2.5 Culture of WJ-MSCs

2.6 Cell growth curves

2.7 Flow cytometry analysis

2.8 BCA (Bicinchoninic Acid) protein assays

2.9 Differentiation assays for WJ-MSCs

2.10 Animals

2.11 Staging of the estrous cycle of the rats

2.12 Establishment of the rat intrauterine adhesions (IUA) model

2.13 Transplantation of WJ-MSCs (MSD) to the rat uterus

2.14 Fertility test

2.15 Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) and Masson’s trichrome staining

2.16 Immunofluorescent staining

2.17 RNA extraction, reverse transcription, and quantitative real-time PCR

2.18 Data Analysis

3. Results

3.1 Comparison of six widely used WJ-MSCs isolation methods.

3.2 Development of “Mince-Soak-Digest (MSD)” method

3.3 MSD method is advantageous to the six widely used isolation methods.

3.4 Transplantation of WJ-MSCs (MSD) promotes endometrium regeneration in IUA rats.

3.5 Transplantation of WJ-MSCs (MSD) restores the fertility of IUA rats.

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

Ethic approval

Consent for publication

Availability of data and material

Funding

Authors’ contributions

Acknowledgements

Competing Interests

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1