A group of scientists from the New York Stem Cell Foundation Research Institute (NYSCF) has succeeded in generating patient-specific bone substitutes from skin cells for the repair of large bone defects. The researchers took skin cells and, utilizing an advanced technique called “reprogramming, ” turned the adult skin cells back into an embryonic-like state. (These induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) carry the same genetic information as the patient and can become any of the body’s cell types.)
Researchers Create Bone From iPS Skin Cells

The team then guided these cells to become bone-forming progenitors and seeded them onto a scaffold for three-dimensional bone formation. They placed the seeded scaffold into a device called a bioreactor, which provides nutrients, removes waste, and stimulates maturation, mimicking a natural developmental environment. Darja Marolt, Ph.D., and Giuseppe Maria de Peppo, Ph.D., both research fellows of NYSCF, led the study which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.
“Bone is more than a hard mineral composite; it is an active organ that constantly remodels. Blood vessels shuttle important nutrients to healthy cells and remove waste; nerves provide connection to the brain; and bone marrow cells form new blood and immune cells, ” said Marolt. The scientists believe that their study represents a major advance in potentially creating personalized reconstructive treatments for patients with bone defects resulting from disease or trauma.
Previous studies demonstrated the bone-forming potential from other cell sources, yet serious caveats for clinical translation remained. A patient’s own bone marrow stem cells can form bone and cartilaginous tissue but not the underlying vasculature and nerve compartments. And embryonic stem cell derived bone may prompt an immune rejection. Therefore the NYSCF scientists chose to work with iPS cells to overcome these limitations.

Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.