They do not represent “MSCs” or skeletal stem cells, however, but a diversified system of tissue-specific progenitors (reviewed in [35] and [69]). The applicative implications of either view are obvious: use of stem cells for bone regeneration, for example, is highly dependent on the genuine, inherent

osteogenic Pexidartinib capacity of the chosen cell population, which implies choosing the appropriate tissue source (bone marrow or periosteum, but not fat or muscle or umbilical cord). Downstream of their unwarranted equation with “all pericytes”, more recent versions of the “MSC” concept capitalize on properties that pericytes may exert in physiology, but are not per se the functions of stem cells. Promotion or quenching of inflammation, wound healing, control of tissue trophism www.selleckchem.com/mTOR.html via regulation of blood flow, for example, can be seen as local functions of pericytes [89], but not of stem cells. These functions

resonate in the “trophic, anti-inflammatory, immune modulatory” properties that are invoked to underpin the empirical use of infusions of skeletal (or connective tissue) cells in a broad range of severe non-skeletal diseases unrelated to one another[[80] and [90]], for which MSCs provide no chances of cure (reviewed in [35]). Such use of cell infusions outside of a precise paradigm for tissue regeneration, and in the lack of a rationale, has antecedents noted in the history of medicine [91] and [92], but no record of positive outcome or achievement. Some refer Bumetanide to the legacy of those century-old experiences, still reproduced for commercial purposes today, as “dark cell therapy”, as

opposed to mainstream tissue regeneration attempts. It is impossible to grasp the origin and the general significance of these conspicuous trends in the science of bone stem cells without placing these trends into their context. Conversely, the evolution of the science of stem cells in bone provides perhaps the most effective example of the impact of societal trends on present-day science. The post-WWII paradigm of R&D in biomedicine, as outlined in the famous document by Vannevar Bush, “Science, the Endless Frontier” [93] had a pivotal role in creating the contemporary biomedical science that flourished in the West after WWII. This paradigm is currently replaced by the “translational” paradigm. It is indeed a historical change [[94] and [95]]. The change begins in the 1980s and it is intertwined with profound changes in Western economies, in industrial strategies, in private and public policies for R&D (Fig. 3). The birth of biotech industry, the outsourcing of industrial R&D to academia, to publicly funded science, and to small and medium enterprises are part of the current context and of the globalization process [94]. Together, these changes result in the push for rapid development of marketable products.