ArticleTissue engineering. Part A2026
Donor Variability and 3D Culture Models Influence Human Mesenchymal Stem Cell Differentiation.
Article in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptable sliding hydrogels enable pericellular pocket formation while enhancing MSC chondrogenesis and survival in 3D.Bioactive materials · 2026Article
- The interplay between mesenchymal stem cells and the immune microenvironment in rotator cuff tendon-to-bone healing: current progress and future directions.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are widely used for tissue regeneration due to their multilineage differentiation potential and ability to secrete paracrine factors with immunomodulatory and angiogenic functions. Standard MSC differentiation protocols typically rely on two-dimensional (2D) or pellet culture models that are simple to use but not well-suited for translational or clinical applications. To promote better cell survival, tissue deposition, and differentiation of MSCs, a wide variety of three-dimensional (3D) biomaterial scaffolds and platforms have been developed that provide structural support and present a carefully defined set of biochemical and biophysical cues to cells. While biomaterials can guide cell behavior and promote desirable tissue regeneration outcomes, one remaining challenge in the field is inherent donor-to-donor variability in MSC behavior, phenotype, and differentiation capacity. Although MSCs are promising tools for regeneration, the influence of donor variability on MSC differentiation across culture models remains poorly understood. Previous studies typically use cells from a single donor or rely solely on standard culture models. To address these gaps, we compared MSCs from six human donors and assessed differentiation across chondrogenic, osteogenic, and adipogenic lineages using both standard (pellet or 2D) and 3D biomaterial-based culture models. Alginate hydrogels were used to assess chondrogenesis, while gelatin microribbon (µRB) hydrogels were used to evaluate osteogenesis and adipogenesis in 3D. Significant donor-to-donor variability was observed in differentiation outcomes across all three lineages and within both 2D and 3D culture models. By directly comparing donor variability in 2D and 3D, we provide evidence that standard 2D models cannot predict MSC differentiation capacity in 3D biomaterials. Therefore, to improve therapeutic efficacy and advance biomaterial-based strategies for tissue regeneration, it is critical to understand how donor variability affects MSC differentiation patterns across 3D biomaterial-based culture models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.