
==== Front
J Cell Mol Med
J Cell Mol Med
10.1111/(ISSN)1582-4934
JCMM
Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine
1582-1838
1582-4934
John Wiley and Sons Inc. Hoboken

10.1111/jcmm.70049
JCMM70049
JCMM-12-2023-106.R3
Original Article
Original Article
Bone marrow stromal and anterior cruciate ligament remnant cell co‐culture‐derived extracellular vesicles promote cell activity in both cell types
Lin et al.
Lin Sung‐Yen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4191-2183
tony8501031@gmail.com

1 2 3 4 5
Wu Shun Cheng 4 5 6
Liu Zi‐Miao 2
Chou Paul Pei‐Hsi 2 7
Zhao Chunfeng 8
Ho Mei‐Ling 4 5
Lu Cheng‐Chang 2 4 5 7 9 cclu0880330@gmail.com

1 Department of Orthopedics Kaohsiung Medical University Gangshan Hospital Kaohsiung Taiwan
2 Department of Orthopedics Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital Kaohsiung Taiwan
3 Department of Orthopedics, School of Post‐Baccalaureate Medicine, College of Medicine Kaohsiung Medical University Kaohsiung Taiwan
4 Regenerative Medicine and Cell Therapy Research Center Kaohsiung Medical University Kaohsiung Taiwan
5 Orthopaedic Research Center Kaohsiung Medical University Kaohsiung Taiwan
6 Department of Nursing Asia University Taichung Taiwan
7 Department of Orthopedics, School of Medicine, College of Medicine Kaohsiung Medical University Kaohsiung Taiwan
8 Biomechanics & Tendon and Soft Tissue Biology Laboratories, Division of Orthopedic Research Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA
9 Department of Orthopedics, Kaohsiung Municipal Siaogang Hospital Kaohsiung Medical University Kaohsiung Taiwan
* Correspondence
Cheng‐Chang Lu, Department of Orthopedics, Kaohsiung Municipal Siaogang Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Email: cclu0880330@gmail.com

01 9 2024
9 2024
28 17 10.1111/jcmm.v28.17 e7004902 8 2024
13 12 2023
16 8 2024
© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine published by Foundation for Cellular and Molecular Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The significance of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) remnants during reconstruction remains unclear. Co‐culturing ACL remnant cells and bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs) may reduce apoptosis and enhance hamstring tendon activity. This study investigated whether extracellular vesicles (EVs), which facilitate cell–cell interactions, act as the active components, improving graft maturation in this co‐culture. The effects of EVs on cell viability, proliferation, migration and gene expression in the rabbit ACL remnant cells and BMSCs were assessed using control (BMSC‐only culture), co‐culture (ACL remnant cells and BMSCs, CM) and co‐culture without EVs (CM ∆ EVs) media. EVs were isolated from control (BMSC‐EV) and co‐culture (CM‐EV) media and characterized. CM significantly enhanced the proliferation, migration and expression of transforming growth factor (TGF‐β)‐, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)‐, collagen synthesis‐ and tenogenesis‐related genes. However, CM‐induced effects were reversed by the CM ∆ EVs treatment. CM‐EV treatment exhibited higher potential to enhance proliferation, migration and gene expression in the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs than BMSC‐EV and non‐EV treatments. In conclusion, EVs, secreted under the coexistence of ACL remnant cells and BMSCs, primarily increase the cell viability, proliferation, migration and gene expression of collagen synthesis‐, TGF‐β‐, VEGF‐ and tenogenesis‐related genes in both cell types.

anterior cruciate ligament
bone marrow stromal cells
extracellular vesicle
tenogenesis
source-schema-version-number2.0
cover-dateSeptember 2024
details-of-publishers-convertorConverter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.4.8 mode:remove_FC converted:01.09.2024
Lin S‐Y , Wu SC , Liu Z‐M , et al. Bone marrow stromal and anterior cruciate ligament remnant cell co‐culture‐derived extracellular vesicles promote cell activity in both cell types. J Cell Mol Med. 2024;28 :e70049. doi:10.1111/jcmm.70049
==== Body
pmc1 INTRODUCTION

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) that connects the thighbone (femur) to the shinbone (tibia) plays a crucial role in knee stability during daily activity and exercise. ACL injury frequently occurs during non‐contact sports activities, such as basketball, volleyball and football, 1 , 2 , 3 and can lead to persistent pain and instability. Physical therapy and sport braces are the primary conservative treatment methods to restore mobility and knee function. However, ACL reconstruction may be required depending on the severity of the injury or the presence of other comorbidities, such as an intraarticular ligament or meniscus injury. The standard procedure for ACL reconstruction involves passing a tendon graft through a drilled tibia and femoral bone tunnel. The graft healing process comprises successive stages, including graft necrosis, vascularization, recellularization, remodelling and maturation. 4 , 5 Nevertheless, despite advancements in surgical techniques, enhancing graft maturation and preventing graft retear following ACL reconstruction remain significant challenges.

Remnant preservation in ACL reconstruction improves graft maturation. 6 , 7 However, whether ACL remnant preservation offers substantial benefits remains debatable within the medical community. For instance, Song et al. 8 highlighted the poor tissue structure and limited capability to enhance graft maturation with no biomechanical and biological advantages. Conversely, other studies suggest that ACL remnants preserve stem cells, native fibres and proprioceptive nerves, which may significantly affect implanted graft maturation. 9 , 10 , 11 In the intraarticular microenvironment, the ACL remnant is coated with bone marrow cells released from the bone tunnel, and the implanted graft is surrounded by the ACL remnant/bone marrow mixture. Although the intricate relationship between ACL remnants and bone marrow cells in the intraarticular microenvironment plays a crucial role in graft maturation, the exact mechanism remains unknown. Lu et al. 12 first demonstrated that the ACL remnants upregulate the proliferation and gene expression associated with collagen synthesis and the tenogenesis of bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs). Further, ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium could attenuate the apoptosis and increase the activity of the hamstring tendon and tenocyte. 13 However, the effect of ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium on feedback to the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs is unknown, and the active component of the co‐culture medium involved in graft maturation remains elusive. Extracellular vesicles (EVs), which are secreted by cells to facilitate cell–cell interactions, contain abundant intercellular communication agents, such as mRNAs, microRNAs, lipids and proteins, which regulate the target cell activities. 14 , 15 Notably, EVs derived from stem cell culture medium exhibit the regenerative potential to regenerate the injured tissue. 16 , 17 , 18

Therefore, we hypothesized that the ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium, simulating the intraarticular microenvironment of ACL reconstruction, positively affect and upregulate ACL remnant cell and BMSC activities. We also investigated whether EVs, as the key active components, modulate the effects of the intraarticular microenvironment on effective graft maturation following ACL reconstruction. To test this hypothesis, in this study, we explored the role of EVs derived from ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium in ACL reconstruction on ACL remnant cells and BMSCs bioactivities. The present study reveals the intricate interactions between ACL remnant cells, BMSCs and EVs and provides critical insights into the understanding of graft maturation in ACL reconstruction procedures.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Experimental design

In this study, we introduced the direct co‐culture system of ACL remnant cells and BMSCs to simulate the intraarticular microenvironment of ACL reconstruction. The ACL remnant cells and BMSCs were harvested from six skeletally mature New Zealand male rabbits, as described previously. 13 All animal experiments, tissue harvesting protocols and cell culturing were performed following the procedures described by Lu et al. 13 The third passage of ACL remnant cells (from the ACL‐cut 4‐week rabbit) and BMSCs was used in this study. All animal protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (Kaohsiung Medical University; approval number KMU‐107193).

Figure 1 illustrates the experimental design followed in this study. First, the cells were divided into three groups depending on their medium of growth—control medium (BMSC‐only culture), co‐culture medium (ACL remnant cell and BMSC direct co‐culture, CM) and co‐culture medium without EVs (CM ∆ EVs)—to investigate the effects of ACL remnant cell and BMSC co‐culture on proliferation, migration and expression of collagen I and III (COL‐I & III), transforming growth factor (TGF‐β), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and tenogenic genes (Scx, TNC). Next, the EVs were isolated from the control (BMSC‐EV) and co‐culture medium (CM‐EV) and characterized based on size, morphology and expression of biological markers. Finally, the effects of EVs on cell activity and gene expression were assessed in ACL remnant cells and BMSCs after BMSC‐EV and CM‐EV treatment compared with those of the non‐EV treatment group.

FIGURE 1 Experimental design of the study. ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; BMSC, bone marrow stromal cell; CM, co‐culture medium; EV, extracellular vesicle.

2.2 Preparation of ACL remnant cell/BMSC direct co‐culture and BMSC‐only culture media

The ACL remnant cells (1.5 × 105 cells) and BMSCs (1.5 × 105 cells) were directly co‐cultured (co‐culture medium; CM) in 10 mL medium (low‐glucose DMEM, 10% exosome‐depleted fetal bovine serum [FBS; Cat. No. A2720801, Gibco, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA], and 1% antibiotics [penicillin/streptomycin]) using a 10‐cm culture dish at 37°C and 5% CO2. For the control group, only BMSCs (3 × 105 cells) were cultured using the same medium and culture condition. The BMSC‐only culture (control) and co‐culture media were collected every 2 days for 6 days.

2.3 Comparison of cell proliferation, migration and expression of genes in BMSC‐only culture medium, CM and CM ∆ EVs

2.3.1 Cell proliferation and migration

The cell proliferation ratio of the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs in response to control medium (n = 6), CM (n = 6) and CM ∆ EVs (n = 6) were measured using a Click‐iT EdU Cell Proliferation Kit (Cat. No. 1906238, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) following the manufacturer's instructions. 12 , 13

To investigate the change in cell migration rate following different media treatments to the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs (n = 6, each), transwell and scratch migration tests were employed. The transwell assay was performed using a 6.5‐mm transwell chamber with a pore size of 8 μm (Cat. No. 3422, Costar, Corning Inc., Corning, NY, USA). 12 , 13 The migrated cells were fixed by 4% formaldehyde for 15 min, washed with PBS twice and added the methanol 10 min. Then, the migrated cells were stained with 0.1% crystal violet for 30 min. The migrated cells stained in purple were counted under a microscope. The relative migration rate was calculated as the ratio of the migration cells in each treatment group compared to that of the control group (% of the control). The scratch migration test was assessed by observing the closure of the scratch gap at regular intervals (12, 24, 36 and 48 h) under a microscope (Leica DMI6000B; Leica Microsystems, Germany). 12 , 13

2.3.2 Expression of COL‐I & III, TGF‐β, VEGF and tenogenic markers (Scx, TNC)

Total RNA from the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs treated with control medium (n = 6), CM (n = 6) and CM ∆ EVs (n = 6) was extracted using RNAzol reagent (Cat. No. RN‐190, Molecular Research Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA). Approximately 2 μg total RNA was reverse‐transcribed using the Maxima First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Cat. No. K1642, Thermo Fisher Scientific Waltham, MA, USA) following the manufacturer's instructions. 13 The primers, cycling conditions and quantification methods were as described previously. 13 The primers used for cDNA synthesis are presented in Table S1.

2.3.3 Immunofluorescence staining of COL‐I & III, TGF‐β and VEGF

The ACL remnant cells and BMSCs treated with control medium (n = 6), CM (n = 6) and CM ∆ EVs (n = 6) were assessed for the immunofluorescence expression of COL‐I & III, TGF‐β and VEGF. The primary antibodies, fluorescent secondary antibodies, and the staining procedure were performed as described previously. 13 , 19 The primary antibody used in this study are as follows: anti‐COL‐I (1:200, Cat. No. ARG21965, Arigo Biotechnology, Hsinchu City, Taiwan), anti‐COL‐III (1:200, Cat. No. ARG20786, Arigo Biotechnology), anti‐TGF‐β: (1:200, Cat. No. ARG10002, Arigo Biotechnology) and anti‐VEGF (1:200, Cat. No. ARG10513, Arigo Biotechnology). The secondary fluorescence antibodies used in this study were CoraLite594 conjugated donkey anti‐mouse IgG (H + L) (1:250, Cat. No. SA00013‐7, Proteintech, Chicago, IL, USA) and the goat anti‐rabbit IgG (H + L)‐TAMRA (1:250, Cat. No. LDG0047YE, Leadgene Biomedical, Inc. Hsinchu, Taiwan).

2.4 Isolation and characterization of EVs from the BMSC‐only culture and co‐culture media

On Day 7 of culture, EVs were isolated from the BMSC‐only culture and CM using a serial centrifugation method. 20 , 21 Briefly, the culture medium (500 mL) was centrifuged at 20,000 × g for 30 min at 4°C to remove large cell fragments. Subsequently, the supernatant was collected and centrifuged at 120,000 × g for 90 min at 4°C to pellet the membrane‐bound vesicles. The medium (supernatant) was removed, and the discarded medium without the membrane‐bound vesicles represented the CM ∆ EVs. The pellet was washed with 10 mL of phosphate‐buffered saline (PBS) and subjected to centrifugation at 120,000 × g for 90 min at 4°C. Then, the supernatant was discarded, and the pellet (EVs) was collected and re‐suspended in 1 mL of PBS and filtered with a 0.22‐μm filter membrane.

2.5 Characterization of EVs

The BMSC‐EV and CM‐EV were evaluated for size distribution, expression of biological markers, morphology and uptake by the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs.

2.5.1 Size distribution

Particle size analysis was performed using a particle analyser (ZetaView® NTA–Nanoparticle Tracking Video Microscope PMX‐130, Particle Metrix, Ammersee, Germany) following the manufacturer's protocol.

2.5.2 Expression of EV markers (CD9, CD63, CD81, Alix, TSG101 and α‐Tubulin)

Western blotting was performed following the standard protocol. The primary antibodies used in this study, including CD9 (Cat. No. 60232‐1‐1AP), CD63 (Cat. No. 25682‐1‐AP), CD81 (Cat. No. 66866‐1‐AP), Alix (Cat. No. 12422‐1‐AP), TSG101 (Cat. No. 14497‐1‐AP) and the negative control, α‐Tubulin (Cat. No. 66031‐1‐Ig), were all obtained from Proteintech. The labelled proteins were visualized using a ChemiDoc™ XRS imaging system (Bio‐Rad, Hercules, Cal, USA).

2.5.3 Transmission electron microscopy analysis

EV morphology was observed using a transmission electron microscope (Hitachi®, Tokyo, Japan), and the images were captured using a digital camera (Olympus®, Tokyo, Japan).

2.5.4 CM‐EV uptake by the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs

The EV treatment concentration was maintained at 1010 particles/104 cells for all experiments. The added EVs were pre‐stained with CM‐DiI (1,1′‐Dioctadecyl‐3,3,3′,3′‐Tetramethylindocarbocyanine Perchlorate; Cat. No. C7000, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) following the manufacturer's instructions. Briefly, the EVs suspended in 1 mL of PBS were treated with 3 μL of DiI (1 mg/mL) and incubated at 37°C for 5 min, followed by at 4°C for 15 min. Thereafter, EVs were rinsed with PBS, centrifuged at 120,000 × g for 90 min at 4°C, re‐suspended in 1 mL serum‐free medium and filtered using a 0.22‐μm filter membrane for further use.

EVs were added to the cells (1010 EV particles/104 cells) for 6 h, and the treated cells were washed with PBS and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde for 10 min. After subsequent washing with PBS twice, 100 μL of 1X phalloidin conjugate working solution (Cat No. ab176753, Abcam, Cambridge, MA, USA) was added to the cells to stain the cytoskeleton. The cell slides were mounted and stained with Hoechst 33342 (Sigma‐Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) and observed using a confocal microscope (Olympus IX‐81‐FV100, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan).

2.6 Assessment of the changes in cell viability, migration and gene expression in ACL remnant cells and BMSCs following control (non‐EV), BMSC‐EV and CM‐EV treatments

We investigated the effects of EVs derived from different culture media (BMSC‐EV and CM‐EV) on the viability (MTT assay, Cat. No. M2003, Sigma‐Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), proliferation (Edu assay, Ki67 gene expression), migration (transwell and scratch migration assays), gene expression (COL‐I & III, TGF‐β, VEGF, Scx, TNC) and immunofluorescence (collagen I and III, TGF‐β, VEGF) of ACL remnant cells and BMSCs. The EV treatment concentration was maintained at 1010 particles/104 cells for all experiments. The exosome‐depleted FBS medium‐treated cells were set as a control.

2.7 Statistical analysis

All data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) with three measurements. In this study, the numerical value for the control group was set as 1, and the numerical values of the other experimental groups are presented in reference to the control group. One‐way analysis of variance with a subsequent Tukey post hoc test was used to determine the significant differences in multiple comparisons. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 20 (IBM, USA). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3 RESULTS

3.1 Co‐culture medium treatment significantly enhanced the proliferation, migration and gene expression both in ACL remnant cells and BMSCs

The cell proliferation (Edu expression), Ki67 gene expression and migration capability in both ACL remnant cells (Figure 2) and BMSCs (Figure 3) were significantly increased following CM treatment compared with those after BMSC‐only culture medium treatment. The expression of COL‐I & III‐, TGF‐β‐, VEGF‐ and tenogenesis‐related (Scx, TNC) genes was significantly improved after CM treatment. However, the CM‐induced increases in cell proliferation, migration and gene expression were significantly reversed by the CM ∆ EVs treatment (Figures 2 and 3).

FIGURE 2 Cell proliferation, migration and expression of collagen I and III‐, TGF‐β‐, VEGF‐ and tenogenic‐related genes in ACL remnant cells following treatment with BMSC‐only culture medium (control), ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium (CM) and co‐culture medium without extracellular vesicles (CM ∆ EVs). Migration is evaluated via transwell and scratch migration assays. In the transwell assay, cells that traverse the transwell membrane are stained in purple with crystal violet, and their migration ratio is determined. In the scratch assay, results are presented as the percentage of initial scratch closure. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

FIGURE 3 Cell proliferation, migration and expression of collagen I and III‐, TGF‐β‐, VEGF‐ and tenogenic‐related genes in BMSCs following treatment with BMSC‐only culture medium (control), ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium (CM) and co‐culture medium without extracellular vesicles (CM ∆ EVs). Migration is evaluated via transwell and scratch migration assays. In the transwell assay, cells that traverse the transwell membrane are stained in purple with crystal violet, and their migration ratio is determined. In the scratch assay, results are presented as the percentage of initial scratch closure. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

3.2 EVs could be isolated from BMSC‐only and co‐culture media, and ACL remnant cells and BMSCs could uptake the EVs

EVs from BMSC‐only culture medium and CM were isolated. EVs isolated from BMSC‐only culture medium and CM exhibited an average particle size of 131.1 ± 111.6 and 128.3 ± 145.8 nm, respectively (Figure 4A, upper panel). After purification, the BMSC‐EV and CM‐EV expressed CD9, CD63, CD81, Alix and TSG101, in contrast to the BMSC and Co‐culture media supernatant, which did not show α‐tubulin expression(Figure 4A, lower panel [left]). Moreover, BMSC‐EV and CM‐EV were spherical in shape with central hypodense (light colour) and peripheral hyperdense (dark colour) regions (Figure 4A, lower panel [right]), as determined using microscopic images. Collectively, these results indicated that EVs from both BMSC‐only culture medium and CM were successfully isolated and that isolated EVs met the MISEV 2014 and 2018 criteria. 22 , 23 , 24 Furthermore, the treatment of ACL remnant cells and BMSCs with CM‐EV revealed the potential of these cells to uptake and internalize the EVs (Figure 4B).

FIGURE 4 (A) Particle size distribution, expression levels of biomarkers and transmission electron microscopic images of EVs derived from BMSC‐only culture (BMSC‐EV) and ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium (CM‐EV). (B) Immunofluorescence pictures show the CM‐EV uptake and internalization by the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs.

3.3 Treatment with EVs improved the viability, proliferation, migration and gene expression in ACL remnant cells and BMSCs

As shown in Figures 5 and 6, ACL remnant cells and BMSCs treated with BMSC‐EV and CM‐EV showed higher cell viability, proliferation, migration and expression of COL‐I & III, TGF‐β, VEGF, Scx and TNC genes than those treated with non‐EVs (control). These effects were more pronounced in ACL remnant cells treated with CM‐EV than those in the cells treated with BMSC‐EV, with significant differences in proliferation, migration and gene expression of COL‐I, TGF‐β and VEGF (Figure 5). Similarly, all these effects were more pronounced in BMSCs treated with CM‐EV than those treated with BMSC‐EV, with significant differences in cell viability, migration and gene expression of COL‐I & III, TGF‐β and TNC (Figure 6).

FIGURE 5 Cell viability, proliferation, migration and expression of collagen I and III‐, TGF‐β‐, VEGF‐ and tenogenic‐related genes in ACL remnant cells following treatment with EVs derived from BMSC‐only culture medium (BMSC‐EV), ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium (CM‐EV) and non‐EV medium (control) group. Migration is evaluated via transwell and scratch migration assays. In the transwell assay, cells that traverse the transwell membrane are stained in purple with crystal violet, and their migration ratio is determined. In the scratch assay, results are presented as the percentage of initial scratch closure. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

FIGURE 6 Cell viability, proliferation, migration and expression of collagen I and III‐, TGF‐β‐, VEGF‐ and tenogenic‐related genes in BMSCs following treatment with EV derived from BMSC‐only culture medium (BMSC‐EV), ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium (CM‐EV) and non‐EV medium (control) groups. Migration is evaluated via transwell and scratch migration assays. In the transwell assay, cells that traverse the transwell membrane are stained in purple with crystal violet, and their migration ratio is determined. In the scratch assay, results are presented as the percentage of initial scratch closure. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

4 DISCUSSION

In this study, we investigated the effect of ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium, along with its main activator, which simulates the ACL remnant tissue covered with BMSCs during ACL reconstruction. Notably, CM significantly enhanced the proliferation, migration, collagen synthesis and tenogenesis capabilities of both the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs. Furthermore, the contrasting effects of CM ∆ EVs treatment confirmed EVs as the major active ingredient in the CM underlying the beneficial effects of the co‐culture medium. The CM‐EV uptake by the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs significantly enhanced cell viability, proliferation, migration and expression of collagen synthesis‐, TGF‐β‐, VEGF‐ and tenogenesis‐related genes compared with BMSC‐EV and non‐EV uptakes.

In the intraarticular microenvironment, the ACL remnant tissue is coated with bone marrow from the drilled bone tunnel and the mixture surrounds the hamstring tendon graft during ACL reconstruction. Notably, the ACL remnants exhibit the paracrine potential of regulating the surrounding BMSCs toward increased collagen synthesis and tenogensis. 12 Furthermore, Lu et al. 13 demonstrated that the ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium simultaneously attenuated the apoptosis and enhanced the activity of the hamstring tendon and tenocyte. In the present study, we demonstrated that the co‐culture medium‐treated ACL remnant cells and BMSCs presented increased cell activity and gene expression capability. In summary, the ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium promotes the activity of hamstring tendon and tenocytes and also provides feedback to enhance ACL remnant cells and BMSCs activities. Therefore, the mixture of ACL remnant and bone marrow cells may improve remnant preservation and promote implanted tendon graft maturation during ACL reconstruction.

The co‐culture systems (indirect and direct) were introduced in the laboratory studies to observe the cell–cell interactions. A previous study, using the indirect co‐culture system, demonstrated the paracrine effects and BMSC upregulation (lower chamber) by ACL remnant cells (upper chamber). 12 However, the indirect co‐culture system reflects only unidirectional signal transmission but not the bidirectional response to the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs in the intraarticular microenvironment during ACL reconstruction. In a direct co‐culture system, cell–cell interactions occur through direct gap junctions and autocrine, paracrine or endocrine signalling. 25 , 26 Moreover, during cell–cell interaction, various secretomes present in the medium transfer different signals. 25 , 26 Among these secretomes, EVs play an important role in cellular communication and signal transfer. In this study, we directly co‐cultured the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs to mimic the clinical environment of ACL reconstruction. The ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium showed high capability to bidirectionally enhance the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs, which declined significantly after the removal of the EVs. These results indicated that CM‐EV facilitated the interactions between the ACL remnant cells and BMSCs in the direct co‐culture system. Therefore, EVs were identified as the main activators within the co‐culture medium.

EVs, containing variable mRNAs, microRNAs, lipids and proteins, derived from the stem cell culture medium exhibit a high potential to enhance injured tissue repair and cellular activity with a synergic effect. 14 , 15 , 27 , 28 Consequently, they can be used as a suitable alternative for treating cartilage injury, bone defect and tendon/ligament injury healing. 18 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 Qi et al. 29 investigated a novel purified exosome product and found that the tenocytes could uptake these exosomes with increasing cell proliferation, tenogenic marker expression and collagen deposition. Furthermore, Shi et al., 30 applying the purified exosome product patch in a tendon‐repair ex vivo model, demonstrated that it enhanced ultimate failed strength, reduced healing gap, increased COL‐III gene expression and decreased inflammatory response. In the rat patella tendon defect study, EV treatment enhanced tendon healing by reducing inflammation and tenocyte apoptosis, increasing tenogenic progenitor cell proportion, enhancing the expression of collagen and tenogenic marker genes, and improving histological collagen alignment. 31 In our study, we harvested EVs from the BMSC‐only culture medium and ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium. Treatment with these EVs increased the cell viability, proliferation, migration and gene expression of collagen synthesis, TGF‐β, VEGF and tenogenic markers in ACL remnant cells and BMSCs. Moreover, CM‐EV exhibited a higher potential to enhance the activities of ACL remnant cells and BMSCs compared with BMSC‐EV. Nevertheless, EV components are not static, and their production varies depending on stimulation conditions, culture environments and cell interactions. 25 , 32 In this study, we used the EV‐free medium in all culture conditions to eliminate the interference of the EV‐containing conventional medium. The EVs released following the crosstalk between ACL remnant cells and BMSCs exhibited higher potential for increasing cell activity within the microenvironment of ACL reconstruction compared with those released from the BMSC‐only medium. Therefore, CM‐EV may be used in ACL reconstruction to improve ACL remnant cells and BMSCs activities and consequently enhance graft maturation.

The present study has some limitations. First, we only investigated the effects of EVs on ACL remnant cells and BMSCs in vitro, and the enhancing capability of CM‐EV should be validated using animal studies. Second, the components within the ACL remnant cell/BMSC co‐culture medium were not evaluated. This study investigates EVs extracted from ACL cells/BMSCs co‐culture and BMSCs culture, focusing on their impact on cellular activities. 33 , 34 , 35 EVs are composed of various components such as proteins, microRNAs and lipids, each extensively studied in the literature. However, there is no definitive conclusion regarding whether the effects of EVs arise from individual components or from their synergistic interactions. 36 , 37 Identifying specific EV components and their mechanisms of action would necessitate a separate, more comprehensive research effort, which represents a limitation of the current study. Third, we performed direct monolayer co‐culture using ACL remnant cells and BMSCs. Consequently, further studies using a 3D co‐culture system are essential to clarifying the relationship between ACL remnant cells, bone marrow cells and tendon grafts.

In conclusion, under the coexistence of ACL remnant cells and BMSCs, the secreted EVs increase cell viability, proliferation, migration and gene expression of COL‐I & III, TGF‐β and TNC in both cell types, which may be beneficial for the maturation of the implanted graft in ACL reconstruction. These findings hold high translational potential, offering insights and applications that could directly benefit patients with ACL reconstruction. The EVs derived from the co‐culture medium could be a potential biomaterial to improve graft maturation following ACL reconstruction.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Sung‐Yen Lin: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); formal analysis (supporting); funding acquisition (supporting); investigation (equal); methodology (supporting); project administration (supporting); writing – original draft (equal). Shun Cheng Wu: Conceptualization (supporting); data curation (supporting); formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Zi‐Miao Liu: Conceptualization (supporting); data curation (supporting); formal analysis (supporting); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); software (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Paul Pei‐Hsi Chou: Investigation (supporting); supervision (equal); validation (equal). Chunfeng Zhao: Conceptualization (supporting); investigation (supporting); methodology (supporting); supervision (supporting). Mei‐Ling Ho: Investigation (supporting); methodology (supporting); resources (supporting); supervision (equal); validation (equal). Cheng‐Chang Lu: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); funding acquisition (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); project administration (equal); software (equal); supervision (equal); validation (equal); visualization (equal).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Cheng‐Chang Lu and all authors, or any member of his or her immediate family has no funding or commercial associations (e.g. consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. I agree and confirm that this statement is true.

Supporting information

Table S1.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by grants from Kaohsiung Municipal Siaogang Hospital (H‐109‐002 & 112‐02),  National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan (MOST 111‐2314‐B‐037‐057‐; NSTC 112‐2314‐B‐037‐100‐MY2; NSTC‐112‐2314‐B‐037‐095‐, and NSTC‐113‐2314‐B‐037 ‐084 ‐MY3), Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital ( KMUH‐111‐1R51 and KMUH‐112‐2R53) and Regenerative Medicine and Cell Therapy Research Center, Kaohsiung Medical University, Taiwan (KMU‐TC113A02). The authors thank the Center for Laboratory Animals in Kaohsiung Medical University for the animal care. We also appreciate the support from members of our orthopedic research center, especially Yi‐Shan Lin, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

1 Bradley JP , Klimkiewicz JJ , Rytel MJ , Powell JW . Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in the National Football League: epidemiology and current treatment trends among team physicians. Art Ther. 2002;18 (5 ):502‐509.
2 Gianotti SM , Marshall SW , Hume PA , Bunt L . Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury and other knee ligament injuries: a national population‐based study. Sci Med Sport. 2009;12 (6 ):622‐627.
3 Sanders TL , Maradit Kremers H , Bryan AJ , et al. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears and reconstruction: a 21‐year population‐based study. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44 (6 ):1502‐1507.26920430
4 Janssen RP , van der Wijk J , Fiedler A , Schmidt T , Sala HA , Scheffler SU . Remodelling of human hamstring autografts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19 (8 ):1299‐1306.21293848
5 Janssen RP , Scheffler SU . Intra‐articular remodelling of hamstring tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22 (9 ):2102‐2108.23982759
6 Hong L , Li X , Zhang H , et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with remnant preservation: a prospective, randomized controlled study. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40 (12 ):2747‐2755.23075805
7 Hu J , Qu J , Xu D , Zhang T , Zhou J , Lu H . Clinical outcomes of remnant preserving augmentation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22 (9 ):1976‐1985.24185826
8 Song GY , Zhang J , Li X , Li Y , Feng H . Biomechanical and biological findings between acute anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without an augmented remnant repair: a comparative in vivo animal study. Art Ther. 2016;32 (2 ):307‐319.
9 Matsumoto T , Ingham SM , Mifune Y , et al. Isolation and characterization of human anterior cruciate ligament‐derived vascular stem cells. Stem Cells Dev. 2012;21 (6 ):859‐872.21732814
10 Matsumoto T , Kubo S , Sasaki K , et al. Acceleration of tendon‐bone healing of anterior cruciate ligament graft using autologous ruptured tissue. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40 (6 ):1296‐1302.22427618
11 Mifune Y , Matsumoto T , Ota S , et al. Therapeutic potential of anterior cruciate ligament‐derived stem cells for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Cell Transplant. 2012;21 (8 ):1651‐1665.22732227
12 Lu CC , Chou SH , Shen PC , Chou PH , Ho ML , Tien YC . Extracorporeal shock wave promotes activation of anterior cruciate ligament remnant cells and their paracrine regulation of bone marrow stromal cells' proliferation, migration, collagen synthesis, and differentiation. Bone Joint Res. 2020;9 (8 ):458‐468.32832074
13 Lu CC , Ho CJ , Chen SJ , et al. Anterior cruciate ligament remnant preservation attenuates apoptosis and enhances the regeneration of hamstring tendon graft. Bone Joint Res. 2023;12 (1 ):9‐21.36617435
14 Camussi G , Deregibus MC , Cantaluppi V . Role of stem‐cell‐derived microvesicles in the paracrine action of stem cells. Biochem Soc Trans. 2013;41 (1 ):283‐287.23356298
15 Toh WS , Lai RC , Zhang B , Lim SK . MSC exosome works through a protein‐based mechanism of action. Biochem Soc Trans. 2018;46 (4 ):843‐853.29986939
16 Keshtkar S , Azarpira N , Ghahremani MH . Mesenchymal stem cell‐derived extracellular vesicles: novel frontiers in regenerative medicine. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2018;9 (1 ):63.29523213
17 Zhang L , Jiao G , Ren S , et al. Exosomes from bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells enhance fracture healing through the promotion of osteogenesis and angiogenesis in a rat model of nonunion. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2020;11 (1 ):38.31992369
18 Liu X , Yang Y , Li Y , et al. Integration of stem cell‐derived exosomes with in situ hydrogel glue as a promising tissue patch for articular cartilage regeneration. Nanoscale. 2017;9 (13 ):4430‐4438.28300264
19 Liu WC , Chen CT , Lu CC , et al. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy shows superiority over injections for pain relief and grip strength recovery in lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. Art Ther. 2022;38 (6 ):2018‐2034.e12.
20 Rosenthal AK , Gohr CM , Mitton‐Fitzgerald E , et al. Autophagy modulates articular cartilage vesicle formation in primary articular chondrocytes. J Biol Chem. 2015;290 (21 ):13028‐13038.25869133
21 Eirin A , Riester SM , Zhu XY , et al. MicroRNA and mRNA cargo of extracellular vesicles from porcine adipose tissue‐derived mesenchymal stem cells. Gene. 2014;551 (1 ):55‐64.25158130
22 Vis MAM , Ito K , Hofmann S . Impact of culture medium on cellular interactions in in vitro co‐culture systems. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8 :911.32850750
23 Kook YM , Jeong Y , Lee K , Koh WG . Design of biomimetic cellular scaffolds for co‐culture system and their application. J Tissue Eng. 2017;8 :2041731417724640.29081966
24 Lai RC , Tan SS , Teh BJ , et al. Proteolytic potential of the MSC exosome proteome: implications for an exosome‐mediated delivery of therapeutic proteasome. Int J Proteomics. 2012;2012 :971907.22852084
25 Toh WS , Lai RC , Hui JHP , Lim SK . MSC exosome as a cell‐free MSC therapy for cartilage regeneration: implications for osteoarthritis treatment. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2017;67 :56‐64.27871993
26 Phinney DG , Pittenger MF . Concise review: MSC‐derived exosomes for cell‐free therapy. Stem Cells. 2017;35 (4 ):851‐858.28294454
27 Zhang S , Chu WC , Lai RC , Lim SK , Hui JH , Toh WS . Exosomes derived from human embryonic mesenchymal stem cells promote osteochondral regeneration. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2016;24 (12 ):2135‐2140.
28 Furuta T , Miyaki S , Ishitobi H , et al. Mesenchymal stem cell‐derived exosomes promote fracture healing in a mouse model. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2016;5 (12 ):1620‐1630.27460850
29 Qi J , Liu Q , Reisdorf RL , et al. Characterization of a purified exosome product and its effects on canine flexor tenocyte biology. J Orthop Res. 2020;38 (8 ):1845‐1855.31930553
30 Shi G , Wang Y , Wang Z , et al. A novel engineered purified exosome product patch for tendon healing: an explant in an ex vivo model. J Orthop Res. 2021;39 (8 ):1825‐1837.32936480
31 Shi Z , Wang Q , Jiang D . Extracellular vesicles from bone marrow‐derived multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells regulate inflammation and enhance tendon healing. J Transl Med. 2019;17 (1 ):211.31238964
32 Ferreira JR , Teixeira GQ , Santos SG , Barbosa MA , Almeida‐Porada G , Gonçalves RM . Mesenchymal stromal cell secretome: influencing therapeutic potential by cellular pre‐conditioning. Front Immunol. 2018;9 :2837.30564236
33 Qiu G , Zheng G , Ge M , et al. Functional proteins of mesenchymal stem cell‐derived extracellular vesicles. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2019;10 (1 ):359.31779700
34 Foo JB , Looi QH , How CW , et al. Mesenchymal stem cell‐derived exosomes and MicroRNAs in cartilage regeneration: biogenesis, efficacy, miRNA enrichment and delivery. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2021;14 (11 ):1093.34832875
35 Record M , Silvente‐Poirot S , Poirot M , Wakelam MJO . Extracellular vesicles: lipids as key components of their biogenesis and functions. J Lipid Res. 2018;59 (8 ):1316‐1324.29764923
36 Liu YJ , Wang C . A review of the regulatory mechanisms of extracellular vesicles‐mediated intercellular communication. Cell Commun Signal. 2023;21 (1 ):77.37055761
37 Tsai YC , Cheng TS , Liao HJ , et al. Mesenchymal stem cell secreted‐extracellular vesicles are involved in chondrocyte production and reduce adipogenesis during stem cell differentiation. Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2022;19 (6 ):1295‐1310.36346531
