adipose-derived versus hematopoietic-derived versus cord-blood-derived stem cells


New member
I have been trying to learn about stem cells for neurological diseases and the varying clinics that offer the varying treatments. After quite a bit of reading, I am presently quite confused about which source of stem cells is generally (and professionally) considered the most efficacious for neurological damage/diseases.

Presently, I have seen arguments for the use of cord-blood versus hematopoietic-derived versus adipose-derived cells. Reading through the physicians question section, a recent doctor interviewed has argued that the harvest quantity and efficacy of adipose derived stem cells is less promising than their bone marrow counterparts. However, CellTex, as an example, has been able to harvest adipose derived stem cells and claims the ability to generate very large numbers of msc's, and I suppose these cells are as active as their bone marrow counterparts?

To confuse the matter more, there has been the entry of those recommending cord blood derived stem cells. Frankly, of the 3 options, it would appear to me that the POTENTIAL best option would be the cord derived blood stem cells BECAUSE they are MUCH younger stem cells than our own, well for us less who are less than youthful. At least a couple articles provide hints they may indeed be more active for non bone related healing.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Jan;131(1):27-37. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729cfc.
The effect of age on human adipose-derived stem cells.
Wu W1, Niklason L, Steinbacher DM.

Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells are a robust, multipotent cell source. They are easily harvested and exhibit promise in a variety of regenerative applications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the aging impact on adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells, relating to morphology, senescent properties, growth factor expression, and osteogenesis. ...

The same isolating ratio of mesenchymal stem cells was derived from each donor, regardless of age. The infant adipose-derived stem cells exhibited elongated spindle morphology and increased telomere length compared with older cells. Angiogenic factors were more highly expressed by infant cells, whereas osteogenic expression was similar among all ages. Response to osteogenic induction was more profound in infant than in older stem cells, as evidenced by alkaline phosphatase and alizarin red staining, as was bone-related gene expression.

Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells are available across all age groups. Infant-derived cells are morphologically spindle-shaped, with long telomeres, and exhibit enhanced angiogenic and osteogenic capabilities compared with older cells. Conversely, all age groups exhibit similar osteogenic paracrine activity, and the authors posit that clinical applicability is conserved during the adult to elderly period.
For those not aware, telomere length is linked to aging and it is theorized to be a cause of aging. Older cells tend to have shorter telomeres, and generally have more genetic damage. Essentially, they are older and less active/responsive. This is called senescence and not only can these cells not communicate well with each other, they can actually hinder healing by broadcasting gibberish, as it were, to other cells interfering in the overall healling process. As we get older, this happens to more and more of our cells. One of the reasons hyperbarics works so well is it has the ability to turn on the cell receptors (ears as it were) so that intercellular communication can more readily take place among these older, more senescent cells for a period of time. Communication is key for proper immune system function and healing processes.

Additionally, older cells seam to have less mitochondria and less active mitochondria. Mitochondria are basically the power plants of the body. Without power, there is no repair, no healing. This might also explain, in part, the greater activity level of younger cells.

So, although this study does not directly pertain to cord derived cells, it does provide some evidence that there is a difference in what younger stem cells are capable versus the older stem cells, and this is not surprising. Certainly, in order to repair tissues we need adequate blood perfusion. Therefore, it would seem logical that chord derived cells might hold greater promise than adult (adipose or hematopoietic) in promoting blood vessel growth and thus better healing outside the realm of orthopedics.

Another article I found seems to support this as well:

(Dykstra B, Olthof S, Schreuder J, Ritsema M, de Haan G. Clonal analysis reveals multiple functional defects of aged murine hematopoietic stem cells. J Exp Med. 2011 Dec 19;208(13):2691-703.) “Blood, the fluid that transports nutrients, gases, immune cells, and a host of other factors throughout our bodies, declines in function with age. For example, hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) from older mice, which give rise to the cellular component of blood, have multiple functional defects, including lineage changes, reduced self-renewal, homing efficiency, and a delayed proliferative response.”

(As an aside and suggestion to anyone professional reading, our body cells are actually a mix of different aged cells, well by telomere length. It would therefore seem logical to pursue the harvest and then growth promotion of the youngest possible subset of adult stem cells. Yes, by increasing the total number of adult stem cells more young cells are being delivered, but so are more older, more senescent cells, and those cells, for the reasons mentioned above, could hinder optimal healing and outcomes.) However, I don't know how much difference in age there exists generally among these cells, so there may not be as much benefit as I hope. It might be interesting to see if hematopoietic derived stem cells are generally of a different age than adipose derived stem cells too.)

Anyway, this leads me back to thinking that the greatest POTENTIAL for healing may lie with very young cord-derived cells, and the articles above would seem to provide some evidence for this. However, now we enter into realm of allogenic grafts, with the potential to create a graft versus host response, or essentially the rejection of the cord derived cells and out body's cells from each other, creating a potentially terrible reaction. The likelihood of this reaction seems to be far less with cord derived cells when delivered in sufficient quantity, but I am less than clear on the level of graft success when matching the varying HLA components (including subtypes). There is so little data available that I can find. There is also a risk of receiving virally or bacterially infected cells, or even genetically abnormal cells.

Then there is there are so many questions about the ability to deliver these varying cells to the appropriate portion of the brain and get them to integrate/repair the damaged tissue.

So, who can you trust to provide intelligent answers, screening, and preparation?

CellTex has been mentioned and seems legit. I have also read Dr. Centeno's post. I've noted that Israeli companies seem more centered around hematopoietic cells. It is difficult to find and sort through other "legitimate" operations. This forum has been helpful. Thanks to the moderators.

In summary, what I am hoping for is either

1. enlightened commentary from someone with greater experience and/or knowledge of the suitability of cord derived cells versus adult stem cells OR

2. the experience of someone who has received cord versus adipose versus hematopoietic derived blood cells intrathecally (injected into their spinal cord OR the neck veins) to see if it helped them and/or created any side effects. If good outcomes, who did you use?


3. Any advice on legimate asian operations?


Pioneer Founding member
I agree with you that the search to find the right type of treatment can be frustrating. I am not sure what condition you suffer from, but the jury is still out as far as treating most diseases. Dr Riordan's discussion may be helpful to you.

Q: Are there some conditions such as neurological ones that respond better when the cells are greatly expanded? Is a high quantity essential for success or is that something that may be more of a selling point at some clinics? I have also seen this advertised for COPD and other conditions. It's almost like the more cells the better, but I would like your opinion.

A: That really depends on the quality of the cells after expansion. If they are still robust, not senescent, and still have a good secretion profile, then the more the better may be useful up to a point. If you take a small pool of starter cells and expand them to exhaustion, then I don’t think you are going to have a very good product. The MSCs used in Panama are not expanded beyond passage 5—a point at which there is no senescence in the population and they have a robust cytokine secretion profile. In order to use only cells that meet our release criteria, cells from approximately one (1.2 to be exact) out of 10 donated umbilical cords are used.

Contrast that to cells from a patient’s own fat tissue that are expanded. Firstly, the starting cells may, and many times are not very robust—they secrete little or no beneficial cytokines or chemokines, and must be expanded to hilt in order to hit the cell number. Please see my answer to number 7 for more on this subject.

This brings up a slightly different, yet related topic. There has been a lot of talk at recent meetings about more defined endpoints for the cells being used, and I couldn’t agree more. There are MSCs from bone marrow, menstrual blood, fat tissue, umbilical cord (even different parts of the umbilical cord—around the blood vessels, from the Wharton’s jelly, from the subepithelium, from the cord blood itself—which are most likely contaminants from a bruised placenta rather than the blood), teeth, amniotic membrane, amniotic fluid just to name sources in the “we didn’t mess with mother nature” adult stem cell world. Add to that the infinite variables when you consider the age and physical condition of the donor, particularly when using adipose or bone marrow as a source material and we, as a field, could be saying almost anything by using the term, “mesenchymal stem cell.” I think it is time that there is standardization in the field beyond the current definition of expressing/not expressing certain surface markers and the ability to differentiate into fat, bone, and cartilage. That standardization could come from using endpoints such as “remaining proliferative capacity (the number of doublings achievable in culture from the treatment cell bank), the secretome, even if there is standardization of one or two molecules, such as HGF, or one of the prostaglandins.

In the future I believe the field will take it a step further by measuring, even by a surrogate marker, the potential effects of the cells on the target condition. In the case of autoimmunity the cells and their secretions could be tested for their capacity to modulate the immune system. In the case of inflammatory conditions, the cells and their secretions could be tested for the ability to control or block inflammation.

As for Asia, Japan is making great strides. iPS cells are already being used in clinical trials there. Watch for them to continue to advance rapidly.


You are doing some good research. I can't offer a comparison to umbilical cells because I haven't used that approach.

But I can report that I've had the Celltex treatment for MS, an autoimmune neurodegenerative condition, with very good results. I'm still in a wheelchair, but my quality of life is much better because I can exercise now, and don't feel like a move to the nursing home is imminent. I also got my heat tolerance back, and even had a tan this summer. I've had MS for 20 years and was pretty far gone, but I have other MS friends who were earlier in the disease, and have had their health restored almost completely.

My husband was also treated by Celltex for autoimmune rheumatoid arthritis by IV, and he also had a hip injection, his hip was so painful he could barely lift his leg. It's been 2.5 years, and he quickly was back to doing martial arts kicks, and he's 60. Nothing hurts anymore, and his swollen and bent finger joints are even straitening out.

Celltex is also a cell bank, so you only do the mini-lipo suction once, if you ever need another dose, they can grow it in the lab from the original extracted cells, so it is not over expanded.

All of the clinics you mentioned do excellent treatments. The great thing is you have choices! I would call each and ask them the questions you've outlined, about cell viability etc. There's no way that a patient like me can answer that, I'm not up on all their lab procedures. Then you can select the option that most closely meets your needs.


New member
SammyJo, thank you for your reply. The experience of people actually receiving treatments is valuable.

I wish there were a website where patients could anonymously report treatments they have received for their varying ailments and from where, and then make that data available to the public for other people to benefit. Kind of a mix of Amazon with Wikipedia. That would help make healthcare decisions more transparent for the public and empower them to make more informed decisions with their own health.

Anyway, your opinion is appreciated.


Pioneer Founding member
There is such a site oldschool - this forum. You can remain completely anonymous on here, however, those that post here are subject to being questioned by others who are interested in what's posted. In other words, those that post here are likely to get a reply back unlike a site where it's just a one time hit and run type post.

Unfortunately, there are many members here who are afraid they will post in the wrong section, have grammatical errors, etc. so they don't post at all. We also have some that post before they are going off to treatment and then they apparently are so healthy post treatment that they have no time to report back or the treatment produced little or nothing and they are too disappointed or disillusioned to report what happened. I really have no other explanation for why no follow up is ever given.

The problem with a site that would just let people post "experiences" without any kind of moderation or feedback from others, is that it would be abused. Competition is fierce in this industry and there would be those who would pose as patients who would post negative remarks to quell the competition and those that would also post glowing, positive remarks in order to drum up business. The real answer lies in a registry that doctors would use to report patient outcomes. Unfortunately, that has yet to materialize.


New member
stem cell tumors

There's a story in Neurology Today about a stem cell patient who was paralyzed from tumors from russian stem cells in clinics in mexico and argentina and he lost 300,000. Are fetal stem cells safe and are they effective for stroke aphasia and weakness and hearing loss and vision loss and loss of multitasking, spatial neglect and loss of focus?