Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Apr 27;18(4):e0285106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285106

Human fetal cartilage-derived chondrocytes and chondroprogenitors display a greater commitment to chondrogenesis than adult cartilage resident cells

Elizabeth Vinod 1,2,*, Ganesh Parasuraman 2, Jeya Lisha J 1, Soosai Manickam Amirtham 1, Abel Livingston 3, Jithu James Varghese 4, Sandya Rani 2, Deepak Vinod Francis 5, Grace Rebekah 6, Alfred Job Daniel 3, Boopalan Ramasamy 7,8,*, Solomon Sathishkumar 1,*
Editor: Andre van Wijnen9
PMCID: PMC10138236  PMID: 37104525

Abstract

Obtaining regeneration-competent cells and generating high-quality neocartilage are still challenges in articular cartilage tissue engineering. Although chondroprogenitor cells are a resident subpopulation of native cartilage and possess a high capacity for proliferation and cartilage formation, their potential for regenerative medicine has not been adequately explored. Fetal cartilage, another potential source with greater cellularity and a higher cell-matrix ratio than adult tissue, has been evaluated for sourcing cells to treat articular disorders. This study aimed to compare cartilage resident cells, namely chondrocytes, fibronectin adhesion assay-derived chondroprogenitors (FAA-CPCs) and migratory chondroprogenitors (MCPs) isolated from fetal and adult cartilage, to evaluate differences in their biological properties and their potential for cartilage repair. Following informed consent, three human fetal and three adult osteoarthritic knee joints were used to harvest the cartilage samples, from which the three cell types a) chondrocytes, b) FAA-CPCs, and MCPs were isolated. Assessment parameters consisted of flow cytometry analysis for percentage expression of cell surface markers, population doubling time and cell cycle analyses, qRT-PCR for markers of chondrogenesis and hypertrophy, trilineage differentiation potential and biochemical analysis of differentiated chondrogenic pellets for total GAG/DNA content. Compared to their adult counterparts, fetal cartilage-derived cells displayed significantly lower CD106 and higher levels of CD146 expression, indicative of their superior chondrogenic capacity. Moreover, all fetal groups demonstrated significantly higher levels of GAG/DNA ratio with enhanced uptake of collagen type 2 and GAG stains on histology. It was also noted that fetal FAA CPCs had a greater proliferative ability with significantly higher levels of the primary transcription factor SOX-9. Fetal chondrocytes and chondroprogenitors displayed a superior propensity for chondrogenesis when compared to their adult counterparts. To understand their therapeutic potential and provide an important solution to long-standing challenges in cartilage tissue engineering, focused research into its regenerative properties using in-vivo models is warranted.

Introduction

Articular cartilage displays low self-repair and regenerative capacity due to its relative avascularity, low cellularity, and a small number of progenitor cells [1]. Cell-based therapy has been utilised as a mainstay treatment option for cartilage afflictions such as osteoarthritis and chondral defects. The foremost contenders, used either as stand-alone substitutes or self-contained with bio scaffolds, are chondrocytes and Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) [2]. Although autologous chondrocyte transplantation shows reasonable outcomes as a cartilage repair strategy, its major shortcoming is the minimal cartilage available for harvest, which requires a surgical procedure. The low number of released chondrocytes from the harvested cartilage mandates extended monolayer expansion in culture, leading to dedifferentiation. Studies using various MSCs display advantages due to ease of availability; however, their increased inclination for osteogenesis and the formation of fibrocartilage in-vivo have limited their use for chondrogenesis [3,4].

The search for an alternative and optimal cell type led to the discovery of a potential cell residing within the articular cartilage among chondrocytes called chondroprogenitors (CPCs) [5]. Isolated by migratory and fibronectin adhesion assay, articular cartilage-derived CPCs have been categorised as MSCs demonstrating distinct surface marker expression and multilineage potential [6]. The standard method for the isolation of CPCs includes the subjection of chondrocytes to fibronectin adhesion assay, which enables enrichment for colony forming cells based on their expression of the fibronectin integrin receptor followed by clonal expansion [7,8]. Another established method for isolating CPCs includes culturing and strategically using cartilage explants based on their migratory potential [9,10]. In-vitro studies using fibronectin adhesion assay-derived chondroprogenitors (FAA-CPCs) have reported their superiority as a potential therapeutic, as they display a higher expression of chondrogenic genes, such as SOX-9 and lubricin, and lower levels of hypertrophy markers, such as RUNX2 and Collagen type X, as compared to chondrocytes and Bone Marrow (BM) MSCs [1113]. Similarly, migratory chondroprogenitors (MCPs) display higher migratory ability and chondrogenic potential when compared to MSCs and chondrocytes [9,14,15]. A recent in-vitro report comparing FAA-CPCs to MCPs shows that the latter progenitor population retains and displays superior cartilage repair under normoxia culture conditions [16]. The promising in-vitro results displaying predilection for hyaline-like regeneration led to some preclinical in-vivo studies. Both FAA-CPCs and MCPs report the ability to attenuate OA and heal osteochondral defects, demonstrating superior repair tissue as compared to BM-MSCs [1722].

The cells isolated from fetal cartilage, another potential source with higher cellularity containing a higher cell-matrix ratio than adult tissue, have been evaluated for treating articular disorders [2325]. Few studies have attempted to use fetal cartilage-derived cells to assess their potential for cartilage repair. Fuchs et al. report that ovine fetal chondrocytes derived from hyaline or elastic cartilage have a higher proliferative capacity, expressing significantly higher glycosaminoglycans (GAG) levels and collagen type II than adult chondrocytes [25]. In another comparative study using fetal and adult BMMSCs, the proliferative and differentiation potential of fetal BMMSCs was reported to be higher [26]. Choi et al. report that as compared to BM-MSCs and young adult donor chondrocytes, 12-week gestation human fetal cartilage chondrocytes showed more chondrogenic ability even at extended passages, with low senescence and maintained SOX-9 expression [24]. Additionally, in-vitro three-dimensional pellet culture and in-vivo studies using polyglycolic acid scaffolds showed that fetal chondrocytes exhibited more significant chondrogenic potential than the BM-MSCs and young chondrocytes. Further, a clinical trial assessing the application of allogeneic fetal chondrocytes as a treatment in rheumatic arthritis showed the desired clinical effect by significantly reducing the C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, gamma globulin and fibrinogen over one year with no further complications [27]. Thus, fetal tissue has shown regenerative healing capabilities in an adult environment without eliciting an allogeneic response or rejection [28,29]. No studies have so far evaluated fetal chondroprogenitors derived by fibronectin adhesion assay or migratory assay and compared it to adult chondrocytes and adult chondroprogenitors.

Our study aimed to compare the cartilage resident cells, namely chondrocytes, FAA-CPCs and MCPs isolated from fetal or adult cartilage, to evaluate differences in their biological attributes and prospects for cartilage repair. In addition, we aimed to examine the fetal cartilage subpopulations to infer the suitable cell source for cartilage repair.

Methods and materials

Sample procurement and study design

The Institutional Review Board (Christian Medical College, Vellore, India, IRB Min No: 14498 dated 23.02.2022) approved the research protocols for this study. All methods used ensured compliance with all relevant guidelines and regulations. For the adult human cartilage samples, written informed consent was obtained from three patients who required total knee replacement as part of their treatment for high-grade osteoarthritis [n = 3, age: 63±14 years (mean ± SD)]. The joints were harvested from patients having a Kellgren-Lawrence radiological score of 4, whereas indications for exclusion included tumours, infection or inflammation. The articular cartilage shavings were harvested from non-weight bearing areas containing preserved full depth cartilage. Fetal cartilage samples were obtained from the knee of fetuses (n = 3, female fetus, GA: 36+4, 27+3, 23+3 weeks) that had been spontaneously aborted or terminated due to medical reasons after obtaining written informed consent from the parents.

Once harvested, the adult and fetal cartilage slices were subjected to cellular enzymatic digestion to release the chondrocytes. To obtain the FAA-CPCs subset, the chondrocytes were loaded onto fibronectin-coated plasticware, and the obtained polyclones were further expanded. To isolate the MCPs, standard cartilage explants were cultured in an expansion medium to enable outgrowth of the migratory subset, which was further grown to sub confluence (80% confluence). This study involved six groups for comparison, where adult and fetal joint-derived chondrocytes, FAA-CPCs and MCPs at passages 1–2 were subject to phenotypic characterisation to assess their mesenchymal, chondrogenic and endochondral ossification properties. Several parameters were evaluated, including fluorescence-activated single cell sorting (FACS) for percentage expression of surface cell markers, population doubling time and cell cycle analyses for growth kinetics, qRT-PCR for markers of chondrogenesis and hypertrophy, trilineage differentiation and biochemical analysis of differentiated chondrogenic pellets for total GAG/DNA content, (Fig 1). The conducted experiments included three biological samples (n = 3).

Fig 1. Study algorithm depicting the six groups used for comparison and their evaluation parameters.

Fig 1

The six groups included were adult and fetal cartilage derived chondrocytes, fibronectin adhesion assay-derived chondroprogenitors (FAA-CPCs) and migratory chondroprogenitors (MCPs). OA: Osteoarthritis, CD: Cluster of differentiation, SOX-9: (Sex-determining region Y)-box 9, ACAN: Aggrecan, COL: Collagen, RUNX2: Runt-related transcription factor-2, MMP-13: Matrix metalloproteinase-13, GAG: Glycosaminoglycans. All experiments were performed with three biological samples (n = 3). The included figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is for illustrative purposes only.

Isolation and culture of cell

Adult and fetal chondrocytes

Cartilage shavings were washed with phosphate-buffered saline to remove traces of synovial fluid, were minced to a size of 2-3mm2 and subjected to sequential overnight cellular digestion using the enzymes pronase (12 IU, Roche) for 180min followed by collagenase type II (100 IU, Worthington) for 12hr in a shaking water bath. Five thousand cells/cm2 were loaded and expanded with DMEM/F12 containing 10% fetal calf serum (FCS, Thermo Fisher Scientific) and antibiotics.

FAA-CPCs

To isolate FAA-CPCs, the enzymatically released chondrocytes at a loading concentration of 4000 cells/9.3cm2 were added to fibronectin-coated plates (10μg/ml, Sigma) for 20 min. The removal of non-adherent chondrocytes followed this. The adherent cells were continued in culture for another 12 days till each attached cell achieved five population doublings (each clone > 32 cells). The enriched polyclonal FAA-CPCs were isolated, replated, and expanded in a stromal medium containing 1 ng/ml of recombinant transforming growth factor beta 2 and 5ng/ml human fibroblastic growth factor-2 at 5ng/ml, as per standard established protocol [7].

Migratory chondroprogenitors (MCPs)

8–10 mm of articular cartilage from the same joint was harvested and placed in an expansion medium containing 10mM Glutamine, antibiotics, and antimycotics. Isolation protocol was followed as described by Koelling et al [9]. In brief, the cartilage explants following an equilibration for 48 hr were placed in collagenase type II solution (0.1%, Worthington) at 37°C for a period of 2 hr. Further, the cartilage slices were washed to remove any released cells, were placed in a culture plate containing expansion medium and observed for the outgrowth of cells. The migrated cells following confluency were harvested, further expanded for phenotypic characterisation.

The medium change was conducted every third day for all cultures and harvested using 0.125% of Trypsin-EDTA (GIBCO, Thermo Fisher Scientific) at 85–90% confluence. Expansion and differentiation of the six groups (adult and fetal chondrocytes, FAA-CPCs and MCPs) were performed under their specified culture conditions. Since the standardised culture conditions recommend the requirement of additional growth factors for FAA-CPCs but not for chondrocytes and MCPs, the three types of cells were cultured accordingly.

Population doubling time, cell diameter and cell cycle analysis

All six study groups were grown in monolayer culture with a loading density of 5000 cells/cm2 and passaged till 80% confluence. Cell count was performed using a cell counter (Cell Drop BF, De Novix) by the trypan blue exclusion technique. The population doubling time (PDT) for all the groups was calculated using the following formulae:

PDT=log2xdaysinculture/logFDlogID

Where FD: the number of cells obtained at 80% confluence and ID: the initial number of loaded cells. PDT between the groups was compared from passage 1 to passage 2.

DAPI (4’,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole) was used to define the percentage of cells in distinct cell cycle phases. The cells were trypsinised at 60–70% confluence, and an automated cell counter estimated the cell size at passage1-2 (Countess, Invitrogen). The harvested cells were fixed with 70% ice-cold ethanol for 60 min. After a wash, 1μg/ml of DAPI was added for 30 minutes were the cells washed and the cells resuspended for flow cytometry analysis using BD FACS Celesta flow cytometer using BD FACSDiva Software Version 8.0.1.1. Cell cycle analysis was done using Flow-Jo v10.8.1 software with Dean Jett algorithm

Fluorescence Activated Cell Sorting (FACS): Surface marker expression

At sub confluence (80%), cells from the six groups (biological replicates, n = 3) were harvested, washed and processed for flow cytometry. Staining was conducted as described in the technical data sheet provided by the manufacturer with each antibody. Since the progenitors report a similar profile as MSCs, the first group of surface markers assessed for comparison consisted of CD105-FITC, CD73-PE, CD90-PE, CD106-APC (markers of positive expression), and CD34-PE, CD45-FITC, and CD14-FITC (markers of negative expression). Secondly, the integrin markers CD 49e-PE, CD29-APC, and CD49b-FITC were compared. In the third group, CD markers reported to be potential markers of enhanced chondrogenesis were assessed: CD166-BB515, CD146-PE, and Podoplanin-BV421. HLA-ABC class I(PE) (HLA-ABC-PE), HLA-DR class II (V500), and their co-stimulatory molecules, CD80 BB515 and CD86 BV421, were included in the final group (Tables 1 and S1). BC CytoFLEX LX flow cytometer and CYTExpert Software Version 2.5 was used for acquisitions, and analysis was done using FlowJo v10.8.1 software

Table 1. Fluorescence-activated cell sorting data.

The groups included: Positive and negative MSC markers, potential markers of enhanced chondrogenesis, and immunogenic markers of the six cell groups. Data is expressed as percentage mean ± Standard Deviation (n = 3).

Groups Fetal Chondrocytes Fetal FAA-CP Fetal MCP Adult chondrocytes Adult FAA-CP Adult MCP
Positive MSC markers CD105 89.88±10.57 86.32±5.54 81.51±20.14 96.35±2.22 99.1±0.82 97.73±3.20
CD73 99.97±0.03 99.93±0.10 99.97±0.02 99.97±0.03 99.98±0.01 99.96±0.02
CD90 99.99±0.01 99.99±0.01 99.98±0.02 99.91±0.07 98.80±2.02 99.93±0.10
CD106 8.68±5.69 6.26±3.65 28.69±8.75 58.38±4.76 53.02±17.94 54.41±16.78
Negative MSC markers CD34 14.24±7.45 6.90±6.37 4.96±3.54 6.45±4.76 5.93±5.08 1.6±0.36
CD45 0.26±0.37 0.11±0.07 1.14±1.23 0.39±0.67 0.48±0.34 3.13±2.06
CD14 0.15±0.21 4.64±7.75 0.75±0.74 0.06±0.05 0.29±0.11 0.94±0.81
Integrin markers CD49e 99.98±0.03 99.98±0.02 99.95±0.05 99.97±0.02 99.99±0.01 99.96±0.02
CD29 99.95±0.01 99.95±0.05 99.96±0.04 99.93±0.01 99.95±0.03 99.92±0.02
CD49b 7.18±10.55 24.56±18.45 9.12±12.03 4.77±2.78 37.47±4.16 15.44±2.76
Potential markers of chondrogenesis Podoplanin 97.36±1.05 94.32±6.69 96.29±4.43 91.55±7.60 91.24±7.05 89.64±11.51
CD166 99.36±0.67 99.92±0.03 99.5±0.23 98.92±0.21 99.97±0.04 99.86±0.01
CD146 99.5±0.24 99.91±0.02 99.28±0.92 41.42±15.30 70.71±13.50 61.09±14.97
Immunogenic markers HLA-ABC 99.89±0.15 99.97±0.03 99.78±0.30 96.83±5.32 99.97±0.03 99.99±0.01
HLA-DR 0.20±0.32 0.13±0.20 0.55±0.59 2.50±3.31 0.26±0.24 0.99±0.69
CD80 0.74±0.84 0.11±0.10 1.16±1.56 1.68±0.42 0.93±1.24 4.37±1.60
CD86 0.46±0.71 0.17±0.27 0.63±0.63 2.89±3.59 0.25±0.36 1.40±0.97

Quantitative Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR)

In accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, the harvested cells were washed in PBS, and RNA was extracted with the Qiagen RNeasy Mini Kit. The nanodrop spectrophotometer was used to determine the RNA concentrations at 260 and 280 nanometers (A260/A280). By using the Takara Bio First-Strand synthesis system, complementary DNA was synthesised with 280 ng of RNA. A QuantStudio 6K Flex thermocycler (Applied Biosystems) was used to conduct PCR assays with Low Rox Takyon SYBR Master Mix Dttp (Eurogentec, Belgium). The gene profile included assessing expression of markers for chondrogenesis (SOX-9, ACAN, and COL2A1), fibrocartilage (COL1A1), and hypertrophic chondrocytes (RUNX2). The relative mRNA expression was normalised for each target gene to GAPDH, the housekeeping gene. The individual ΔCt values were compared to the fetal chondrocyte group (ΔΔCt), from which 2^-ΔΔCt was calculated. Additionally, the functional ratio of COL2A1 to COL1A1 was calculated to assess their ability to form hyaline cartilage. A total of three biological samples were examined in two technical replicates (n = 3). Detailed primer sequences, accession codes, gene identifiers, and base pair length are listed in S2 Table.

Multilineage differentiation and confirmatory staining

StemPro differentiation kits (Thermo Fisher, Cat no. A1007201, A1007001, and A1007101) were used to induce chondrogenic, osteogenic, and adipogenic differentiation. To initiate adipogenic and osteogenic differentiation, cells were seeded in 24 well culture dishes at 5000 cells/cm2, expanded to sub confluence, and replaced with the differentiation media. The control arm included cells grown in expansion medium for the same duration. For 3D pellet cultures, 1x106 cells were loaded into 15ml centrifuge tubes, spun at 400g for 12 minutes, and left uninterrupted for 48 hr. The pellets were supplemented with chondrogenic medium every three days for a three-week period.

Adipogenic and osteogenic staining

Following adipogenic differentiation, the cells were fixed with 10% formaldehyde, washed, and stained with 0.5% Oil Red O (Sigma). In comparison the differentiated osteogenic cells were fixed with 70% ethanol, washed and stained with 2% Alizarin Red (Sigma). Parallel controls cultured on a stromal medium were also stained, and all images were captured using the Olympus virtual slide system.

Chondrogenic confirmatory staining

After 21 days of differentiation, the pellets were subjected to fixation using 4% paraformaldehyde, paraffin embedded, sectioned (4 μm) and subjected to confirmatory staining. The protocol applied for the individual stains was as follows: for assessing glycosaminoglycan accumulation, the sections were incubated with Alcian blue (pH:2.5, Cat no: J60122, Alfa Aesar, US), for 5 min and counterstained with neutral red, whereas for Safranin O fast green staining, Wiegert’s Iron Hematoxylin followed by subsequent incubation with acid alcohol (1%), fast green solution (0.05%), acetic acid (1%) and Safranin O solution (1%) was used. Toluidine blue staining was performed by incubating 0.1% of the dye solution for 5 min (C.I. 52040 Qualigens). PicroSirius red (C.I.35782) staining was performed using a 0.1% dye concentration, and then a counterstain of Hematoxylin was applied. Following staining, all slides were dehydrated, cleared using xylene and mounted with DPX for imaging.

Immunohistochemistry: Collagen type II (Chondrogenic differentiated pellet)

The chondrogenic differentiated paraffin pellet sections were subjected to antigen retrieval using pronase (1mg/mL) and hyaluronidase (2.5mg/mL). At 4°C, the sections were subject incubated with mouse monoclonal anti-collagen type II antibodies (5μg/mL) (DSHB, II-II6B3), followed by a 30-minute incubation with a 1:250 secondary antibody: HRP labelled goat anti-mouse immunoglobulin (31430, Pierce, Wisconsin, USA), then stained with a 3,3-diaminobenzidine solution followed by counterstaining with Hematoxylin. Histological imaging of the stained sections was carried out using an Olympus BX43f microscope.

Biochemical analysis of chondrogenic pellets: Total GAG/DNA content

Chondrogenically differentiated pellets were subjected to papain digestion (120 g/ml at 65°C, 16 h) to determine the GAG and DNA content. Lambda DNA was used to generate a standard curve, and Quant-iT Picogreen dsDNA reagent was utilised to measure the DNA concentration. The fluorescence intensity (Ex λ: 480nm, Em λ: 520 nm) was measured with a SpectraMax i3x Reader (Norwalk, CT, USA). Dimethyl methylene blue dye was used to determine GAG content using chondroitin 6-sulphate as a standard (Chondrex, Inc Cat No: 6022). An Elisa plate reader was used to determine the optical density (Absorbance: 525nm). The GAG content was then normalised to DNA content to obtain the GAG/DNA ratio.

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS 21.0. IBM Bangalore, and Prism v6 (GraphPad) was used for graphical representation. All values were depicted as mean ± standard error mean. In order to compare the six groups, a one-way ANOVA was applied after determining the normality of the distribution. LSD post hoc test was conducted for intergroup comparisons and statistical significance was determined by a P-value of 0.05.

Results

Growth kinetics: Cell diameter and cell cycle analysis

Fetal chondrocytes, Fetal and adult FAA-CPCs demonstrated clonal growth, with the FAA-CPCs achieving a population doubling of 5, namely, each clone containing more than 32 cells by day 10–11 (Fig 2A, 2C and 2I). MCPs migrating from cartilage explants were observed as early as day 9 with adult cartilage slices and only after 2 weeks with fetal explants; however, the average time to reach 80% confluence was shorter with fetal explants, though not significant (Figs 2F, 2K and 3D). Further expansion revealed spindle-shaped morphology and honeycomb growth patterns, characteristic of MSCs, with adult chondrocytes exhibiting a more fibroblastic appearance (Fig 2H). Comparison of the average cell diameter (μm) of the six groups (n = 3) showed no significant difference between them (Fig 3C). An analysis of the cell cycle distribution between the groups revealed that adult FAA-CPCs and the three fetal groups displayed a superior proliferative capacity as seen by their lower population doubling time (Fig 3A) and higher levels of the S phase (Fig 3B) when compared to the adult chondrocytes and MCP groups.

Fig 2. Representative images of Fetal and Adult Chondrocytes, FAA-CPCs and MCPs during monolayer expansion culture.

Fig 2

Microscopic analysis observed using phase-contrast microscopy showed that fetal chondrocytes (A) displayed a clonal-shaped cobblestone growth pattern similar to the FAA-CPCs (C, I), with further passage demonstrating a spindle-shape, unlike the fibroblast-like pattern observed with adult chondrocytes(H). Migration of chondroprogenitors from the cartilage explants was seen by the 10th day reaching a confluence of 80% by the third week from both fetal (F) and adult cartilage (L) explants. Magnification 10x.

Fig 3. Population doubling time, cell diameter and cell cycle analysis.

Fig 3

A) Analysis of the Population Doubling Time at passage 1 between the six groups displaying similar values with no significant difference. B) Analysis of the different phases in cell cycle distribution between the groups showed that adult FAA-CPCs that received exogenous growth factors and all three fetal groups and displayed greater proliferative capacity and higher levels of the S phase. C) Comparison of the cell diameter of the trypsinized cells at sub confluence, at passage 1 and 2 showed comparable dimensions. D) The average time in days for migration of MCPs from their explants to reach a confluence of 80% was shorter for Fetal MCPs, though their extracellular matrix displayed a dense matrix network when compared to adult cartilage.

Cell surface expression using FACS

Based on the aforementioned categories, flow cytometric analysis was performed on the six groups to assess their surface marker expression. When MSC markers were evaluated, all cell groups exhibited high expression of positive MSC markers CD105, CD73, and CD90, moderate to low expression of CD106 and a low expression of the negative markers namely CD34, CD45, and CD14 (Table 1) with no statistical difference except for CD106, which was significantly lower in the fetal chondrocytes, FAA-CPCs and MCPs group with respect to their adult counterparts (P<0.01, Fig 4A). CD106 in the fetal FAA-CPCs were significantly lower in the fetal group than in the fetal MCP group (P = 0.01). Concerning the integrin receptor marker (CD49e/CD29) expression, all the groups showed high levels except for CD49b, which was statistically higher in the adult FAA-CPCs to all groups, with comparable expression with fetal FAA-CPCs (P<0.05, Fig 4B). CD166 and Podoplanin expression were comparable among all groups; CD 146, a predictive chondrogenic marker, was significantly higher among the fetal chondrocytes, FAA-CPCs, and MCP group than in all the adult groups (P<0.001, Fig 4C). When the expression of CD146 between the adult groups was compared, chondrocytes showed significantly lower levels than the FAA-CPCs (P = 0.005) and MCPs (P = 0.038) groups. Regarding immunogenic markers, all groups displayed similar and positive expressions of class I HLA, with a minimal expression of MHC II and CD86; however, adult MCPs displayed a notably higher level of CD80 when compared to the other five groups (P< 0.01, Fig 4D).

Fig 4. Flow cytometric analysis for CD106, CD49b, CD146 and CD80.

Fig 4

To characterize the surface marker expression profile, Fetal and Adult Chondrocytes, FAA-CPCs and MCPs were subjected to fluorescence-activated cell sorting to check for positive and negative MSC markers, Integrin markers, markers of enhanced chondroprogenitors and immunogenic markers. All groups revealed comparable expression of CD markers (Table 1) except for CD106 and CD9b(A and B), and CD146 and CD80 (C and D). All fetal groups showed significantly lower levels of CD106 and higher levels of CD146 when compared to the adult groups. CD 49b, was noted to be considerably higher in fetal FAA-CPs. Data presented are expressed as Mean ± standard error mean. All experiments were run with three biological samples (n = 3).

qRT-PCR

Regarding chondrogenesis markers, SOX-9, ACAN, and COL2A1 showed high mRNA expression in all the groups, with no significant differences, except for COL2A1 (Fig 5). Fetal FAA-CPCs displayed a significantly higher expression of the gene SOX-9 when compared to the other five groups (P<0.001). However, when ACAN levels were assessed, adult chondrocytes and adult MCPs displayed stronger expression than all three fetal groups (P< 0.05). An analysis of hypertrophy markers revealed no differences between the six groups. A high expression of COL1A1 and a moderate expression of RUNX2 were observed in all the groups (Fig 5). An intergroup comparison revealed that the Fetal FAA-CPCs had remarkably higher levels of SOX-9 (key transcription factor for the genesis of chondrocytes), and adult chondrocytes and MCPs had the highest levels of ACAN in comparison to the fetal groups. Though not significantly different, both the expression of mature type II collagen and the functional COL2A1/COL1A1 ratio was more pronounced in the fetal and adult chondrocyte groups as compared to the adult FAA-CPCs and MCP.

Fig 5. Relative mRNA expression encoding chondrogenic markers (SOX-9, ACAN, COL2A1), fibrocartilage marker (COL1A1), and hypertrophic markers (RUNX2) were determined by qRT-PCR.

Fig 5

All results were normalized to the housekeeping gene, GAPDH(ΔCt), and ΔΔCt was obtained in comparison to the Fetal Chondrocyte group. 2^-ΔΔCt values are expressed as mean ± standard error mean (*P<0.05, ** P<0.01, ***P< 0.001). All experiments were run with three biological samples (n = 3) in two technical replicates. Overall, the Fetal FAA-CPCs displayed higher levels of SOX-9 when compared to the other groups. All groups displayed constitutive expression of ACAN with the adult chondrocytes and MCPs expressed significantly higher levels. s groups.

Staining following multilineage differentiation and total GAG/DNA content

Trilineage differentiation was demonstrated by all study groups. As determined through Oil Red O staining (lipid droplet accumulation) and Alizarin red S staining (calcified matrix deposition), all groups demonstrated a positive uptake of the stain (Fig 6). After chondrogenic differentiation, routine histological analyses of pellets revealed a greater uptake of Collagen type II in all fetal groups (Fig 7A1–7A3), Safranin O (Fig 7B1–7B3), and Toluidine blue (Fig 7C1–7C3) when compared to their adult counterparts. However, all groups displayed comparable Alcian Blue and Picrosirius red uptake. Measurement of the DNA and GAG contents following chondrogenic differentiation demonstrated that fetal cartilage-derived cells exhibited significantly higher levels of GAG/DNA as compared to all the adult groups (P<0.05) (Fig 8). As predicted by the gene expression analysis for chondrogenesis, higher extracellular matrix (ECM) levels were observed in the fetal groups with both immunohistochemical/routine staining and GAG/DNA content.

Fig 6. Representative phase contrast images and confirmatory staining following adipogenic and osteogenic differentiation.

Fig 6

Unstained cells at day 18 during adipogenic (A1-A6) and osteogenic (D1-D6) differentiation and their confirmatory staining using Oil Red O (C1-C6) and Alizarin red (F1-F6). Magnification: 20X. All groups showed uptake of the Oil Red O stain indicative of lipid droplet accumulation and uptake of Alizarin red confirming calcium deposition, with the adult chondrocyte group displaying greater staining. Controls in all groups did not show any uptake of stain (B1-B6, E1-E6).

Fig 7. Representative images of chondrogenic differentiated pellets of the six groups: Fetal and Adult Chondrocytes, FAA-CPCs and MCPs.

Fig 7

The formed pellets (1x106) were grown in StemPro chondrogenic medium for a period of 21 days. Greater uptake of Collagen type II (A1-A3), Safranin O (B1-B3), Toluidine blue (C1-C3) was observed with the Fetal cartilage derived cells when compared to their adult counterparts. All groups displayed comparable Alcian Blue and Picrosirius red uptake: Total collagen content Magnification: Scale bar (50μm or 20μm).

Fig 8. Measurement of the total GAG, DNA and GAG/DNA content of differentiated chondrogenic pellets.

Fig 8

Fetal Chondrocytes, FAA-CPCs and MCPs demonstrated significantly higher levels of GAG/DNA when compared to their adult counterparts. All values are expressed as Mean ± standard error mean (*P<0.05, ** P<0.01, ***P< 0.001), from three biological samples (n = 3).

Discussion and conclusion

The definitive aim of any cartilage repair strategy is to produce functional and mechanical tissue equivalents of the hyaline articular cartilage. While many reports have demonstrated the clinical efficacy of cell-based therapy, the resulting repair tissue containing hyaline, and fibrocartilage tends not to provide long-term sustenance [2,30]. Recent studies show that cartilage resident progenitors display superior chondrogenic potential and lower hypertrophic tendencies, which have led to investigations into their possible use in tissue engineering. The standard isolation methods include clonal selection, using fibronectin adhesion, and sorting, based on the migratory assay [6]. However, with either technique, the availability to harvest cells from a sizeable sample of adult cartilage which inherently displays limited intrinsic repair, poses a significant limitation. Ideally, a single procedure, using highly proliferative allogeneic stem cells with chondrogenic capacity and minimal osteogenic tendency, is desirable. Towards this, the attempted use of fetal cartilage-derived chondrocytes reports superior cartilage repair with positive immune modulation and is additionally being used in Phase I clinical trials for the treatment of rheumatic arthritis [27].

This study aimed to compare chondrocytes and chondroprogenitors derived using two separate but standard methods of isolation and expansion derived from fetal and adult cartilage tissue. The comparative potential of chondroprogenitors between fetal and adult sources, and in comparison to fetal chondrocytes has not been evaluated. Thus, this study aimed to compare their prospects for cartilage repair in terms of their proliferative potential, surface marker expression immunophenotyping, capacity multilineage differentiation, particularly comparing their commitment for chondrogenesis using GAG/DNA analysis, routine and IHC staining for GAG and collagen proteins and mRNA expression analysis of primary markers of chondrogenesis and hypertrophy.

The process of chondrogenesis is positively correlated with cellular morphological changes. In this study, we show that the isolation of cartilage resident cells was possible using similar isolation techniques with both fetal and adult tissue. Although the fetal tissue was more accessible, it displayed a denser matrix containing a more significant cell-to-matrix ratio when compared to the adult tissue, thus requiring a longer time for the start of migration of MCPs. Concerning the morphology, the fetal chondrocytes displayed a clonal-shaped cobblestone growth pattern similar to the FAA-CPCs, with further passage demonstrating a spindle-shaped, unlike the fibroblast-like pattern observed with adult chondrocytes. The changes in the cellular level originate from events at the molecular level. As previously reported, our study indicated that adult FAA-CPCs that received exogenous growth factors and all three fetal groups displayed greater proliferative capacity and higher levels of the S phase, a vital requirement for accurate genome duplication critical for successful cell division [24,31]. Our results also showed that the time for fetal MCPs to migrate from their dense matrix was shorter than adult MCPs, with the fetal MCPs showed cell cycle patterns similar to FAA-CPCs, even though the culture conditions did not include additional exogenous growth factors. Comparing the population doubling time between the groups, the fetal CPCs required the least time to reach sub confluence.

The immunophenotyping expression pattern showed that all groups complied with the ISCT minimal criteria, with significant differences observed for CD106, CD146, CD49b and CD80. CD106 is a marker for mesenchymal stem cells, which has also been reported to be a predictive marker for osteogenesis, while CD146 is a putative marker for enhanced chondrogenesis [3234]. It was noted that all fetal groups showed significantly lower levels of CD106 and higher levels of CD146 when compared to the adult groups. The gene expression profile analysis showed that all the fetal groups showed higher expression of SOX-9, a primary transcription factor for chondrogenesis, with the fetal FAA-CPCs displaying the most elevated levels significantly. This finding corroborated to a report by Choi et al. who reported a higher expression of the primary chondrogenic factor, SOX-9, by fetal chondrocytes as compared to BM-MSCs [24]. When the expression of ACAN, a major articular ECM component was compared, all groups showed a constitutive expression; however, adult chondrocytes and MCPs expressed significantly higher levels. It is essential to emphasize that the RT-PCR comparison is based on the fact that the analysis was performed on undifferentiated cells grown in their recommended standard media. The gold standard technique to infer the potential in-vivo behaviour of the cells includes driving a three-dimensional culture towards chondrogenic differentiation using a single formulation rich in growth factors [35]. Analysis of the GAG/DNA ratio showed that fetal chondrocytes, fetal FAA-CPCs and fetal MCPs outperformed the other adult cell groups significantly. Across all six groups, the retention of multipotency was confirmed by the results of trilineage differentiation. Compared to the adult groups, all fetal groups exhibited a significant and higher deposition of the collagen type II. Moreover, there was a more substantial uptake for glycosaminoglycans as seen with Alcian blue, Safranin O and Toluidine blue.

It was noted that the uptake of alizarin red was greater with the adult chondrocyte groups, which corroborated with the higher COL1A1 gene expression levels when compared to the other groups. CD 49b, an established integrin differentiating marker for MCPs, was noted to be considerably higher in fetal FAA-CPCs. CD80, a co-stimulatory MHC molecule marker was significantly higher with the adult MCPs group, implying the need for further evaluation.

Fetal cartilage-derived resident chondrocytes and progenitors are easier to isolate and expand than adult tissue due to their abundance in cartilage-to-bone ratio. Additionally, they possess stem cell traits such as self-renewal, multipotent differentiation, and low immunogenic marker profile, making them a safe allogeneic cell source. Thirdly, the ability of fetal cells to form cartilage tissue outperformed the adult cells, with the former displaying more GAG and collagen type II production as compared to the adult sources. A comparison between the fetal groups revealed fetal FAA-CPCs, demonstrating more remarkable proliferation ability with higher SOX-9 expression.

This study is the first in-vitro report to establish and study the expansion of fetal chondrocytes and chondroprogenitors as compared to their adult counterparts. As demonstrated in this study, fetal tissue displayed a higher propensity for chondrogenesis in a fundamentally superior manner than adult tissue. Though the cells isolated from adult cartilage were from intact seemingly normal tissue, these cells may have been subject to inflammatory changes and this may affect its properties. Our findings support previously published studies reporting the superiority of fetal chondrocytes as translational cellular candidates for cartilage repair, now with fetal chondroprogenitors as a potential cell type [24,26]. Although, our results show that fetal resident cartilage cells possess a higher chondrogenic potential, a comparative surfaceome and proteomic analysis, revalidation using in- vivo study models, and studying cells obtained from non-diseased joints instead of osteoarthritic joints would further the understanding of their potential therapeutic application in cartilage repair.

Supporting information

S1 Table. List of antibodies used for characterization of chondroprogenitors by flow cytometric analysis.

MSC: Mesenchymal stem cell, CD: Cluster of differentiation, FITC: Fluorescein isothiocyanate, PE: Phycoerythrin, APC: Allophycocyanin, BB515: Horizon brilliant blue 515, BV421: Brilliant violet 421 and V500: Violet 500.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Sequence of the primers used for RT-PCR.

SOX9: Sex determining region Y-box 9, ACAN: Aggrecan, COL2A1: Collagen type 2 alpha 1 chain, COL1A1: Collagen type 1 alpha 1 chain, COL10A1: Collagen type 10 alpha 1 chain, RUNX2: Runt related transcription factor-2 and GAPDH: Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase.

(DOCX)

S1 Dataset

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Dr. Pippa Deodhar, Scientist, Research Promotion and Development, Principal’s Office, CMC Vellore, for help with editing the manuscript, Mr Abdul Muthallib, Ms Esther Rani and Mr Ashok Kumar for technical support, and the Centre for Stem Cell Research (A unit of inStem Bengaluru), Christian Medical College, Vellore for infrastructural support. The research work presented in this manuscript is a part of the PhD thesis of The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This project was supported by the 1. Department of Biotechnology (BT/PR32777/MED/31/415/2019), Govt. of India Recipient: E.V 2. Fluid Research Grant (IRB Min No: 14498 dated 23.02.2022), Christian Medical College, Vellore. Recipient: S.M.A There was no additional external funding received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Sophia Fox AJ, Bedi A, Rodeo SA. The Basic Science of Articular Cartilage. Sports Health. 2009;1: 461–468. doi: 10.1177/1941738109350438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Brittberg M. Clinical articular cartilage repair—an up to date review. Annals of Joint. 2018;3. Available: https://aoj.amegroups.com/article/view/4788. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lavrentieva A, Hatlapatka T, Neumann A, Weyand B, Kasper C. Potential for osteogenic and chondrogenic differentiation of MSC. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2013;129: 73–88. doi: 10.1007/10_2012_133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Fernandez-Moure JS, Corradetti B, Chan P, Van Eps JL, Janecek T, Rameshwar P, et al. Enhanced osteogenic potential of mesenchymal stem cells from cortical bone: a comparative analysis. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 2015;6: 203. doi: 10.1186/s13287-015-0193-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dowthwaite GP, Bishop JC, Redman SN, Khan IM, Rooney P, Evans DJR, et al. The surface of articular cartilage contains a progenitor cell population. J Cell Sci. 2004;117: 889–897. doi: 10.1242/jcs.00912 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vinod E, Parameswaran R, Ramasamy B, Kachroo U. Pondering the Potential of Hyaline Cartilage–Derived Chondroprogenitors for Tissue Regeneration: A Systematic Review. CARTILAGE. 2020; 1947603520951631. doi: 10.1177/1947603520951631 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Williams R, Khan IM, Richardson K, Nelson L, McCarthy HE, Analbelsi T, et al. Identification and clonal characterisation of a progenitor cell sub-population in normal human articular cartilage. PLoS ONE. 2010;5: e13246. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Khan IM, Bishop JC, Gilbert S, Archer CW. Clonal chondroprogenitors maintain telomerase activity and Sox9 expression during extended monolayer culture and retain chondrogenic potential. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2009;17: 518–528. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2008.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Koelling S, Kruegel J, Irmer M, Path JR, Sadowski B, Miro X, et al. Migratory chondrogenic progenitor cells from repair tissue during the later stages of human osteoarthritis. Cell Stem Cell. 2009;4: 324–335. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2009.01.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Seol D, McCabe DJ, Choe H, Zheng H, Yu Y, Jang K, et al. Chondrogenic Progenitor Cells Respond to Cartilage Injury. Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64: 3626–3637. doi: 10.1002/art.34613 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Xue K, Xia W, Zhang X, Qi L, Zhou J, Xu P, et al. Isolation and identification of stem cells in different subtype of cartilage tissue. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2015;15: 623–632. doi: 10.1517/14712598.2015.989207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Levato R, Webb WR, Otto IA, Mensinga A, Zhang Y, van Rijen M, et al. The bio in the ink: cartilage regeneration with bioprintable hydrogels and articular cartilage-derived progenitor cells. Acta Biomater. 2017;61: 41–53. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.08.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.McCarthy HE, Bara JJ, Brakspear K, Singhrao SK, Archer CW. The comparison of equine articular cartilage progenitor cells and bone marrow-derived stromal cells as potential cell sources for cartilage repair in the horse. Vet J. 2012;192: 345–351. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.08.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Elsaesser AF, Schwarz S, Joos H, Koerber L, Brenner RE, Rotter N. Characterization of a migrative subpopulation of adult human nasoseptal chondrocytes with progenitor cell features and their potential for in vivo cartilage regeneration strategies. Cell Biosci. 2016;6. doi: 10.1186/s13578-016-0078-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Batschkus S, Atanassov I, Lenz C, Meyer-Marcotty P, Cingöz G, Kirschneck C, et al. Mapping the secretome of human chondrogenic progenitor cells with mass spectrometry. Ann Anat. 2017;212: 4–10. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2017.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Vinod E, Johnson NN, Kumar S, Amirtham SM, James JV, Livingston A, et al. Migratory chondroprogenitors retain superior intrinsic chondrogenic potential for regenerative cartilage repair as compared to human fibronectin derived chondroprogenitors. Sci Rep. 2021;11: 23685. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-03082-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vinod E, James JV, Sabareeswaran A, Amirtham SM, Thomas G, Sathishkumar S, et al. Intraarticular injection of allogenic chondroprogenitors for treatment of osteoarthritis in rabbit knee model. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics & Trauma. 2018;0. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.07.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Xue K, Zhang X, Gao Z, Xia W, Qi L, Liu K. Cartilage progenitor cells combined with PHBV in cartilage tissue engineering. Journal of Translational Medicine. 2019;17: 104. doi: 10.1186/s12967-019-1855-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Carluccio S, Martinelli D, Palamà MEF, Pereira RC, Benelli R, Guijarro A, et al. Progenitor Cells Activated by Platelet Lysate in Human Articular Cartilage as a Tool for Future Cartilage Engineering and Reparative Strategies. Cells. 2020;9: E1052. doi: 10.3390/cells9041052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wang S, Zhou C, Zheng H, Zhang Z, Mei Y, Martin JA. Chondrogenic Progenitor Cells Promote Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Expression Through Stromal-derived Factor-1. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017;25: 742–749. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2016.10.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wang R, Jiang W, Zhang L, Xie S, Zhang S, Yuan S, et al. Intra-articular delivery of extracellular vesicles secreted by chondrogenic progenitor cells from MRL/MpJ superhealer mice enhances articular cartilage repair in a mouse injury model. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2020;11: 93. doi: 10.1186/s13287-020-01594-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wang H-C, Lin T-H, Hsu C-C, Yeh M-L. Restoring Osteochondral Defects through the Differentiation Potential of Cartilage Stem/Progenitor Cells Cultivated on Porous Scaffolds. Cells. 2021;10: 3536. doi: 10.3390/cells10123536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Plasticity of Fetal Cartilaginous Cells—Aurelie Quintin, Constantin Schizas, Corinne Scaletta, Sandra Jaccoud, Lee Ann Applegate, Dominique P. Pioletti, 2010. [cited 6 Aug 2022]. Available: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3727/096368910X506854. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 24.Choi WH, Kim HR, Lee SJ, Jeong N, Park SR, Choi BH, et al. Fetal Cartilage-Derived Cells Have Stem Cell Properties and Are a Highly Potent Cell Source for Cartilage Regeneration. Cell Transplant. 2016;25: 449–461. doi: 10.3727/096368915X688641 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Fuchs JR, Terada S, Hannouche D, Ochoa ER, Vacanti JP, Fauza DO. Engineered fetal cartilage: structural and functional analysis in vitro. J Pediatr Surg. 2002;37: 1720–1725. doi: 10.1053/jpsu.2002.36705 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hu Y, Ma L, Ma G, Jiang X, Zhao C. [Comparative study of human fetal and adult bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells]. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2002;23: 645–648. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Krivoruchko N, Tuganbekova S, Rakhimbekova G, Kuzembaeva K, Zaripova L. The Results of Fetal Chondrocytes Transplantation in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. Cent Asian J Glob Health. 2014;3: 164. doi: 10.5195/cajgh.2014.164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Götherström C, Ringdén O, Tammik C, Zetterberg E, Westgren M, Le Blanc K. Immunologic properties of human fetal mesenchymal stem cells. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190: 239–245. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.07.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Favata M, Beredjiklian PK, Zgonis MH, Beason DP, Crombleholme TM, Jawad AF, et al. Regenerative properties of fetal sheep tendon are not adversely affected by transplantation into an adult environment. J Orthop Res. 2006;24: 2124–2132. doi: 10.1002/jor.20271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Van Osch GJVM, Brittberg M, Dennis JE, Bastiaansen-Jenniskens YM, Erben RG, Konttinen YT, et al. Cartilage repair: past and future–lessons for regenerative medicine. J Cell Mol Med. 2009;13: 792–810. doi: 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2009.00789.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Vinod E, Kachroo U, Rebekah G, Yadav BK, Ramasamy B. Characterization of human articular chondrocytes and chondroprogenitors derived from non-diseased and osteoarthritic knee joints to assess superiority for cell-based therapy. Acta Histochemica. 2020;122: 151588. doi: 10.1016/j.acthis.2020.151588 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Liu F, Akiyama Y, Tai S, Maruyama K, Kawaguchi Y, Muramatsu K, et al. Changes in the expression of CD106, osteogenic genes, and transcription factors involved in the osteogenic differentiation of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. J Bone Miner Metab. 2008;26: 312–320. doi: 10.1007/s00774-007-0842-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dicks A, Wu C-L, Steward N, Adkar SS, Gersbach CA, Guilak F. Prospective isolation of chondroprogenitors from human iPSCs based on cell surface markers identified using a CRISPR-Cas9-generated reporter. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 2020;11: 66. doi: 10.1186/s13287-020-01597-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Su X, Zuo W, Wu Z, Chen J, Wu N, Ma P, et al. CD146 as a new marker for an increased chondroprogenitor cell sub-population in the later stages of osteoarthritis. J Orthop Res. 2015;33: 84–91. doi: 10.1002/jor.22731 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zhang L, Su P, Xu C, Yang J, Yu W, Huang D. Chondrogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells: a comparison between micromass and pellet culture systems. Biotechnol Lett. 2010;32: 1339–1346. doi: 10.1007/s10529-010-0293-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Andre van Wijnen

7 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-32889Human fetal cartilage-derived chondrocytes and chondroprogenitors display a greater commitment to chondrogenesis than adult cartilage resident cellsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vinod,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that comprehensively addresses all the points raised by the two reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 24 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andre van Wijnen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: "This project was supported by the 1. Department of Biotechnology (BT/PR32777/MED/31/415/2019), Govt. of India Recipient: E.V2. Fluid Research Grant (IRB Min No: 14498 dated 23.02.2022), Christian Medical College, Vellore.  Recipient: S.M.A" Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This project was supported by the 1. Department of Biotechnology (BT/PR32777/MED/31/415/2019), Govt. of India Recipient: E.V2. Fluid Research Grant (IRB Min No: 14498 dated 23.02.2022), Christian Medical College, Vellore.  Recipient: S.M.A" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.  6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.  In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. 7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study looks at six different cell populations isolated from either fetal or adult cartilage using 3 different methods. The cells are compared for growth kinetics, marker profile, gene expression analysis, and tri-lineage differentiation. The premise for the study is that the comparative potential of chondroprogenitors between fetal and adult sources, and in

comparison to fetal chondrocytes has not been evaluated. The goal of the study is interesting, and this is a valuable study, however there were some significant concerns with some of the experimental design and interpretation of the data. Specific comments are outlined below:

Adult cartilage was isolated from total knee replacement patients with high grade OA. The authors should describe where they isolated the cartilage from, as there is often limited cartilage available from these samples and it may not represent a normal cartilage.

Figure 2 – Growth kinetics: the days that the images were taken at are not standardized so it is very difficult to compare. Similar days should be compared to really assess differences. The text (line 286) mentions days 11-12 and figure is day 10-11.

Figure 3A – Please provide a description of how population doubling time was calculated. What is the unit of time (hrs, days)? When was this population doubling measured (P0 to P1 or P1 to P2)?

Figure 3D – there is a lot of mention of subconfluence in the results but the manner in which it is determined is not clear to the reader. This makes it difficult to appreciate any differences seen.

Figure 4 – statistical differences are mentioned in text but not shown in the figure. Need to show quantitative data, perhaps as bar graphs. Some markers were mentioned in text but not shown in Figure. It made the reader wonder whether the wrong figure was uploaded. Please verify this data and section of manuscript.

Line 359-360: the authors state that the fetal groups show higher expression of Sox9 but only one population was statistically significant. The authors should be careful to not overstate the results.

Minor

Pg15, line 190: can remove “the blue fluorescent DAPI stain”. Starting the sentence at DAPI was used…. Should be sufficient

Methods, line 256-250: there is a lot of description of ethanol solutions used. Some details can be removed and replaced with processed for paraffin embedding

Line 390: typo in the word fetal

Reviewer #2: This is a useful study that adds to the body of work that describes the properties of various sub-populations of cells in articular cartilage. Ultimately the search for the ideal ‘cell’ for cartilage repair relies on this type of comparative analyses. The authors do not address any negative aspects of their study in the Discussion the foremost of which is the use of adult cells taken from individuals who had osteoarthritis – the potential deficiencies of the study need to be highlighted. Whilst the cartilage used may be intact the cells will have been subject to inflammatory insults and this may affect their properties. The results from intact human cartilage – which is difficult to obtain – may have given similar results as the fetal derivatives.

Review: Vinod et al

L81 – surely you mean ‘dedifferentiation’.

L88 – delete 2nd instance of ‘MSC’.

L90 - Fibronectin adhesion is not selective isolation of chondroprogenitors - it is 'enrichment for colony forming cells'. Selective implies a process where a specific subset of cells is being isolated, this isn't the case, it is an enrichment process where the probability of isolating 'progenitor cell' is increased.

L110 – “collagen type II’.

L141 – in the M&M it’s clear you are using polyclonal cells, so when you use the word ‘clonal’ you are confusing readers.

L215 - M&M qPCR which sample was used as the calibrator for this study, please state as this is standard practice when using relative quantification.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 27;18(4):e0285106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285106.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Mar 2023

Authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for taking the time to go through the manuscript and providing a detailed review. We appreciate the opportunity to provide clarifications and modify our manuscript accordingly.

Reviewer #1: This study looks at six different cell populations isolated from either fetal or adult cartilage using 3 different methods. The cells are compared for growth kinetics, marker profile, gene expression analysis, and tri-lineage differentiation. The premise for the study is that the comparative potential of chondroprogenitors between fetal and adult sources, and in comparison to fetal chondrocytes has not been evaluated. The goal of the study is interesting, and this is a valuable study, however there were some significant concerns with some of the experimental design and interpretation of the data.

The authors thank the reviewer for the suggestions and have made the required modifications to the manuscript.

Specific comments are outlined below:

Adult cartilage was isolated from total knee replacement patients with high grade OA. The authors should describe where they isolated the cartilage from, as there is often limited cartilage available from these samples and it may not represent a normal cartilage.

The manuscript has been modified to include the required details. The articular cartilage was harvested from non-weight bearing areas, with preserved full depth cartilage. (Line No: 133-134)

Figure 2 – Growth kinetics: the days that the images were taken at are not standardized so it is very difficult to compare. Similar days should be compared to really assess differences. The text (line 286) mentions days 11-12 and figure is day 10-11.

Figure 2 is only the representative images of Fetal and Adult Chondrocytes, FAA-CPCs and MCPs during monolayer expansion culture. In order to show similar confluence but also the variability based on the tissue, the particular days were chosen. The migration of the progenitors from the fetal and adult explants started at variable timepoints.

Concerning the days mentioned in the text, the authors regret this error and the writeup has been duly modified. (Line no: 293-294)

Figure 3A – Please provide a description of how population doubling time was calculated. What is the unit of time (hrs, days)? When was this population doubling measured (P0 to P1 or P1 to P2)?

The authors regret the oversight, the writeup and the figure axis have been modified including details on the unit of time (days), the formulae used and the passage number at which it was measured (P1 to P2). (Line no: 191-197)

Figure 3D – there is a lot of mention of subconfluence in the results but the manner in which it is determined is not clear to the reader. This makes it difficult to appreciate any differences seen.

The figure legend has been modified mentioning the percentage used to determine the sub confluence. The authors have reworded the term sub confluence to 80% confluence or sub confluence (80% confluence). (Line no: 142-143, 296, 309-310 and 318).

Figure 4 – statistical differences are mentioned in text but not shown in the figure. Need to show quantitative data, perhaps as bar graphs. Some markers were mentioned in text but not shown in Figure. It made the reader wonder whether the wrong figure was uploaded. Please verify this data and section of manuscript.

As suggested this figure (Figure 4) has been presented as a bar graph including the significant differences between the groups. Fluorescence-activated cell sorting data for positive and negative MSC markers, potential markers of enhanced chondrogenesis, and immunogenic markers of the six cell groups has been presented in a tabular format (Table 1) as percentage mean ± Standard Deviation (n=3). However, the values showing significant difference between the groups were only used for the histogram plot.

Line 359-360: the authors state that the fetal groups show higher expression of Sox9 but only one population was statistically significant. The authors should be careful to not overstate the results.

The authors thank the reviewer for this observation. The manuscript has been modified stating only the significant difference. (Line no: 367-368).

Minor

Pg15, line 190: can remove “the blue fluorescent DAPI stain”. Starting the sentence at DAPI was used…. Should be sufficient

Suggested modification has been included. (Line no: 198)

Methods, line 256-250: there is a lot of description of ethanol solutions used. Some details can be removed and replaced with processed for paraffin embedding

The writeup has been modified as suggested. (Line no: 256-257)

Line 390: typo in the word fetal

The authors regret this oversight, the typo has been corrected. (Line No: 398)

Reviewer # 2:

This is a useful study that adds to the body of work that describes the properties of various sub-populations of cells in articular cartilage. Ultimately the search for the ideal ‘cell’ for cartilage repair relies on this type of comparative analyses. The authors do not address any negative aspects of their study in the Discussion the foremost of which is the use of adult cells taken from individuals who had osteoarthritis – the potential deficiencies of the study need to be highlighted. Whilst the cartilage used may be intact the cells will have been subject to inflammatory insults and this may affect their properties. The results from intact human cartilage – which is difficult to obtain – may have given similar results as the fetal derivatives.

The authors thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The writeup has been modified to include the limitations of the study. (Line no: 479-481, 483-487)

L81 – surely you mean ‘dedifferentiation’.

The authors regret the oversight and the following corrections have been duly made

The change has been done. Line no: 77

L88 – delete 2nd instance of ‘MSC’.

The change has been done. Line no: 84

L90 - Fibronectin adhesion is not selective isolation of chondroprogenitors - it is 'enrichment for colony forming cells'. Selective implies a process where a specific subset of cells is being isolated, this isn't the case, it is an enrichment process where the probability of isolating 'progenitor cell' is increased.

The change has been done. Line no: 86

L110 – “collagen type II’.

The change has been done. Line no: 106

L141 – in the M&M it’s clear you are using polyclonal cells, so when you use the word ‘clonal’ you are confusing readers.

The change has been done. Line no: 140

L215 - M&M qPCR which sample was used as the calibrator for this study, please state as this is standard practice when using relative quantification.

The change has been done. Line 233-234

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

The authors have modified the manuscript ensuring that the PLOS ONE's style requirements are met.

Modifications have been applied for the following:

- Level 1, 2, 3 headings

- Figure and table captions

- Title page

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

"This project was supported by the

1. Department of Biotechnology (BT/PR32777/MED/31/415/2019), Govt. of India

Recipient: E.V

2. Fluid Research Grant (IRB Min No: 14498 dated 23.02.2022), Christian Medical College, Vellore.

Recipient: S.M.A"

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

The required details have been included in the financial disclosure document and the cover letter.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"This project was supported by the

1. Department of Biotechnology (BT/PR32777/MED/31/415/2019), Govt. of India

Recipient: E.V

2. Fluid Research Grant (IRB Min No: 14498 dated 23.02.2022), Christian Medical College, Vellore.

Recipient: S.M.A"

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

The required details have been included in the financial disclosure document and the cover letter.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper. Additionally, the minimal data set (excel sheet) has been now uploaded as a supporting information file. (S1 Data set).

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

The full ethics statement has been included in the methods section. (Line no: 127-131, 135-137)

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

All the images were created by the authors for the purpose of this study and does not include any copyright material. However, we have modified two images and additionally mention in the figure caption the following statement:

The included figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is for illustrative purposes only. (Line no: 157-158).

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

The captions for Supporting Information files have been included at the end of the manuscript, ensuring matched in-text citations.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers comments.docx

Decision Letter 1

Andre van Wijnen

13 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-32889R1Human fetal cartilage-derived chondrocytes and chondroprogenitors display a greater commitment to chondrogenesis than adult cartilage resident cellsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vinod,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit and meets the publication criteria of PLOS ONE. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the final recommendations for text revisions. These points represent minor revisions and hence please consider your paper provisionally accepted pending these final modifications. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 28 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andre van Wijnen, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

This paper is essentially provisionally accepted pending very minor final revisions of the paper.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The reviewers have addressed all comments and have some minor edits that would benefit the manuscript.

1. Figure 7: the images in the SafraninO column look like Alcian Blue and the images in the Alcian Blue column look like Safranin O. Please check and correct if necessary

2. line 110: remove the work "remarkable" . It is not needed.

3. line 415: need a reference about the Phase I clinical trial mentioned.

4. line 483: would benefit from some references

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 27;18(4):e0285106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285106.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Apr 2023

Authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for taking the time to go through the manuscript and providing a detailed review. We appreciate the opportunity to provide clarifications and modify our manuscript accordingly.

Additional Editor Comments

1. This paper is essentially provisionally accepted pending very minor final revisions of the paper.

The authors thank the editor for this comment and have made the required modifications to the manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

The reviewers have addressed all comments and have some minor edits that would benefit the manuscript.

The authors thank the reviewer for the suggestions and have made the required modifications to the manuscript.

1.Figure 7: the images in the SafraninO column look like Alcian Blue and the images in the Alcian Blue column look like Safranin O. Please check and correct if necessary

The authors have rechecked the figures and ensured that the grid is correct. Safranin O staining was performed using 1% Safranin O solution with fast green. The pellets displayed a pink to orange uptake at the areas showing the presence of proteoglycans.

In the case of Alcian blue staining, it was performed at a pH of 2.5 with a neutral red counterstain, staining areas containing sulfated and carboxylated glycosaminoglycans (blue to turquoise coloration). (Line no: 259-262).

2. line 110: remove the work "remarkable" . It is not needed.

As suggested the word remarkable has been removed. (Line No: 110)

3. line 415: need a reference about the Phase I clinical trial mentioned.

Thank you for the suggestion, the reference has been included. (Line no: 416)

4. line 483: would benefit from some references

Relevant references have been included (Line No: 484)

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text,or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

The authors have crosschecked the cited papers, ensuring it does not include any retracted papers.

We found that two references from the same paper were duplicated. We regret this oversight, and we have rectified the issue.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers comments.docx

Decision Letter 2

Andre van Wijnen

17 Apr 2023

Human fetal cartilage-derived chondrocytes and chondroprogenitors display a greater commitment to chondrogenesis than adult cartilage resident cells

PONE-D-22-32889R2

Dear Dr. Vinod,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andre van Wijnen, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Editorial comments: the authors have adequately addressed the final minor comments.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Andre van Wijnen

19 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-32889R2

Human fetal cartilage-derived chondrocytes and chondroprogenitors display a greater commitment to chondrogenesis than adult cartilage resident cells

Dear Dr. Vinod:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andre van Wijnen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. List of antibodies used for characterization of chondroprogenitors by flow cytometric analysis.

    MSC: Mesenchymal stem cell, CD: Cluster of differentiation, FITC: Fluorescein isothiocyanate, PE: Phycoerythrin, APC: Allophycocyanin, BB515: Horizon brilliant blue 515, BV421: Brilliant violet 421 and V500: Violet 500.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Sequence of the primers used for RT-PCR.

    SOX9: Sex determining region Y-box 9, ACAN: Aggrecan, COL2A1: Collagen type 2 alpha 1 chain, COL1A1: Collagen type 1 alpha 1 chain, COL10A1: Collagen type 10 alpha 1 chain, RUNX2: Runt related transcription factor-2 and GAPDH: Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Dataset

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES