Objective: Allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are used in the 1-stage treatment of articular cartilage defects. The aim of this study is to investigate whether transport of mitochondria... Show moreObjective: Allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are used in the 1-stage treatment of articular cartilage defects. The aim of this study is to investigate whether transport of mitochondria exists between chondrocytes and MSCs and to investigate whether the transfer of mitochondria to chondrocytes contributes to the mechanism of action of MSCs. Design: Chondrocytes and MSCs were stained with MitoTracker, and CellTrace was used to distinguish between cell types. The uptake of fluorescent mitochondria was measured in cocultures using flow cytometry. Transport was visualized using fluorescence microscopy. Microvesicles were isolated and the presence of mitochondria was assessed. Mitochondria were isolated from MSCs and transferred to chondrocytes using MitoCeption. Pellets of chondrocytes, chondrocytes with transferred MSC mitochondria, and cocultures were cultured for 28 days. DNA content and proteoglycan content were measured. Mitochondrial DNA of cultured pellets and of repair cartilage tissue was quantified. Results: Mitochondrial transfer occurred bidirectionally within the first 4 hours until 16 hours of coculture. Transport took place via tunneling nanotubes, direct cell-cell contact, and extracellular vesicles. After 28 days of pellet culture, DNA content and proteoglycan deposition were higher in chondrocyte pellets to which MSC mitochondria were transferred than the control groups. No donor mitochondrial DNA was traceable in the biopsies, whereas an increase in MSC mitochondrial DNA was seen in the pellets. Conclusions: These results suggest that mitochondrial transport plays a role in the chondroinductive effect of MSCs on chondrocytes in vitro. However, in vivo no transferred mitochondria could be traced back after 1 year. Show less
Tissues and biofluids are important sources of information used for the detection of diseases and decisions on patient therapies. There are several accepted methods for preservation of tissues,... Show moreTissues and biofluids are important sources of information used for the detection of diseases and decisions on patient therapies. There are several accepted methods for preservation of tissues, among which the most popular are fresh-frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin embedded methods. Depending on the preservation method and the amount of sample available, various specific protocols are available for tissue processing for subsequent proteomic analysis. Protocols are tailored to answer various biological questions, and as such vary in lysis and digestion conditions, as well as duration. The existence of diverse tissue-sample protocols has led to confusion in how to choose the best protocol for a given tissue and made it difficult to compare results across sample types. Here, we summarize procedures used for tissue processing for subsequent bottom-up proteomic analysis. Furthermore, we compare protocols for their variations in the composition of lysis buffers, digestion procedures, and purification steps. For example, reports have shown that lysis buffer composition plays an important role in the profile of extracted proteins: the most common are tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane, radioimmunoprecipitation assay, and ammonium bicarbonate buffers. Although, trypsin is the most commonly used enzyme for proteolysis, in some protocols it is supplemented with Lys-C and/or chymotrypsin, which will often lead to an increase in proteome coverage. Data show that the selection of the lysis procedure might need to be tissue-specific to produce distinct protocols for individual tissue types. Finally, selection of the procedures is also influenced by the amount of sample available, which range from biopsies or the size of a few dozen of mm(2) obtained with laser capture microdissection to much larger amounts that weight several milligrams. Show less
