A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.
This protocol describes and compares two representative methods for differentiating hiPSCs into mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). The monolayer method is characterized by lower cost, simpler operation, and easier osteogenic differentiation. The embryoid bodies (EBs) method is characterized by lower time consumption.
Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are adult pluripotent stem cells which have been widely used in regenerative medicine. As somatic tissue-derived MSCs are restricted by limited donation, quality variations, and biosafety, the past 10 years have seen a great rise in efforts to generate MSCs from human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs). Past and recent efforts in the differentiation of hiPSCs into MSCs have been centered around two culture methodologies: (1) the formation of embryoid bodies (EBs) and (2) the use of monolayer culture. This protocol describes these two representative methods in deriving MSC from hiPSCs. Each method presents its advantages and disadvantages, including time, cost, cell proliferation ability, the expression of MSC markers, and their capability of differentiation in vitro. This protocol demonstrates that both methods can derive mature and functional MSCs from hiPSCs. The monolayer method is characterized by lower cost, simpler operation, and easier osteogenic differentiation, while the EB method is characterized by lower time consumption.
Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are mesoderm-derived adult pluripotent stem cells1. MSCs are present in almost all connective tissues2. Since MSCs were first discovered in the 1970s and successfully isolated from bone marrow in 1987 by Friedenstein et al.3,4,5, a variety of human somatic (including fetal and adult) tissues have been used for isolating MSCs such as bone, cartilage, tendon, muscle, adipose tissue, and hematopoietic-supporting stroma1,2,6,7. MSCs demonstrate high proliferative capabilities and plasticity to differentiate into many somatic cell lineages and could migrate to injured and inflamed tissues2,8,9. These properties make MSCs a potential candidate for regenerative medicine10. However, somatic tissue-derived MSCs (st-MSCs) are restricted by limited donation, limited cell proliferative capacity, quality variations, and biosafety concern for possible transmission of pathogens, if any, from the donors11,12.
Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) are derived from adult cells reprogramming with transcription factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc), which have similar functions as embryonic stem cells13,14. They can self-renew and possess the potential of differentiating into any type of somatic cells, including MSCs. Compared with st-MSCs, iPSC-MSCs has the advantage of unlimited supply, lower cost, higher purity, convenience in quality control, easy for scale production and gene modification15,16,17.
Due to these advantages of iPSC-MSCs, a variety of methods driving MSC from iPSC have been reported. These differentiation methods have been centered around two culture methodologies: (1) the formation of embryoid bodies (EBs) and (2) the use of monolayer cultures11,18,19,20. Herein, a representative approach for each of the two methodologies was characterized. Furthermore, comparisons between two representative approaches based on time, cost, proliferative ability, expression of MSC biomarkers, and differentiation capability in vitro were also accessed.
1. hiPSCs maintenance
2. MSCs differentiation from hiPSCs via EB formation
NOTE: The method is derived from previous literature21,22,23,24. An overview of the method is illustrated in Figure 1. The characteristics of the method are summarized in Table 1.
3. MSCs differentiation from hiPSCs via monolayer culture
NOTE: The method is derived from previous literature25,26,27,28. An overview of this method is illustrated in Figure 1. The characteristics of the method are summarized in Table 1.
4. Surface antigens analysis of hiPSC-driving MSCs by flow cytometry
NOTE: Similar to the surface antigens of bone marrow-derived MSCs, hiPSCs-driving MSC express CD105, CD73 and CD90, but do not express CD45, CD3429. In addition, hiPSCs can be used as negative control cells. Surface antigens analysis of hiPSC-driving MSCs and hiPSCs by flow cytometry are shown in Figure 2.
5. Osteogenic differentiation of hiPSC-driving MSCs
NOTE: The hiPSC-driving MSCs possess osteogenic differentiation potential (Figure 3A, B). The protocol for osteogenic differentiation is given below.
6. Adipogenic differentiation of hiPSC-driving MSCs
NOTE: The hiPSC-driving MSCs possess adipogenic differentiation potential (Figure 3C, D). The protocol for adipogenic differentiation is given below.
7. Chondrogenic differentiation of hiPSC-driving MSCs
NOTE: The hiPSC-driving MSCs possess chondrogenic differentiation potential (Figure 3E, F). The protocol for chondrogenic differentiation is given below.
Following the protocol (Figure 1A), hiPSCs were differentiated into MSCs via the EB formation and monolayer culture methods. During differentiation, the cells showed different representative morphologies (Figure 1B,C).
As shown in Figure 1B, the hiPSCs colonies display typical compact morphology before differentiation with a clear border composed of tightly packed cells. Uniform spherical...
In this protocol, two representative methods of differentiating hiPSCs into MSCs were examined20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30. Both methods were capable of derivating MSCs from hiPSCs. The ...
The authors have nothing to disclose.
We are extremely grateful to all members of the Mao and Hu Lab, past and present, for the interesting discussions and great contributions to the project. We are thankful to the National Clinical Research Center for Child Health for the great support. This study was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U20A20351 to Jianhua Mao, 82200784 to Lidan Hu), the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province of China (No. LQ22C070004 to Lidan Hu).
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Alizarin red staining kit | Beyotime Biotechnology | C0148S | |
Anti-human-CD105 (PE) | Biolegend | 323206 | |
Anti-human-CD34 (FITC) | Biolegend | 343503 | |
Anti-human-CD45 (APC) | Biolegend | 304011 | |
Anti-human-CD73( APC) | Biolegend | 344006 | |
Anti-human-CD90 (FITC) | Biolegend | 328108 | |
Ascorbic acid | Solarbio | A8100 | |
BMP-6 | Novoprotein | C012 | |
Carbon dioxide level shaker | Crystal | CO-06UC6 | |
Compensation Beads | BioLegend | 424601 | |
CryoStor CS10 | STEMCELL Technology | 07959 | |
Dexamethasone | Beyotime Biotechnology | ST1254 | |
DMEM/F12 medium | Servicebio | G4610 | |
Fetal bovine serum | HAKATA | HS-FBS-500 | |
FGF2 | Stemcell | 78003.1 | |
Gelatin | Sigma-Aldrich | G2500-100G | |
GlutaMAX | Gibco | 35050061 | |
human IgG1 isotype control APC | BioLegend | 403505 | |
human IgG1 isotype control FITC | BioLegend | 403507 | |
human IgG1 isotype control PE | BioLegend | 403503 | |
Human TGF-β1 | Stemcell | 78067 | |
Human TruStain FcX | BioLegend | 422301 | |
IBMX | Beyotime Biotechnology | ST1398 | |
Indomethacin | Solarbio | SI9020 | |
Insulin | Beyotime Biotechnology | P3376 | |
iPSC maintenance medium | STEMCELL Technology | 85850 | |
ITS Media Supplement | Beyotime Biotechnology | C0341-10mL | |
Matrigel, growth factor reduced | BD Corning | 354230 | |
Oli Red O staining kit | Beyotime Biotechnology | C0158S | |
Proline | Solarbio | P0011 | |
Sodium pyruvate | ThermoFisher | 11360-070 | |
TGFβ3 | Novoprotein | CJ44 | |
Toluidine blue staining kit | Solarbio | G2543 | |
TrypLE Express Enzyme(1x) | Gibco | 12604013 | |
Ultra-Low Attachment 6 Well Plate | Costar | 3471 | |
Versene | Gibco | 15040-66 | |
Y-27632 | Stemcell | 72304 | |
α-MEM | Hyclone | SH30265 | |
β-glycerophosphate | Solarbio | G8100 |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved