{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016457680250783698, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007053291536050157, 'mean_word_length': 5.651041666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mesenchymal Stem Cells: The Moniker Fits the Science

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have gained widespread use in regenerative medicine due to their demonstrated efficacy in a broad range of experimental animal models of disease and their excellent safety profile in human clinical trials. Outcomes from these studies suggest that MSCs achieve therapeutic effects in vivo in nonhomologous applications predominantly by paracrine action. This paracrine‐centric viewpoint has become widely entrenched in the field, and has spurred a campaign to rename MSCs as “medicinal signaling cells” to better reflect this mode of action. In this Commentary, we argue that the paracrine‐centric viewpoint and proposed name change ignores a wealth of old and new data that unequivocally demonstrate the stem cell nature of MSCs, and also overlooks a large effort to exploit homologous applications of MSCs in human clinical trials. Furthermore, we offer evidence that a stem cell‐centric viewpoint of MSCs provides a comprehensive understanding of MSC biology that encompasses their paracrine activity, and provides a better foundation to develop metrics that quantify the biological potency of MSC batches for both homologous and nonhomologous clinical applications. Stem Cells 2018;36:7–10