# The Influence of Cisplatin on Functionality and Surface Characteristics of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells In Vitro

## TL;DR

This study examines how cisplatin chemotherapy affects mesenchymal stromal cells in vitro, finding that while some gene expression changes occur, overall cell function remains largely unaffected.

## Contribution

The study provides new insights into how cisplatin chemotherapy affects MSC functionality and differentiation potential at subcytotoxic concentrations.

## Key findings

- Cisplatin exposure reduced leptin mRNA but increased SOX9 mRNA in MSCs.
- MSCs showed no significant histological changes in differentiation potential after cisplatin treatment.
- Cell migration and surface markers remained stable despite cisplatin exposure.

## Abstract

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are multipotent and play an important role in regenerative processes such as wound healing. Data on possible changes and functional restrictions of MSCs due to cisplatin chemotherapy, for example, in the treatment of head and neck cancer, diverge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of cisplatin on MSCs with regard to their defining characteristics and their ability to differentiate and to migrate. MSCs from four human donors (a 59-year-old man, a 63-year-old woman, a 70-year-old man, and a 61-year-old man) were cultured in vitro with and without cisplatin for 24 h, and toxic and subcytotoxic concentrations were determined using an MTT. We then examined the surface phenotype markers (flow cytometry), migration (scratch assay), histological differentiation markers (adipo-, chondro-, osteogenic), and the expression of selected line-associated genes in real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) (LEP, SOX9, RUNX2). These characteristics were evaluated after treatment with different subcytotoxic, clinically relevant doses of cisplatin. Flow cytometry confirmed the presence of MSCs-characteristic surface markers, which remained stable under treatment with subcytotoxic doses of cisplatin. Cisplatin exposure reduced the mRNA abundance of leptin (a marker for adipogenic differentiation) but increased SOX9 mRNA abundance (chondrogenic differentiation). RUNX (osteogenic differentiation) did not change post cisplatin exposure. Histological analysis showed no difference with regard to osteogenic, chondrogenic, and adipogenic differentiation at doses up to 10 μM cisplatin. Cell migration was not restricted by cisplatin exposure under the conditions used here. The characteristics of MSCs were not different to controls post cisplatin exposure. mRNA analysis suggested induced changes by cisplatin, although this effect was not histologically detectable even at high doses. Based on the single-molecule markers used here, indications for an inhibitory effect of cisplatin on adipogenic differentiation and a rather enhancing effect on chondrogenic and osteogenic differentiation may be hypothesized. The process observed here could further aggravate the already serious problem of malnutrition in head and neck cancer patients, for example. Taken together though, our study confirms overall MSCs tolerance towards cisplatin.