Is mandible derived mesenchymal stromal cells superior in proliferation and regeneration to long bone-derived mesenchymal stromal cells?

Table 1 Comparison of mandible vs long bone-derived MSCs

Ref.	Features	Mandible derived MSCs	Long bone-derived MSCs
Lee et al[35], 2011	Aspiration time	10 min	2 min
Yamaza et al[28], 2011	No. of colonies	55.3 ± 9.07/ 1.5 × 106 cells/plate (Higher)	5.33 ± 0.58/ 1.5 × 106 cells/plate
Li et al[37], 2019		The appearance of colonies was early within 2-3 d of inoculation into the culture	The appearance of colonies of Femur- MSCs was scantly on the 2nd or 3rd day as compared to M-MSCs
Yamaza et al[28], 2011	Osteogenic potential	High	Low
Matsubara et al[20], 2005		High	Low
Aghaloo et al[22], 2010		higher activity of ALP and OCN expression suggesting higher osteogenic potential	Comparatively lower osteogenic potential
Li et al[37], 2019		After 21 d, M-MSCs showed loss of morphology, and dry staining was observed; Runx2 gene expression was higher	After 21 d, F-MSCs showed obvious cell morphology
Yamaza et al[28], 2011	Doubling rate and cell proliferation	High	Low
Lee et al[29], 2019		Proliferation time (OD-0.82 ± 0.26) was also documented to be much earlier as compared to F-MSCs but doubling time was lower (22.6 ± 2.22 h)	Proliferation time was much delayed (OD-1.13 ± 0.41) as compared to M-MSCs but doubling time was earlier (35 ± 3.19 h)
Li et al[37], 2019		Proliferation time was also documented to be much earlier as compared to F-MSCs	Proliferation time was much delayed as compared to M-MSCs
Li et al[37], 2019	Arrangement of cells	On day 2, triangular, while after cell (tightly) fusion- these cells are arranged as paving stones	On day 2, elongated fibroblast-like morphology, while after cell (tightly) fusion- F-MSCs show vortex-like cloning center
Yamaza et al[28], 2011	Cell expression	Positive for MSC-associated markers such as CD-73, -105, and -106, SSEA-4, and Oct-4; Negative for hematopoietic markers such as CD-14, -34, and -45; Expresses SSEA-4 (6.4%) and Oct-4 (6%) in much higher proportion as compared to long bones	Positive for MSC-associated markers such as CD-73, -105, and -106, SSEA-4, and Oct-4; Negative for hematopoietic markers such as CD-14, -34, and -45. Expresses SSEA-4 (4.2%) and Oct-4 (2.6%) in lower proportion
Lee et al[35], 2011		Negative for hematopoietic stem cells such as for CD-14, -34, -45, and HLA-DR whereas positive for MSC markers such as CD-29, -44, -73, -90, -105, -166, and HLA-ABC	Negative for hematopoietic stem cells such as for CD-14, -34, -45, and HLA-DR whereas positive for MSC markers such as CD-29, -44, -73, -90, -105, -166, and HLA-ABC
Li et al[37], 2019		Strongly expressed CD-29, -73, -90, and -105 but negative for CD-31 and -34	Strongly expressed CD-29, -73, -90, and -105 but negative for CD-31 and -34
Aghaloo et al[22], 2010	Mineralization	Mandible BMSC were significantly larger and calcification was also more as compared to long bones; Tissue volume and bone volume was also larger	Less calcified as compared to M-MSCs
Lee et al[29], 2019		Mineralization appears within 14 d of osteogenic differentiation (mean-1.57 ± 0.05)	The mineral formation is higher (1.98 ± 0.05) as compared to M-MSCs at 14 d
Aghaloo et al[22], 2010	Histology	Characterized by increased and mature lamellar bone with marked osteoblastic rimming of bony trabeculae	The bone formed was primarily of the cartilaginous matrix with only peripheral bone formation

ALP: Alkaline phosphatase; BMSC: Bone mesenchymal stem cell; HLA: Human leukocyte antigen; MSCs: Mesenchymal stromal cells; M-MSCs: Mandibular-derived MSCs; F-MSCs: Femur-derived MSCs; OCN: Osteocalcin; SSEA-4: Stage-specific embryonic antigen 4; Oct-4: Octamer-4.