Abstract
Study Design
This study explores the use of bilaminar coculture pellets of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) and Nucleus Pulposus cells (NPC) as a cell-based therapy for intervertebral disc regeneration. The pellets were tested under conditions that mimic the degenerative disc.
Objective
Our goal is to optimize our cell-based therapy in vitro under conditions representative of the eventual diseased tissue.
Summary of Background Data
Harnessing the potential of stem cells is an important strategy for regenerative medicine. Our approach seeks to direct the behavior of stem cells by mimicking embryonic processes underlying cartilage and intervertebral disc development. Prior experiments have shown that bilaminar co-culture can help differentiate MSC and substantially improve new matrix deposition.
Methods
We have designed a novel spherical bilaminar cell pellet (BCP) where MSC are enclosed in a shell of NPC. There were three groups: MSC, NPC, and BCP. The pellets were tested under three different culture conditions: in a bioreactor that provides pressure & hypoxia (mimicking normal disc conditions), with inflammatory cytokines (IL-1b and TNF-a), and a bioreactor with inflammation (mimicking painful disc conditions).
Results
When cultured in the bioreactor, the NPC pellets produced significantly more glycosaminoglycan (GAG)/cell than the other groups: 70-80% more than the BCP and MSC alone. When cultured in an inflammatory environment, the MSC and BCP groups produced 30-34% more GAG/cell than NPC (p<0.05). When the pellets were cultured in a bioreactor with inflammation, the BCP made 25% more GAG/cell than MSC and 57% more than NPC (p<0.05).
Conclusion
This study shows that BCP outperform controls in a simulated degenerated disc environment. Adapting inductive mechanisms from development to trigger differentiation and restore diseased tissue has many advantages. As opposed to strategies that require growth factor supplements or genetic manipulations, our method is self-sustaining, targeted, and minimally invasive injection.
Keywords: Mesenchymal stem cell, bilaminar pellet, coculture, induction, differentiation, bioreactor, inflammation
Introduction
Tissue engineering is a growing and dynamic field with the potential to provide patients with minimally-invasive treatments that repair or replace dysfunctional musculoskeletal tissues. For the intervertebral disc, the goal is to re-establish pain-free motion by restoring the disc’s physical and biochemical properties [1-3]. This may be accomplished by stimulating host cells to resume matrix synthesis (particularly aggrecan) and/or by introducing new, more synthetically-active cells [4-8]. This work focuses on the latter option.
Pellet culture systems may have benefits as part of a tissue engineering strategy as demonstrated in the literature [9-13]. Furthermore, co-culture of stem cells and disc cells is a promising strategy for cell based tissue regeneration as it makes use of signaling interaction between the two cell types to promote MSC differentiation [14-20]. We explored the benefits of co-culturing nucleus pulposus cells (NPC) and adult MSC using a 3D system that exploit the processes of tissue induction and condensation. We report here on a novel “bi-laminar cell pellet” approach that structures cell-cell signaling between MSCs and non-degenerative NPCs [21, 22]. A spherical bi-laminar cell pellet (BCP) consists of an inner sphere of one cell type enclosed within a shell formed by another cell type. It has been previously shown that BCP composed of 75% MSC as the inner sphere and 25% NPC forming the outer shell produce 30-50% more matrix than the MSC and NPC controls in vitro. This indicates an advantageous synergy between the two cell types in this spatially organized configuration [22].
A fundamental challenge to functional disc tissue engineering is the lack of an established, validated pre-clinical model that simulates the pathologic/painful disc condition. Still, it is valuable to challenge and optimize investigational treatments with conditions anticipated in vivo since environmental cues can dramatically affect the therapeutic performance [23-28]. In the degenerate disc these three key components are pressure, hypoxia, and inflammation [28].
The healthy disc supports substantial compressive load while remaining pliant to facilitate motion. It is the body’s largest avascular organ, making nutrient and oxygen transport limiting factors to cell survival [29]. Mechanical and hypoxic stress can be adverse to viability and matrix synthesis of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and nucleus pulposus cells (NPCs) [30-31]. Additionally, painful degeneration also includes elevated levels of inflammatory mediators such as IL-1 and TNF-alpha that are byproducts of chronic wound healing [34-36].
In order to anticipate the therapeutic effects of BCPs in painful discs, we mimicked these key features of the degenerate disc environment in vitro. BCP cell viability and matrix synthesis were measured in the presence of inflammatory cytokines (IL-1beta and TNF-alpha each at 10ng/ml; mimicking levels seen in degenerative discs), under pressure (0.1 MPa) and hypoxia (4.5% oxygen; mimicking human disc conditions at rest), and finally under pressure and hypoxia with inflammatory cytokines.
Materials and Methods
Bioreactor Design and Construction
The bioreactor is a simple design composed of easily available components. This permits easy fabrication of many replicate units that can be used simultaneously. Each bioreactor is composed of a dialysis cassette (10 kDa pore size, Slide-A-Lyzer, Pierce) modified to withstand internal pressurization (Figure 1A). The cassette cavity (300 mL) is filled with a 15% hyaluronan gel (MW 80,000, Genzyme, Cambridge, MA) that is entrapped within the device by a gasket and semi-permeable membranes.
Figure 1.

A) The bioreactor is filled with HA gel which swells due to osmotic pressure. The pellet is then injected into the chamber. B) Once the bioreactor is swollen, an autoclaved porous metal clip is placed around the membrane so that it will not continue to swell and burst. C) Some of the pellets were cultured in the bioreactor group (BG), inducing hypoxia and pressure. D) Some of the pellets were in the inflammatory cytokines group (ICG). E) Some of the pellets were cultured in the bioreactor with inflammatory cytokines (BICG).
A 15% hyaluronan (HA) gel was made by dissolving sodium hyaluronate powder in growth media. Three hundred microliters of this gel were injected through the self-sealing silicone port of a dialysis cassette and excess air was removed. The cassette was then incubated in growth media (Dulbecco’s modified eagle medium (DMEM) low glucose, 1% antibiotic/antimycotic, and 10% Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS)) for four hours to allow for gel volume expansion by osmotic swelling. An autoclavable porous metal filter surrounds the device to permit fluid exchange and prevent membrane rupture due to internal pressurization (Figure 1B).
Bioreactor Oxygen and Pressure Measurements
Bioreactor oxygen and pressure were measured after cassettes were incubated in growth media at 37°C with 5% CO2 and 21% O2 as described previously [28]. Under these conditions the oxygen tension and pressure inside the bioreactor reach a steady-state of 4.8% and 0.12 MPa respectively, which are comparable with physiologic levels of the human disc at rest.
Cell Culture
Bovine NPC were isolated from caudal discs of healthy adult cows within 48 hours of sacrifice. The NP tissue was carefully separated by gross dissection and digested in 0.5% collagenase/dispase and 2% antibiotic/antimycotic in low glucose DMEM at 37°C for 4-6hrs with constant stirring. The cells were then plated in tissue culture flasks and expanded to the fourth passage in NPC Media (DMEM low glucose, 1% antibiotic/antimycotic, 1.5% 400m Osmolarity, and 5% FBS) at 37°C with 5% CO2. Culture media was changed twice a week.
Commercially available human MSC were purchased (Lonza, Switzerland) and expanded to the sixth passage in monolayer culture using growth media at 37°C with 5% CO2. Culture media was changed twice a week.
Pellet formation and culture
Human MSC and bovine NPC were used to make coculture pellets. It has previously been reported that when using controls of human MSC with human NPC pellets as well as bovine MSC with bovine NPC pellets that there are no significant cross-species interactions [22].
Two different pellet types were formed, each consisting of 500,000 cells total: pellets of 100% one cell type and BCPs of 75% MSC and 25% NPC organized into a bilaminar. This ratio was selected based on previous studies [16, 17, 21]. To produce the single cell type pellets, 500,000 cells were pipetted into a 15mL polypropylene tube and centrifuged at low speeds (300g) for 5min. In order to form the bilaminar organized pellets, 375000 MSCs were added to a 15mL polypropylene tube and centrifuged at low speed for five minutes. Subsequently, 125000 NPCs were gently added to the same tube. The cells were then centrifuged again at low speed for 5 min. All pellets were cultured in 2 mL of growth media for three days with caps loosened to allow for gas exchange. After three days, the pellets became spherical and were transferred to ultra-low attachment 24 well plates (Corning).
All pellets were cultured in growth media for a total of one week. At the end of the first week, pellets in the bioreactor group (BG) were injected into the bioreactor using a Radiology Angiography needle (Beckton Dickinson, NJ; Figure 1C). The pellets in the inflammatory cytokine group (ICG) were cultured in growth media supplemented with IL-1beta and TNF-alpha at 10ng/mL each (Peprotech, NJ; Figure 1D). The cytokine concentration was selected to reflect physiologic levels based on prior reports [37-40]. The pellets in the bioreactor with inflammatory cytokines group (BICG) were injected into a bioreactor that contained the same cytokines as the ICG (Figure 1E). Five replicates were used per pellet type per culture group.
DNA and DMMB assays for proteoglycan quantification
At the end of two weeks, the pellets were harvested and digested overnight at 60 degrees in a papain solution (20 U/mL in PBS). Digested pellets were assayed with a Quant-iTPicoGreen kit (Invitrogen, CA) to measure DNA content. Measurements were made using a spectrophotometer, with the excitation at 488nm and absorption at 525 nm.
Digested pellets were also analyzed using a dimethylmethylene blue (DMMB) assay to quantify GAG content. A standard curve was made with chondroitin sulfate isolated from bovine trachea (Sigma, MO). Absorption was measured at 525nm using a spectrophotometer.
The results obtained from GAG quantification where normalized to the cell number as calculated from the DNA content assuming 6 μg DNA/cell.
In situ hybridization
In situ hybridization was performed to localize cell synthetic activity [41]. Sections were hybridized with 35S-labeled human riboprobes to aggrecan and col2a1 (fibrillar collagen). Sections were counterstained with Hoechst dye (Sigma, MO). Hybridization signals were detected using illuminated darkfield and the nuclear stain with epifluorescence.
Statistical Analyses
All statistical analyses were performed using JMP statistical software (JMP V 8.0, SAS Institute Inc.). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures were used to compare group means and to estimate the effect of the sample variables (pellet type and culture conditions entered as categorical predictors) on the measured parameters of interest (cell density and GAG content). Standard p-values were calculated for assessing statistical significance. When indicated, Tukey post-hoc tests were performed to identify group differences. Probabilities between 0.05<p<0.10 were defined as ‘trends’ with near statistical significance [42].
Results
DNA and DMMB assays for proteoglycan quantification
In the BG, where pellets are cultured under pressure and hypoxic conditions, the NPC pellets produced significantly more GAG per cell than the other groups: 70-80% more than the BCP and MSC alone (p<0.05; Figure 2). The BCP displayed a trend towards producing 53% more GAG per cell than MSC (p<0.1) and having more cells than other groups (p<0.1; Figure 3). There was no significant difference in overall GAG produced per pellet, though the MSC groups trended towards producing the least amount of GAG per pellet (p<0.1; Figure 4).
Figure 2.

Graph of μgGAG secreted per 10^6 cells by each of the groups in the three different environmental conditions. Nucleus cells performed best under pressure and hypoxic conditions (BG), while BCPs performed best when inflammatory disc conditions were mimicked with pressure, hypoxia, and cytokines (BICG).
Figure 3.

Graph of the number of cell per pellet in the three different environmental conditions. Inflammatory conditions stimulated the greatest cell proliferation, principally in MSCs.
Figure 4.

Graph of μgGAG produced per pellet by each of the groups in the three different environmental conditions. Both MSC and BCP pellets had significantly increased GAG secretion under inflammatory conditions. Under simulated inflammatory disc conditions the BCP synthesized significantly more GAG than either cell type alone.
In the ICG, the MSC and BCP groups produced 30-34% more GAG per cell than NPC (p<0.05; Figure 2). The NPC also had approximately 160% fewer cells per pellet than the MSC and BCP groups (p<0.05; Figure 3). This led to 113% and 157% more GAG per pellet for the BCP and MSC groups respectively than the NPC group (p<0.05; Figure 4). There was no statistically significant difference between the MSC and BCP for any of the measures.
In the BICG, the BCP secrete 25% more GAG per cell than MSC and 57% more than NPC (p<0.05). The MSC produced 42% more GAG per cell than NPC (p<0.05; Figure 2). There was no significant difference in DNA content between the groups (Figure 3). Ultimately, the BCP produced 113% more GAG per pellet than MSC and 157% more GAG per pellet than NPC (p<0.05; Figure 4).
In situ hybridization
The MSC pellets did not exhibit any significant levels of collagen II expression regardless of their environment (Figure 5 A,G,M). However, the levels of aggrecan expression did vary with the environmental conditions. There are low levels of expression in both the BG and ICG, where expression does appear to be homogeneously spread (Figure 5H).
Figure 5.

Localization of aggrecan and collagen II gene expression (white), counterstained with Hoechst dye (blue). A-F are of pellets cultured in a bioreactor. G-L were cultured with inflammatory cytokins. M-R were culture in a bioreactor with inflammation. MSC pellets did not demonstrate significant Col II gene expression while the aggrecan gene expression matched GAG trends. Under inflammatory conditions (ICG and BICG) the aggrecan and Col II expression was limited to the pellet periphery. Aggrecan and Col II expression was homogeneous under all conditions.
For the NPC pellets, collagen and aggrecan expression varied with environmental condition. In the BG, the aggrecan and collagen II expression was very strong and homogeneous (Figure 5C,D). In the ICG, aggrecan and collagen II expression both dropped significantly compared to the levels in BG (Figure 5 I,J). In addition, the expression was localized to the outer layer of the pellet in the ICG. In the BICG, expression of aggrecan and collagen II dropped further below levels in the ICG, particularly for collagen II expression that was extremely faint (Figure 5 O). Aggrecan expression was again localized to the outer periphery of the pellet (Figure 5 P).
For the BCP group, gene expression also varied with environmental conditions. In the BG, aggrecan and collagen II expression were high and homogeneous (Figure 5E,F). These levels decreased somewhat in the ICG, but remained homogeneous as opposed to the NPC group (Figure 5 K,L). Finally, in the BICG, aggrecan and collagen II expression both had a strong signal and remained homogeneously expressed (Figure 5 Q,R).
Discussion
The goal of this study was to determine the environmental effects on cell pellet matrix synthesis and gene expression in order to anticipate the in vivo behavior. Our data demonstrate that GAG production, cell proliferation, and gene expression vary significantly with culture conditions and have different effects on MSCs and NPCs. We observed that NPC produced the most GAG/cell in the BG that simulates the disc’s resting pressure and oxygen tension. The in situ hybridization data also indicate that NPC expressed higher levels of aggrecan and collagen II than MSC and BCP. These results are expected since NPC are adapted to survive and produce matrix under these conditions. Interestingly, the BCP did show high levels of aggrecan and collagen II expression, which may be an indication that the MSCs (that compose 75% of the BCP) had differentiated. This was not the case in the MSC-only group, where expression levels were very low. The BCP also tended to have the most cell proliferation in the BG (though this was not significant) and considerable levels of aggrecan and collagen II expression. Under conditions of pressure and hypoxia the NPC produce the most amount of GAG/cell, and BCP are able to proliferate and produce GAG as well.
The MSC and BCP groups produced significantly more GAG and had more cell proliferation in the ICG than the NPC. The literature indicates that MSC may be immune-privileged cells and tolerant of inflammatory conditions [43]. Also, considering that the BCP are 75% MSC, it is not surprising that the BCP performed well in this environment. Importantly, NPC did not perform well under ICG, with GAG/cell dropping 86% from the BG levels (p<0.05). Aggrecan and collagen II gene expression in the NPC group was lower in the ICG than in the BG and located on the periphery. These data indicate that NPC are very sensitive to inflammatory cytokines that have a strong debilitating effect on gene expression and aggrecan production, while MSC and BCP are more resilient.
The BCP produced the most matrix (GAG/cell as well as GAG/pellet) in the BICG. Consistent with this, the BCP group had the highest aggrecan expression levels. These data suggest that BCP would outperform NPC or MSC alone when used as part of a regenerative therapy. Interestingly, we also observed that MSC produced significantly more GAG than NPC in the BICG, indicating that the inflammatory cytokines have a more dominant effect on NPC than pressure and hypoxia. The combined exposure to pressure, hypoxia, and cytokines did not alter cell proliferation but did have an effect on all the pellets’ ability to produce GAG at the protein and gene expression levels.
This study is limited due to the use of an in vitro system that only partially mimics the in vivo disc environment. The disc degenerative process is complex and many biological and biomechanical stressors impact the ability to rejuvenate nucleus pulposus tissue [30]. Even more so, pain mechanism for degenerate discs are multifactorial and poorly defined. In addition to pressure, hypoxia, and pro-inflammatory cytokines studied here, other factors such as nerve and blood vessel ingrowth are often-reported findings unique to painful discs [44]. Consequently, whether the BCP behaviors reported constitute disease-modifying activity for low back patients remains to be studied. While pre-clinical studies of BCPs for disc repair in small animals are promising [45], large animal models are an important next step to assess therapeutic activity relative to other approaches being investigated such as growth factors [46-47], bioactive scaffolds [48], and gene therapy [49]. We also haven’t addressed the mechanisms by which structured coculture leads to the beneficial behaviors. Cell contact and/or paracrine signaling across the cell boundary may be important, and identification of the signaling pathways using quantitative gene expression analyses may allow further optimization of this tissue engineering approach.
Ultimately, our goal is to develop cell-based therapies for painful disc degeneration. In this study we isolated the effects of the major features in degenerative discs (inflammation, pressure, and hypoxia) on different cell types. Our results indicate that the BCP configuration may exploit inductive signaling between and within organized cell layers to impart therapeutic advantages in the harsh, painful disc environment over NPC and MSC alone.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by NIH R01AR052712 and by DT1-00656-1: A CIRM Disease Team for the Repair of Traumatically Injured and Arthritic Cartilage to JCL. This work was also supported by NIDCR DE016402 and NIAMS R21 AR052513 to RAS.
Footnotes
The manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical device(s)/drug(s). Federal funds were received to support this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
References
- 1.Rengachary S, Balabhadra RS. Black disc disease: a commentary. Neurosurg Focus. 2002;13(2):E14. doi: 10.3171/foc.2002.13.2.15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA. 1992;268(7):907–911. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Urban JPG, Roberts S, Raphs JR. The nucleus of the intervertebral disc from development to degeneration. AmerZool. 2002;40:5–61. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Yoo JU, Barthels TS, Nishimura K, et al. The chondrogenic potential of human bone-marrow derived mesenchymal progenitor cells. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80A(12):1745–1757. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199812000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Sakai D, Mochida J, Iwashina T, et al. Differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells transplanted to a rabbit degenerative disc model potential and limitations for stem cell therapy in disc regeneration. Spine. 2005;30:2379–2387. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000184365.28481.e3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Caplan AI, Elyaderani M, Mochizuki Y, et al. Principles of cartilage repair and regeneration. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;342:254–269. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Zhang YG, Guo X, Xu P, et al. Bone mesenchymal stem cells transplanted into rabbit intervertebral discs can increase proteoglycans. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;430:219–226. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000146534.31120.cf. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Crevensten G, Walsh AJ, Ananthakrishnan D, et al. Intervertebral disc cell therapy for regeneration: mesenchymal stem cell implantation in rat intervertebral discs. Ann Biomed Eng. 2004;32:430–434. doi: 10.1023/b:abme.0000017545.84833.7c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ichinose S, Yamagata K, Sekiya I, et al. Detailed examination of cartilage formation and endochondral ossification using human mesenchymal stem cells. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2005;32:561–570. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2005.04231.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hall BK, Miyake T. The membranous skeleton: the role of cell condensations in vertebrate skeletogenesis. Anat Embryol. 1992;186:107–124. doi: 10.1007/BF00174948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hall BK, Miyake T. Divide, accumulate, differentiate: cell condensation in skeletal development revisited. Int J Dev Biol. 1995;39:881–893. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hall BK, Miyake T. All for one and one for all: condensations and the initiation of skeletal development. BioEssays. 2000;22:138–147. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-1878(200002)22:2<138::AID-BIES5>3.0.CO;2-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lee JY, Hall R, Pelinkovic D, et al. New Use of a Three-Dimensional Pellet Culture System for Human Intervertebral Disc Cells: Initial Characterization and Potential Use for Tissue Engineering. Spine. 2001;26:2316–2322. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200111010-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Yang SH, Wu CC, Shih TT, et al. In vitro study on interaction between human nucleus pulposus cells and mesenchymal stem cells through paracrine stimulation. Spine. 2008;33(18):1951–7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817e6974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Yamamoto Y, Mochida J, Sakai D, et al. Upregulation of the Viability of Nucleus Pulposus Cells by Bone Marrow-Derived Stromal Cells: Significance of Direct Cell-to-Cell Contact in Coculture System. Spine. 2004;29:1508–1514. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000131416.90906.20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Richardson SM, Walker RV, Parker S, et al. Intervertebral Disc Cell-Mediated Mesenchymal Stem Cell Differentiation. Stem Cells. 2006;24:707–716. doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2005-0205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Le Visage C, Kim SW, Talento K, et al. Interaction of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells With Disc Cells: Changes in Extracellular Matrix Biosynthesis. Spine. 2006;31:2036–2042. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000231442.05245.87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Vadala G, Studer RK, Sowa G, et al. Coculture of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and nucleus pulposus cells modulate gene expression profile without cell fusion. Spine. 2008;33(8):870–876. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816b4619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Chen S, Emery SE, Pei M. Coculture of synovium-derived stem cells and nucleus pulposus cells in serum-free defined medium with supplementation of transforming growth factor-beta1: a potential application of tissue-specific stem cells in disc regeneration. Spine. 2009;34(12):1272–80. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a2b347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wei A, Chung SA, Tao H, et al. Differentiation of rodent bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells into intervertebral disc-like cells following coculture with rat disc tissue. Tissue Eng Part A. 2009;15(9):2581–95. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2008.0458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Allon AA, Schneider RA, Lotz JC. Co-culture of adult mesenchymal stem cells and nucleus pulposus cells in bilaminar pellets for intervertebral disc regeneration. SAS J. 2009;3(2):41–84. doi: 10.1016/SASJ-2009-0005-NT. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Allon AA. PhD Dissertation. University of California; San Francisco: 2009. Structured co-culture of disc cells and stem cells for intervertebral disc regeneration. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Holm S, Nachemson A. Variations in the nutrition of the canine intervertebral disc induced by motion. Spine. 1983;8(8):866–74. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198311000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Zuscik MJ, Hilton MJ, Zhang X, et al. Regulation of chondrogenesis and chondrocyte differentiation by stress. J Clin Inv. 2008;118(2):429–38. doi: 10.1172/JCI34174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Angele P, Schumann D, Angele M, et al. Cyclic, mechanical compression enhances chondrogenesis of mesenchymal progenitor cells in tissue engineering scaffolds. Biorheology. 2004;41(3-4):335–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Bibby SR, Jones DA, Ripley RM, et al. Metabolism of the intervertebral disc: effects of low levels of oxygen, glucose, and pH on rates of energy metabolism of bovine nucleus pulposus cells. Spine. 2005;30(5):487–96. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000154619.38122.47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Neidlinger-Wilke C, Wurtz K, Urban JP, et al. Regulation of gene expression in intervertebral disc cells by low and high hydrostatic pressure. Eur Spine J. 2006;15B(suppl 3):S372–S378. doi: 10.1007/s00586-006-0112-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kim AJ, Lotz JC. Inflammation in a disc-mimetic environment. 55th Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society.2009. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Horner HA, Urban JP. 2001 Volvo award winner in basic science studies: effect of nutrient supply on the viability of cells from the nucleus pulposus of the intervertebral disc. Spine. 2001;26(23):2543–9. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200112010-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Lotz JC, Ulrich JA. Innervation, inflammation, and hypermobility may characterize pathologic disc degeneration: review of animal model data. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(Suppl 2):76–82. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.01448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Lotz JC, Staples A, Walsh A, et al. Mechanobiology in intervertebral disc degeneration and regeneration. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2004;7:5459. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2004.1404528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Le Maitre CL, Freemont AJ, Hoyland JA. The role of interleukin-1 in the pathogenesis of human intervertebral disc degeneration. Arthritis Res Ther. 2005;7(4):R732–45. doi: 10.1186/ar1732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Tsuji F, Seki I, Aono H, et al. Bucillamine mechanism inhibiting IL-1beta induced VEGF production from fibroblast-like synoviocytes. Int Immunopharmacol. 2007;7(12):1569–76. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2007.07.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Ulrich JA, Liebenberg EC, Thuillier DU, et al. ISSLS prize winner: repeated disc injury causes persistent inflammation. Spine. 2007;32(25):2812–9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815b9850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hoyland JA, Le Maitre C, Freemont AJ. Investigation of the role of IL-1 and TNF in matrix degradation in the intervertebral disc. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008;47(6):809–14. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ken056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Lee S, Moon CS, Sul D, et al. Comparison of growth factor and cytokine expression in patients with degenerated disc disease and herniated nucleus pulposus. Clin Biochem. 2009;42(15):1504–11. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2009.06.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Seki S, Asanuma-Abe Y, Masuda L, et al. Effect of a small interference RNA for ADAMTS5 on intervertebral disc degeneration in the rabbit annular needle-puncture model. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11(6):R166. doi: 10.1186/ar2851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Milward-Sadler SJ, Costello PW, Freemont AJ, Hoyland JA. Regulation of catabolic gene expression in normal and degenerate human intervertebral disc cells: implications for the pathogenesis of intervertebral disc degeneration. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11(3):R65. doi: 10.1186/ar2693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kang JD, Stefanovic-Racic M, McIntyre LA, Georgescu HI, Evans CH. Toward a biochemical understanding of human intervertebral disc degeneration and herniation. Contributions of nitric oxide, interleukins, prostaglandin E2, and matrix metalloproteinases. Spine. 1997;22(10):1065–73. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199705150-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Le Maitre CL, Freemont AJ, Hoyland JA. The role of interleukin-1 in the pathogenesis of human intervertebral disc degeneration. Arthritis Res Ther. 2005;7(4):R732–45. doi: 10.1186/ar1732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Albrecht UEG, Eichelle G, Helms JA, et al. Visualization of gene expression patterns by in situ hybridization. In: Daston GP, editor. Molecular and cellular methods in developmental toxicology. CRC Press; Boca Raton, FL: 1997. pp. 23–48. 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Desbiens NA. A novel use for the word “trend” in the clinical trial literature. Am J Med Sci. 2003;326:61–5. doi: 10.1097/00000441-200308000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Kotobuki N, Katsube Y, Katou Y, et al. In vivo survival and osteogenic differentiation of allogenic bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) Cell Transplant. 2008;17(6):705–12. doi: 10.3727/096368908786092793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Freemont AJ. The cellular pathobiology of the degenerate intervertebral disc and discogenic back pain. Rheumatology. 2009;48:5–10. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ken396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Allon AA, Arouer N, Yoo BB, et al. Structured coculture of stem cells and disc cells prevent disc degeneration in a rat model. Spine J. 2010;10(12):1089–97. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.09.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Masuda K. Biological repair of the degenerated intervertebral disc by the injection of growth factors. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(4):441–451. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0749-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Masuda K, Lotz JC. New challenges for intervertebral disc treatment using regenerative medicine. Tissue Engineering Part B. 2010;16(1):147–158. doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Buser Z, Kuelling F, Liu J, et al. Biological and biomechanical effects of fibrin injection into procine intervertebral discs. Spine. 2011 Feb 15; doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820566b2. [Epub ahead of print] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Moon SH, Nishida K, Gilbertson LG, et al. Biologic response of human intervertebral disc cells to gene therapy cocktail. Spine. 2008;33(17):1850–5. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817e1cd7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
