Adipocyte differentiation of multipotent cells established from human adipose tissue
Authors: Ez-Zoubir Amri
Christian Elabd
Christian Dani
Julien Astier
Frédéric Delteil
Joëlle Guesnet
Perla Saint-Marc
Anne-Marie Rodriguez
Cécile Vernochet
Anne Guezennec
Gérard Ailhaud
Journal: Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications (2004)
Discipline: BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
Keywords: hMADS cells; differentiation; adipocytes; gene expression; adiponectin
Affiliations: Institut de Recherche Signalisation, Biologie du Développement et Cancer, UMR 6543 CNRS, Centre de Biochimie, Faculté des Sciences, Parc Valrose, 06108 Nice cedex 2, France.

Abstract:  In this study multipotent adipose-derived stem cells isolated from human adipose tissue (hMADS cells) were shown to differentiate into adipose cells in serum-free, chemically defined medium. During the differentiation process, hMADS cells exhibited a gene expression pattern similar to that described for rodent clonal preadipocytes and human primary preadipocytes. Differentiated cells displayed the key features of human adipocytes, i.e., expression of specific molecular markers, lipolytic response to agonists of beta-adrenoreceptors (beta2-AR agonist &gt; beta1-AR agonist &gt;&gt; beta3-AR agonist) and to the atrial natriuretic peptide, insulin-stimulated glucose transport, and secretion of leptin and adiponectin. hMADS cells were able to respond to drugs as inhibition of adipocyte differentiation was observed in the presence of prostaglandin F2alpha, tumour necrosis factor-alpha, and nordihydroguaiaretic acid, a natural polyhydroxyphenolic antioxidant. Thus, for the first time, human adipose cells with normal karyotype and indefinite life span have been established. They represent a novel and valuable tool for studies of fat tissue development and metabolism. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 February 2020 retraction notice:  After publication of this article [1], concerns were raised about similarities between the following panels in Figs 2, 3, and 7: Fig 2A, M-CSF, 10 ng ml RANKL, 20 u03bcM Ros (upper left quadrant) and M-CSF, 10 ng ml RANKL, 20 u03bcM Pio (lower right quadrant) Fig 2A, M-CSF, 10 ng ml RANKL, 100 u03bcM Ros and M-CSF, 10 ng ml RANKL, 100 u03bcM Pio Fig 2C, the left portion of the DMSO M-CSF panel for the Ros experiment (upper row) and the right portion of theu2013M-CSF Control 2 panel for the Pio experiment (lower row) Fig 3A, M-CSF, RANKL, 5 u03bcM Ros (right) and M-CSF, RANKL, 5 u03bcM Pio (left) Fig 7, middle and right panels are similar in panels A and C for 0h time point. The 20 u03bcM Ros panel is similar to 20 u03bcM Pio panel, 40 u03bcM Ros panel is similar to 40 u03bcM Pio panel. The authors confirmed these issues and clarified that the original image data for experiments shown in Figs 2, 3, and 7 are no longer available. They provided the results of replication experiments conducted post-publication and several clarifications regarding the study design and methods of data analysis. The replication results were evaluated by a member of PLOS ONEu2019s Editorial Board who advised that when analyzed as per community standards the replication data do not support the results and conclusions reported in the article. The Academic Editor also raised concerns about the degree of concordance between quantitative results reported in the article for Rosiglitazone and Pioglitazone, for example in Fig 3. The primary data underlying results in this article were not included with the published article although the Data Availability Statement for this article stated, u201cAll relevant data are within the paper.u201d The authors commented that the images in Fig 1A, Fig 4A and Fig 4C in the original paper are primary data, and they noted that the raw data underlying Figs 1B, 4B, 4D, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are no longer available. As such the article does not comply with PLOSu2019 Data Availability policy. In light of the above concerns, the PLOS ONE Editors retract this article. The first author notified the journal that DZ and YW agreed with retraction. In addition, ZS and XF agreed with retraction. The other authors did not reply or could not be reached. , 
 Here are the concerns as reported to the journal in October 2015: Fig 2A concerns: ![file] Figure 2C concerns: ![file] Figure 3A concerns: ![file] Figure 7 concerns: ![file] ,