Overview of Cell Types Capable of Contributing to Skeletal Muscle Repair and Regeneration

  • Johanna PrullerEmail author
  • Peter S. ZammitEmail author
Living reference work entry
Part of the Reference Series in Biomedical Engineering book series (RSBE)


Skeletal muscle is the most abundant tissue in the human body, accounting for more than 30% of body weight, and is vital for the maintenance of posture, locomotion, and breathing. Skeletal muscle possesses a high intrinsic regenerative ability due to its resident stem cell, the satellite cell. However, muscle repair can fail in muscular dystrophies, during aging or after extensive trauma. A multitude of cell types are currently under investigation for their ability to support muscle regeneration in pathologies that induce tissue damage beyond the capacity of physiological regeneration. Even if the satellite cell is the most potent myogenic cell, factors including limited availability, difficulty of isolation, and in vitro expansion potential need to be addressed, and unorthodox cell types investigated, to develop the optimal cell type for a given therapeutic application. This chapter gives an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of cell types with myogenic capacity, focusing primarily on satellite cells, bone marrow-derived cells, muscle interstitial cells, and pluripotent stem cells.

1 Introduction

Skeletal muscle provides the body with the ability for controlled movement and can normally effectively repair and regenerate to counter various insults. However, failure to regenerate can occur in diseases including muscular dystrophies, trauma that severely damages a large area of a muscle (such as in road traffic accidents), or removal as a consequence of surgery, all of which are associated with disability. There is much investigation into how skeletal muscle can be repaired in response to this larger-scale damage, and the best cell source to use to repair skeletal muscle after such trauma. Here we review the properties of the resident skeletal muscle stem cell, the satellite cell (Katz 1961; Mauro 1961), and noncanonical cell types with myogenic potential. These unorthodox sources include CD133 cells (Negroni et al. 2009), bone marrow-derived stem cells (Gussoni et al. 2002), muscle interstitial cells (Cottle et al. 2017) such as pericytes (Birbrair et al. 2013a) and mesoangioblasts (Galvez et al. 2006), and myogenic differentiation of embryonic stem cells (Dinsmore et al. 1996) and induced pluripotent stem cells (Chal et al. 2016). Even if the satellite cell is the most potent myogenic cell (Relaix and Zammit 2012), factors such as low number, degree of difficulty of isolation, limited in vitro expansion, clinical safety, and sensitivity to genetic manipulation have to be considered against the properties of unorthodox myogenic sources when deciding the optimal cell type for a given therapeutic application (Meng et al. 2011). Here, we give an overview of the main cell types that can contribute to skeletal muscle regeneration in mouse and man, their isolation, and potential therapeutic application.

2 Skeletal Myogenesis

Skeletal muscle accounts for ~30% of the body mass of an adult woman and ~38% for men, with its primary functions being maintenance of posture, breathing, and locomotor activity (Janssen et al. 2000). It also has important roles in metabolism and thermoregulation. The basic contractile unit of skeletal muscle is the muscle fiber, containing myofibrils composed of sarcomeres arranged in series. Sarcomeres, in turn, contain the actin and myosin filaments that produce force by sliding past each other (Hanson and Huxley 1953). This highly ordered arrangement of sarcomeres gives skeletal muscle its characteristic striated appearance. Myosin heavy chain isoforms have varying ATPase activities that determine the speed of myofiber contraction, so forming “fast” or “slow” myofibers. Muscle fiber types also have different metabolic profiles to meet these varying requirements for ATP (Pette and Spamer 1986). Adult myofibers are adaptable, being capable of undergoing changes in fiber size (hypertrophy/atrophy) as well as fiber type (slow to fast and vice versa) (Greising et al. 2012).

Muscle fibers form by fusion of mononucleated muscle progenitor cells (myoblasts) during somitic and primary myogenesis in embryonic development. More myoblasts then fuse and donate their nuclei to grow myofibers during secondary myogeneisis in the foetal and perinatal periods, finally creating syncytia often containing several hundreds of myonuclei (Mintz and Baker 1967). However, some “progenitors” remain associated with myofibers to form a resident stem cell compartment and are termed satellite cells (Ciciliot and Schiaffino 2010). These stem cells become mitotically quiescent and reside in a niche on the surface of the myofiber, under the surrounding basal lamina.

Developmental and regenerative myogenesis is governed at the transcriptional level predominantly by members of the basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) myogenic regulatory factor (MRF) family of MyoD, Myf5, myogenin, and Mrf4 (Weintraub 1993), as well as members of the myocyte enhancer factor (MEF2) family (Bharathy et al. 2013). The importance of these factors is shown by the ability of MRFs to activate the skeletal myogenic program after being introduced into various cell types derived from the three germ layers (Takano et al. 1998). MRFs dimerize with ubiquitously expressed bHLH E-proteins, and these heterodimers act as transcription factors by binding to the conserved DNA sequence CANNTG (E-box) that is present in most muscle-associated enhancer and promoter sequences (Moncaut et al. 2013; Zammit 2017).

Skeletal muscle displays a robust regenerative ability, especially if the connective tissue remains relatively intact. A finely tuned cascade of molecular events, recapitulating many deployed during developmental myogenesis, is initiated upon injury that ultimately yields a regenerated, vascularized, innervated, and contractile muscle (Chargé and Rudnicki 2004), with force/power re-established by 3 weeks in mouse (Rosenblatt 1992). However, trauma resulting in significant loss of muscle tissue cannot be successfully regenerated, resulting in compromised skeletal muscle function and strength.

Muscle bulk is also lost during normal aging in a process called sarcopenia (Delbono 2011), as a secondary process in cancer patients (cachexia) (Acharyya et al. 2005), or vascular injuries (Glass 2010), and in degenerative muscle diseases such as muscular dystrophies (Vilquin et al. 2011).

3 Skeletal Muscle Regeneration

Mechanical injuries to skeletal muscle lead to muscle fiber destruction by disruption of the basal lamina and plasma membrane. This allows calcium inflow, leading to degeneration induced by autodigestion followed by apoptosis (Ceafalan et al. 2014). Muscle regeneration following these events can be divided into three overlapping stages: destruction and inflammatory phase, repair phase, and remodeling phase (Ciciliot and Schiaffino 2010).

The destruction and inflammatory phase occurs between day 1 and day 3 after injury. Torn blood vessels allow inflammatory cells, such as polymorphonuclear leukocytes including neutrophils, to invade the necrotic injury site. Additionally, connective scar tissue, mainly composed of fibrin and fibronectin derived from the blood of the initial hematoma, is formed immediately after the injury. Only a few hours after the onset of injury, the leukocytes are replaced by monocytes, which eventually differentiate into macrophages. Early invading M1 macrophages are present in high numbers at the injury site, peaking approximately 3–4 days after damage, with their numbers declining thereafter. M1 macrophages have two important roles, removal of necrotic tissue and secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines, most notably tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) and 1β (IL-1β) (Chazaud et al. 2009; Saini et al. 2016). A phenotype switch in invading macrophages then causes a population of M2 macrophages to appear at the site of injury at 2–4 days post damage. M2 anti-inflammatory macrophages secrete cytokines that are necessary to terminate inflammation, for example, interleukin 10 (IL-10). Additionally, M2 macrophages secrete factors that stimulate proliferation of satellite cells, as well as their myogenic differentiation (Chazaud et al. 2009; Saini et al. 2016), working together with growth factors released from the ruptured extracellular matrix and other cell types such as fibro-adipogenic precursors (Cantini et al. 2002; Järvinen et al. 2005).

The repair phase relies on satellite cells that activate and then undergo multiple rounds of proliferation to generate a pool of myoblasts, which subsequently fuse together, or into surviving myofibers, and hence repair myofiber damage (Zammit et al. 2002). In the remodeling phase, newly formed myofibers mature, and scar tissue is reorganized and contracts (Fukushima et al. 2001).

However, issues may arise during the regeneration process that causes aberrant remodeling of the muscle, such as a failure to resolve scar tissue. Myotubes within the same basal lamina may not fuse to each other, which could lead to clusters of small fibers. Myotubes may only fuse at one end, creating branched fibers (Ontell et al. 1982). This can lead to segmental necrosis, with a subsequent additional regenerative process at the damaged extremity of the myotube that might be impaired by scar tissue (Shen et al. 2005). Since the two myotubes that would have fused together are effectively separated, new myotendinous junctions might be formed (Baker and Poindextor 1991). Additionally, nascent myofibers can sometimes form outside the basal lamina, due to satellite cell migration or the contribution of non-muscle stem cells, and remain embedded in the interstitial tissue (Schmalbruch 1976).

4 The Satellite Cell: The Resident Stem Cell of Skeletal Muscle

Satellite cells were first reported in 1961, when Alexander Mauro observed an apparently quiescent cell lying on the surface of a myofiber but below the basal lamina, in frog and rat muscle (Mauro 1961). In the same year, similarly located cells were also described on intrafusal muscle fibers (Katz 1961). This specific location, on the edge of a myofibre, gave rise to the name satellite cell.

Satellite cells equate to approximately 2–5% of the number of myonuclei in mature muscle. There is a difference in amount of satellite cells per myofiber or cross-sectional area between muscle fiber types though; in mouse, fast twitch muscle fibers (mainly IIb and IIx) of the extensor digitorum longus (EDL) have fewer associated satellite cells than slower twitch muscle fibers (IIa and I) of the soleus (Zammit et al. 2002). There is often a concentration of satellite cells at the neuromuscular junction in slow fibers in mouse and, at least in chicken, more satellite cells at the ends of the myofiber (Allouh et al. 2008). Number and potency of satellite cells can additionally be affected by exercise and age (Shefer et al. 2006, 2010).

Satellite cells are the primary source of myonuclei during postnatal development and early muscle growth, before becoming mitotically quiescent (Schultz et al. 1978). Their role then changes during adult life, when they are only sporadically required for muscle fiber homeostasis, fiber hypertrophy and repair (Zammit 2008). While the number of satellite cells drops significantly from postnatal to adult life, the adult population remains constant, even after multiple cycles of regeneration (Ceafalan et al. 2014). Indeed, the satellite cell pool can respond to 50 weekly cycles of repeated muscle damage with efficient regeneration (Luz et al. 2002). Why regeneration fails in muscle wasting diseases such as muscular dystrophy is unclear but is probably related to a deteriorating microenvironment (Aguennouz et al. 2011; Blau et al. 1983).

As stem cells, satellite cells maintain the regenerative pool via self-renewal (Collins et al. 2005). After injury, satellite cells are stimulated to activate and proliferate to generate large numbers of new myofibers within a few days (Whalen et al. 1990). Activation is governed by a cocktail of signals such as growth factors including HGF, FGF, and IGF and chemical signals including NO, derived from infiltrating cells and damaged myofibers. In mice, satellite cells ex vivo give rise to many Pax7+MyoD+ cells that are committed to myogenic differentiation, Pax7 expression then declines, and myogenin expression is induced as the cells irreversibly withdraw from the cell cycle and begin to differentiate (Zammit et al. 2004). Soon after exit from the cell cycle, myoblasts start to express structural proteins such as sarcomeric myosin and fuse into myotubes (Shefer et al. 2006). A small number of satellite cell progeny become Pax7+MyoD and return to quiescence to maintain the satellite cell pool (Zammit et al. 2004). Alternatively, it is proposed that the satellite cell pool is heterogeneous, with a small subset of self-renewing satellite “stem” cells responsible for generating satellite cells with myogenic commitment (Kuang et al. 2007; Tierney and Sacco 2016).

Identification of satellite cells based solely on endogenous molecular markers is complex (Table 1). The best and most commonly used marker for quiescent and activated satellite cells is the paired homeobox transcription factor Pax7 (Seale et al. 2000; Hernández-Hernández et al. 2017; Yin et al. 2013; Marg et al. 2014), since other markers used to characterize satellite cells, such as CD34 (Beauchamp et al. 2000) and syndecan-3/syndecan-4 (Cornelison et al. 2001; Pisconti et al. 2012; Sinha-Hikim et al. 2004), are additionally expressed by other cell types in skeletal muscle (Tedesco et al. 2010) (Table 1). Characterization of satellite cells on tissue sections can be performed using co-immunolabeling of Pax7 and laminin, to confirm their location under the basal lamina (Ortuste Quiroga et al. 2016). Not all markers recognize all satellite cells though, for example, Myf5YFP is expressed in a small subset (Kuang et al. 2007), while Pax3eGFP is expressed in a subpopulation in only certain muscles (Calhabeu et al. 2013; Relaix et al. 2006) (Table 1). It remains unclear though, whether such heterogeneity is related to the presence of dedicated satellite “stem” cells or reflects other factors such as altered stem cell characteristics e.g., through some cells having been activated fewer times or having undergone fewer divisions (Zammit 2017). Recent studies on gene expression in quiescent satellite cells have identified more potential markers that may help to resolve this issue (Machado et al. 2017; van Velthoven et al. 2017).
Table 1

Overview of markers used to identify and/or isolate murine and human satellite cells


Proportion of satellite cells (SC)

Cellular Localization



Other notable/relevant expression (mice)

Bulk isolation methods



100% of quiescent and activated SCs


Central Nervous System

Cell sorting from GMO mice, e.g., mouse: Pax7GFP

Seale et al. 2000; Zammit et al. 2006; Boldrin and Morgan 2012; Reimann et al. 2004; Sambasivan et al. 2009


Quiescent SCs (only subset in certain muscles)



Melanocyte stem cells, brachial and femural arteries

Cell sorting from GMO mice, e.g., mouse: Pax3GFP

Relaix et al. 2006; Goupille et al. 2011


Most quiescent and proliferating SCs and myoblasts


Central Nervous System

Mouse: Myf5nLacZ

cell sorting from GMO mice, e.g., Myf5YFP

Tajbakhsh et al. 1996; Beauchamp et al. 2000; Bareja et al. 2014; Daubas et al. 2000

Syndecan-3 and -4

98% of quiescent and activated SCs

Plasma membrane

Brain, dermis, bone, smooth muscle, tumors

Cell sorting

Cornelison et al. 2001; Sinha-Hikim et al. 2004; Pisconti et al. 2012


Quiescent and activated SCs

Plasma membrane


Activated endothelial cells

Cell sorting as part of panel of markers

Rosen et al. 1992


Quiescent and activated SCs

Plasma membrane

Many tissues and tumors

Not used

Cornelison and Wold 1997; Marg et al. 2014


Quiescent and activated SCs




Not used

Garry et al. 2000


Quiescent and activated SCs

Plasma membrane

Hematopoietic, endothelial, mast, and dendritic cells

Cell sorting as part of panel of markers

Beauchamp et al. 2000; Boldrin and Morgan 2012; Pisani et al. 2010


Quiescent and activated SCs, myoblasts

Plasma membrane


Not used

Irintchev et al. 1994; Boldrin and Morgan 2012


Quiescent and activated SCs, myoblasts

Plasma membrane

Endothelial fibrous and adipose tissue

Not used

Gnocchi et al. 2009; Boldrin and Morgan 2012; Volonte et al. 2005

α7 integrin

Quiescent and activated SCs, myoblasts

Plasma membrane

Vessel-associated cells

Cell sorting as part of panel of markers

Blanco-Bose et al. 2001; Pawlikowski et al. 2009

β1 integrin

Quiescent and activated SCs

Plasma membrane

Many tissues

Cell sorting as part of panel of markers

Kuang et al. 2007; Xu et al. 2015



Quiescent and activated SCs

Plasma membrane

Glia, neurons, natural killer cells

Cell sorting and beads

Betsholtz 2004; Agley et al. 2015


Subset of quiescent SCs

Plasma membrane

HSCs, vascular endothelial cells, neuronal cells

Cell sorting as part of panel of markers

Sherwood et al. 2004; Bareja et al. 2014

Nestin transgene

Roughly 98% of quiescent SCs and myoblasts

Cytoplasmic GFP


Central and peripheral nervous system

Cell sorting from GMO mice

Day et al. 2007

SM/C2.6 antigen

Subset of quiescent SCs

Plasma membrane



Cell sorting

Fukada et al. 2004, 2013

Calcitonin receptor

Adult satellite cells

Plasma membrane


Many tissues

Not used

Yamaguchi et al. 2012


Quiescent SCs

Plasma membrane


Many tissues

Not used

Fukada et al. 2007

Isolation of satellite cells was first performed either from whole muscle extracts or single-cell suspensions (Kakulas et al. 1968; Pogogeff and Murray 1946; reviewed in Scharner and Zammit 2011). These explant cultures also contained non-myogenic cells including adipocytes, lymphocytes and fibroblasts. Pre-plating of dissociated cells on a non-collagen-coated dish allows enrichment of myogenic cells as fibroblasts preferentially adhere to this surface (Blau and Webster 1981). Another option is the fractionation of a cell suspension on Percoll density gradients (Richler and Yaffe 1970). A means to ensure purity of the population is to isolate satellite cells by explant culture from single myofibers, rather than muscle tissue. In this approach, a whole muscle, such as the EDL in mouse, is enzymatically digested to isolate individual myofibers with their associated satellite cells. Myofibers can then be plated, and large quantities of satellite cell-derived myoblasts soon surround the myofiber. This methodology can be successfully applied to both murine (Moyle and Zammit 2014) and human skeletal muscle (Marg et al. 2014).

Apart from explant cultures, techniques such as FACS and MACS can be used. Initially, FACS was performed to enrich for myogenic cells on the basis of cell shape (Baroffio et al. 1993) and also size/granularity (Montarras et al. 2005), with the surface marker neural cell adhesion molecule (NCAM) used in early studies (Walsh and Ritter 1981). Subsequently, FACS or MACS sorting of combinations of CD45Sca-1CXCR4+β1-integrin+CD34+c-met+ (Sherwood et al. 2004), CD34+CD45Sca-1 (Montarras et al. 2005), syndecan-3+ and syndecan-4+ (Tanaka et al. 2009) from murine biopsies, or CD56+/Desmin+ for human biopsies (Agley et al. 2015) isolate a cell population highly enriched for satellite cells. Samples for sorting-based isolation techniques are commonly derived from adult muscle that is first cleared of non-muscle tissue (blood vessel, connective tissue, nerve bundles, and adipogenic tissue), mechanically minced and enzymatically digested. A collagenase-dispase enzyme mixture is normally used because dispase preserves surface antigens more effectively than trypsin or pronase (Yablonka-Reuveni 2011). A detailed protocol can be found in Motohashi et al. 2014.

Where available, an alternative to endogenous surface antigens for FACS is using mice genetically modified to express fluorescent proteins under control of various genes/promoters including Pax3 (Montarras et al. 2005), Pax7 (Bosnakovski et al. 2008), Myf5 (Biressi et al. 2007), or Nestin (Day et al. 2007) (Table 1). Satellite cells from Pax3-GFP or Pax7-GFP mice are isolated according to their GFP+/CD34+/CD45/Sca1 profile; the presence of GFP is essential as it allows differentiation between endothelial (CD34+/GFP) and myogenic cells (Montarras et al. 2005).

Current advances in cell profiling have allowed new markers for muscle satellite/stem cells to be identified, such as CD9, CD104 (integrin subunit beta 4) (Porpiglia et al. 2017), Asb5, and CD82 (Giordani et al. 2019) that can aid in the isolation of pure populations, but they are not yet in routine use.

The main advantage of direct isolation methods without extended culture steps was that the isolated satellite cells better maintained their regenerative ability, that was otherwise lost during explant culture: freshly isolated satellite cells show a significantly higher potential for regeneration than after in vitro expansion (Collins et al. 2005; Gilbert et al. 2010; Montarras et al. 2005). The high potential of “fresh” satellite cells in muscle regeneration was demonstrated in an elegant experiment showing that transplantation of a single myofiber with approximately seven associated satellite cells successfully regenerated and repopulated areas of skeletal muscle in dystrophic mdx mice (Collins et al. 2005). Transplantation of human fibers with their associated satellite cells into irradiated mouse muscle also results in robust engraftment, muscle regeneration, and proper homing of human PAX7+ satellite cells to the stem cell niche (Marg et al. 2014). Short culture periods without subculture allows satellite cells to maintain their myogenic potency after transplantation (Ikemoto et al. 2007) but expanded cells perform poorly after transplantation compared to freshly isolated cells (Montarras et al. 2005). The loss of regenerative potential could be attributed to a reduction of “stem cell” characteristics and/or fraction during in vitro expansion, and gene expression changes drastically even during the isolation process (e.g., Machado et al. 2017). Such compromised potency is particularly problematic in therapeutic approaches, as it is necessary to expand the cells to obtain large amounts and myoblasts have not been effective in clinical trials for muscular dystrophies (reviewed in Negroni et al. (2011)). Similar to mice, only 5% of total myofiber nuclei in humans belong to satellite cells, and biopsies tend to be small, therefore minimizing the amount of useful satellite cells that can be obtained for therapeutic use (Lindström and Thornell 2009). The demonstration that viable and functional satellite cells can be obtained postmortem in man, however, opens up a potential new source (Latil et al. 2012).

Methods to increase the number/effectiveness of satellite cells for grafting without compromising their myogenic potential are thus important and include culture on soft hydrogels with a stiffness mimicking skeletal muscle (approximately 12 kPa) (Gilbert et al. 2010), artificial recreation of the native niche (Quarta et al. 2016), or manipulation of various signaling pathways such as prostaglandins (Ho et al. 2017) and p38 (Cosgrove et al. 2014).

Overcoming reduced potency due to in vitro expansion should facilitate widespread testing of satellite cells in clinical trials for degenerative diseases such as muscular dystrophies – an area that is currently lacking progress (Briggs and Morgan 2013). Even though transplantation of satellite cells has led to encouraging results in dystrophic mice, translation of these results into humans remains challenging (Negroni et al. 2016). Systemic delivery of autologous satellite cells or satellite cell-derived myoblasts is not currently possible, but it is an issue being addressed (e.g. Gerli et al. 2019). However, local intramuscular injection of in vitro expanded satellite cells might be effective in certain conditions. In patients suffering from oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy (OPMD), a major issue is difficulties swallowing due to wasting of the cricopharyngeal muscles. Intramuscular grafting of homologous expanded satellite cells into cricopharyngeal muscles during cricopharyngeal myotomy appears to increase quality of life and muscle function, although the relative contribution of surgery and grafting is currently unclear (Périé et al. 2014; Negroni et al. 2016).

5 CD133+ Cells

These are a subset of human cells characterized by expression of CD133, a transmembrane protein that is expressed at high levels in a variety of stem cells (Kobari et al. 2001; Zuba-Surma et al. 2009). Initially, contribution of CD133+ cells to myogenesis was reported in CD133+ circulating hematopoietic stem cells that were isolated from human blood samples (Torrente et al. 2004). Cultivated on a feeder layer of myogenic cells, CD133+ cells express early myogenic markers such as Myf5, Pax7, and M-cadherin and fuse with the feeder cells to form mosaic myotubes. Later, CD133+ cells were found in the interstitium of skeletal muscle, in addition to a location associated with satellite cells in neonatal healthy, as well as in postnatal, dystrophic muscle (Meng et al. 2014). CD133+ cells are a heterogeneous population of multipotent stem cells, giving rise to several mesenchymal lineages in culture, and can contribute to muscle regeneration after grafting, but not after intravenous delivery (Meng et al. 2014). Grafted human skeletal muscle-derived CD133+ cells disperse better in host muscle, with enhanced regenerative ability, compared to human myoblasts alone (Negroni et al. 2009). For isolation of tissue-derived CD133+ cells, muscle biopsies can be enzymatically digested and red blood cells/dead cells removed from the single-cell suspension, before incubation with CD133 microbeads and MACS sorting (Meng et al. 2014).

CD133+ cells do, however, have several drawbacks, including being rare, ~1% of mononucleated skeletal muscle cells (Benchaouir et al. 2007), being too fragile for FACS sorting (Meng et al. 2014), requiring a complex culture medium that is no longer commercially available (Negroni et al. 2009), as well as losing their myogenic potential after prolonged in vitro culture (Meng et al. 2014). Furthermore, MACS-based isolation of CD133+ cells from cord blood is affected by significant variability in purity of the isolated population (10–85%) (Pelagiadis et al. 2012). Muscle-derived CD133+ cells were used in a clinical trial, where autologous CD133+ cells were grafted intramuscularly into the abductor digiti minimi of eight Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) patients, resulting in an increase in capillaries per muscle fiber and a change in the ratio of slow to fast muscle fiber types (Torrente et al. 2007). This is despite the observation that DMD patient-derived CD133+ cells exhibit a markedly decreased myogenic potential compared to those from a healthy individual (Meng et al. 2018).

6 Bone Marrow-Derived Stem Cells with Myogenic Potential

In 1998, Ferrari et al. reported that stem cells not resident in skeletal muscle could be involved in muscle regeneration. They demonstrated that bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMDCs) were capable of contributing nuclei to myofibers if injected into regenerating muscle of immunodeficient scid/bg mice (Ferrari et al. 1998). However, BMDCs could only contribute to muscle regeneration with satellite cells present. A few years later, LaBarge and Blau used a model causing irradiation-induced muscle damage, so ablating the endogenous satellite cell pool. Mice were then injected with an unfractionated bone marrow cell suspension expressing a fluorescent marker, into the tail vein. This study showed that BMDCs not only contributed to muscle regeneration; they additionally reoccupied the empty satellite cell niche and were capable of self-renewal, thereby becoming heritably myogenic (LaBarge and Blau 2002). However, depending on the intensity, irradiation-mediated ablation does not remove all satellite cells from their niche (Heslop et al. 2000), making it possible that regeneration attributed to BMDCs would not be as efficient if ablation had been absolute.

Contribution of BMDCs to total myonuclei is also vastly different between different muscles following bone marrow transplantation. For example, muscles including the intercostal muscles and tongue contain about 0.002% of BMDCs, while the frequency was 0.26% in the EDL, 0.06% in the tibialis anterior, and 5.2% in the panniculus carnosus. Data was collected 16 months post bone marrow transplant, showing that incorporation of circulating stem cells seems to occur naturally at different levels. However, injury might still be a factor in the different rates of incorporation, as the panniculus carnosus may be damaged by “scruffing” the mouse during handling so incorporates higher amounts of BMDCs than muscles subjected to less damage, such as tibialis anterior (Brazelton et al. 2003), even in the absence of acute injury (Naldaiz-Gastesi et al. 2016).

There is also evidence that BMDCs may contribute to skeletal muscle in man. Female patients that had received a bone marrow transplant from male donors 6–12 years previously, had rare skeletal muscle fibers (0.6%) with a nucleus that contained a Y chromosome. Although no Y chromosomes were present in the satellite cell niche on sections or in desmin-expressing myoblast cultures grown from isolated satellite cells, a rare Y chromosome-containing centrally located nucleus was detected, indicating that BMDCs had continued to add myonuclei to muscle (Strömberg et al. 2013). Thus, while BMDCs can contribute to muscle, it is extremely inefficient when the satellite cell pool is intact. In another study, a DMD patient was treated with a bone marrow transplant for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency, and donor nuclei could still be found in 0.5–0.9% of myofibers 13 years after BMDCs transplantation (Gussoni et al. 2002). With the obvious caveat of a single patient, the efficiency of BMDCs incorporation into skeletal muscle appears unaffected by the stimulus of chronic muscle regeneration likely in the DMD patient.

The specific mechanism of how BMDCs contribute to muscle regeneration is not well understood, and a large proportion of BMDCs that incorporate into myofibers do not actually activate the myogenic program (Lapidos et al. 2004; Wernig et al. 2005). The translational consequence of BMDC transplant is seen when patients suffering from partial denervation in the elbow were treated with BMDC injection and tendon transfer. Subsequently, muscle fibrosis decreased by 52%, while myofiber diameter, the presence of satellite cells, muscle density, and motor unit amplitude all increased (Hogendoorn et al. 2014). The effect of BMDCs may be indirect, as intramuscular injection 7 days after injury lead to alteration of the immune response, by downregulation of IL-1b, IL-6, TNF-α, and TGF-β1 and upregulation of IL-10, resulting in overall better regeneration and revascularization (Helal et al. 2016). BMDCs can also generate an environment favoring muscle regeneration in minipigs – by stimulating local VEGF production and shifting the macrophage phenotype to one promoting muscle regeneration (Linard et al. 2018). Finally, BMDCs can give rise to CD45/Sca-1+/desmin+ cells capable of myogenic differentiation (Luth et al. 2008). These cells localize to both within and outside of the basal lamina of muscle fibers and can contribute to skeletal muscle regeneration (Kowalski et al. 2018). Due to their localization and shared marker profile, they are thought to be the origin of some interstitial muscle-derived stem cells (Dreyfus et al. 2004).

7 Muscle Interstitial Cells in Muscle Regeneration

The term muscle interstitial cells (MICs) encompasses a diverse set of cell types found in the interstitium of skeletal muscle, with the relationship of these various cell types to each other, still relatively unclear. Their location presumably allows MICs to sense mechanical or chemical changes to the skeletal myofibers. Most MICs are of mesoderm origin, often from the vasculature, and are generally assumed to interact with satellite cells, muscle fibers, immune cells, and fibroblasts in the event of muscle damage. MICs can be broadly divided into two main groups: cells that support muscle regeneration and those that may directly contribute myonuclei (Table 2).

Fibro-adipogenic precursors (FAPs) are a population of MICs that are defined by expression of specific marker combinations, which also dictate their isolation via FACS and so characterization. Two different groups defined cells belonging to this population as either CD45/CD31/lin/Sca1+/CD34+ or CD45/CD31/lin/Sca1+/α7int (Joe et al. 2010), or CD31/CD45/SM/C-2.6/PDGFRα+/PDGFRβ+ mesenchymal progenitor cells (Uezumi et al. 2010). In general, FAPs are capable of differentiating into adipocytes, osteoblasts (with BMP7), and smooth muscle cells (using TGF-β) (Uezumi et al. 2011); they do not, however, differentiate into skeletal muscle cells if cultured in low serum conditions, or if transplanted into a skeletal muscle regenerative environment (Uezumi et al. 2010). Additionally, CD45/CD31/lin/Sca1+/CD34+ FAPs normally also express Osr1 at low levels, but Osr1 expression increases upon injury. This population contributes specifically to adipogenic infiltration and post injury resident FAPs (Stumm et al. 2018). During muscle regeneration, it is thought that FAPs indirectly interact with satellite cells, as proliferation of FAPs rapidly increases prior to satellite cell proliferation (Joe et al. 2010). Indeed, pharmacological inhibition of in vivo FAP expansion by the tyrosine kinase inhibitor Nilotinib results in a failure of satellite cells to expand in response to injury (Fiore et al. 2016). FAPs aid muscle regeneration by releasing diffusible factors or by remodeling the microenvironment using disintegrin and metalloprotease ADAM12 upon injury. However, production of extracellular matrix components such as collagen for fibrosis will limit muscle regeneration, so FAPs may also contribute to the debilitating phenotype of muscle-degenerating diseases such as muscular dystrophies (Uezumi et al. 2011). Consistent with this notion, ADAM12 suppresses muscle regeneration and increases fibrosis if overexpressed (Jørgensen et al. 2007).

MICs with inducible myogenic potential include several cell types. Side population (SP) cells were first identified as BMDS multipotent hematopoietic stem cells that were characterized by their ability to efflux the vital fluorescent DNA dye Hoechst 33342 (Goodell et al. 1996). While isolating cells from the muscle of wild-type mice, Gussoni et al. also found a subpopulation of cells able to efflux Hoechst 33342 (Gussoni et al. 1999). SP cells are characterized by being Sca1+, but negative for bone marrow and lineage markers (CD4, CD5, CD8, CD11, CD45, Gr-1, c-KIT), and display a high hematopoietic potential (Gussoni et al. 1999; Jackson et al. 1999). The conditions used for FACS isolation of SP cells, such as Hoechst dye concentration however, can influence the composition of the SP fraction, making them a heterogeneous population (Montanaro et al. 2004; Rivier 2004). The regenerative potential of SP cells was highlighted after transplantation into lethally irradiated mdx mice, where they gave rise to dystrophin-positive myofibers (Gussoni et al. 1999). SP cells are juxtaposed to the platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule (PECAM) expressing endothelium and blood vessels. Additionally, SP do not express Pax7 or desmin and only undergo myogenic differentiation if either co-cultured with primary myoblasts or injected into regenerating muscle (Asakura et al. 2002).

A potential subpopulation of the SP cells was proposed by Tamaki et al. who described CD34+/Sca1+ cells with multi-lineage potential from the skeletal muscle interstitium that were negative for hematopoietic markers. These cells express bHLH factors myogenin and MyoD and contribute to postnatal de novo myofiber formation, as well as adipocytes and endothelial cells (Tamaki et al. 2002). However, it was later determined that SP cells made only an extremely minor contribution to myogenic and endothelial generation in vitro, with 99.9% coming from the main population (Tamaki et al. 2003).

Myoendothelial cells have also been isolated from man and express both satellite and endothelial cell markers (CD56, CD34, and CD144), being located between myofibers, but outside of the basal lamina. Myoendothelial cells efficiently regenerate skeletal muscle after transplantation and differentiate into myogenic, osteogenic, and chondrogenic cells in vitro (Zheng et al. 2007).

The stress mediator PW1 has been used to define a population of MICs with myogenic potential called PW1(+)/Pax7(−) interstitial cells (PICs) (Mitchell et al. 2010). PICs are isolated from minced muscle tissue by FACS, by gating first on CD45 cells, followed by selection of CD34+ and SCA1+ cells. Of that population, PW1 and either PDGFα-positive or PDGFα-negative PICs can be selected, with both populations lacking Pax7 expression (Besson et al. 2011; Pannerec et al. 2013). PICs self-renew and differentiate into myofibroblasts, muscle fibers, and can occupy the satellite cell niche (Mitchell et al. 2010) but can also differentiate into adipocytes and compromise muscle regeneration (Yao et al. 2016). PICs contributing to adipogenesis share expression of PDGFRα with FAPs, while PICs capable of contributing to muscle regeneration are negative for PDGFRα (Pannerec et al. 2013). It is now thought that some PICs are a subpopulation of FAPs, sharing lineage markers CD34 and Sca1. The myogenic potential of PICs relies on the eventual expression of Pax7, acquired shortly before differentiating, as PICs from Pax7−/− mice exclusively adopt a smooth muscle fate (Mitchell et al. 2010).

Finally, the MIC Twist2+Pax7 cells contribute exclusively to the regeneration of adult-type IIb/x myofibers, but are not involved in primary or secondary myogenesis. Ablation of Twist2+Pax7 cells in mouse leads to type IIb-specific fiber atrophy, indicating their importance in maintenance and regeneration of these subtypes of fast muscle fibers (Liu et al. 2017) (summarised in Table 2).
Table 2

Muscle interstitial cells: characterization and contribution to myogenesis

Muscle interstitial cell types


Direct contribution to myogenesis



CD45/CD31/lin/Sca1+/CD34+ (low Osr1)


Joe et al. 2010



Joe et al. 2010

CD31/CD45/SM/C-2.6/PDGFR α+/PDGFRβ+


Uezumi et al. 2010

Side population

Sca1+ CD4, CD5, CD8, CD11, CD45, Gr-1, c-KIT


Gussoni et al. 1999

SP subpopulation/main population



Tamaki et al. 2002, 2003

Myoendothelial cells



Zheng et al. 2007


(FAP subpopulation?)

CD34+/Sca1+/Pax7/PDGFR α


Besson et al. 2011; Pannerec et al. 2013


(FAP subpopulation?)

CD34+/Sca1+/Pax7/PDGFR α+




Maintenance/regeneration of fast IIb muscle fibers only

Liu et al. 2017

8 Pericytes

Considering the affiliation that the MICs have with blood vessels and endothelium, it is unsurprising that intramuscular vasculature is a source of cells that support muscle regeneration. Pericytes are located beneath the basal lamina of small blood vessels and express ALP and NG2. Pericytes are essential for the formation of new blood vessels, being the first cells to invade freshly vascularized tissue (Nehls et al. 1992), where they adopt an angiogenic phenotype (Diaz-Flores et al. 1992) and guide establishment of new blood vessels (Ozerdem and Stallcup 2003). Additionally, pericytes promote endothelial cell survival (Kale et al. 2005), prevent vessel regression (Enge et al. 2002), and are crucial for vessel maturation (Hellström et al. 2001). Angiogenesis is important for muscle regeneration, since only 5 h in an oxygen-deprived environment causes necrosis in up to 90% of surrounding skeletal muscle (Labbe et al. 1987), which can lead to limb amputation where revascularization fails (Conrad et al. 2011).

Two types of pericytes are present in skeletal muscle, and while both type 1 (Nestin-GFP/NG2+) and type 2 (Nestin-GFP+/NG2+) pericytes are in close proximity to endothelial cells, only type 2 pericytes can express Pax7 (Birbrair et al. 2013b) and contribute to myogenesis (Birbrair et al. 2013a). Pericytes are also capable of differentiating into smooth muscle, adipocytes, or osteoblasts under specific culture conditions but will also spontaneously form multinucleated myotubes if exposed to skeletal muscle differentiation medium. Interestingly, proliferating pericytes do not express MyoD, Pax7, or Myf5, which only appear in terminally differentiated and fused pericytes. Moreover, early postnatal skeletal myogenesis in vivo is supported by pericytes, whose contribution is additionally increased in dystrophic environments or by cardiotoxin injury (Dellavalle et al. 2011). It is of note that involvement of pericytes in myogenesis differs between muscles, for example, being higher in the diaphragm than in the tibialis anterior. Pericytes may also influence maintenance of satellite cell quiescence, as ablation of NG2+ pericytes in mouse enhances proliferation of Pax7+ cells (Kostallari et al. 2015). An aging microenvironment reduces participation of type 2 pericytes in skeletal muscle regeneration (Birbrair et al. 2013b), although culture in three-dimensional hydrogel rescues some myogenic potential (Fuoco et al. 2014). However, pericytes are also likely to regulate muscle fibrosis. Type 1 pericytes expressing ADAM12, give rise to collagen-producing cells in cases of muscle injury (Dulauroy et al. 2012; Birbrair et al. 2013b) and respond to TGFβ, an essential cytokine for formation of fibrous tissue (Massagué 2012), with increased collagen production in vitro (Birbrair et al. 2013b). However, recently it has been proposed that the multipotency of pericytes in vitro or after transplantation may just arise from the culture conditions (Guimarães-Camboa et al. 2017), which may actually be a useful property for a potential therapeutic cell.

Human pericytes or perivascular cells differ slightly from murine pericytes. These cells are associated with arterioles and capillaries in skeletal muscle and do not express classical myogenic markers such as Myf5, MyoD, myogenin, M-cadherin, nor Pax7 when isolated. Human pericytes do, however, rapidly induce expression of these markers in vitro, or in vivo upon intramuscular transplantation (Crisan et al. 2008).

9 Mesoangioblasts

Mesoangioblast designates a common precursor cell for both vascular and extravascular mesodermal derivatives. Originally isolated as a population of cells from the mouse embryonic dorsal aorta – mesangioblasts express early endothelial and myogenic markers (De Angelis et al. 1999). Freshly isolated murine mesangioblasts express MyoD and Myf5 but retain expression of early endothelial markers including SCA1, CD34, Flk-1, or VE-cadherin in vitro, but not later ones such as vWF. A small proportion (5–30%) additionally express α-SMA, a protein normally expressed in both smooth muscle cells and pericytes (Minasi et al. 2002) and transiently in skeletal myoblasts (Springer et al. 2002). In long-term culture, mesangioblasts lose expression of MyoD and Myf5 and their ability to spontaneously undergo myogenesis but regain myogenic potential if co-cultured with myoblasts (Cossu and Bianco 2003). Aorta-derived myogenic clones lose expression of CD34 during clonal expansion, while endothelial progenitors retain it (Sancricca 2010). Mesoangioblasts isolated from adult murine skeletal muscle have smooth muscle/pericyte markers and have been shown to contribute to skeletal myogenesis during development, regeneration, and upon transplantation (Dellavalle et al. 2011; Tedesco et al. 2010). Human mesangioblasts isolated from skeletal muscle biopsies are similar to pericytes, in that they do not express MyoD, Myf5, myogenin, M-cadherin or NCAM, nor typical endothelial markers CD31, CD34 (unlike murine mesangioblasts), and VEGF2 (Dellavalle et al. 2007; Morosetti et al. 2006). Markers used to isolate and characterize human and murine mesoangioblasts by FACS are given in Table 3.
Table 3

Marker expression profiles of murine and human mesoangioblasts

Murine mesoangioblasts


AP, NG2, Sca1, CD34, CD44, CD117, CD140s, CD140b


CD31, CD45, CD56, CD133

Human mesoangioblasts


AP, NG2, CD13, CD44, CD49f, CD90, CD140a, CD140b, CD146


CD31, CD34, CD45, CD133, CD56

The ability of mesangioblasts to undergo skeletal myogenesis was also shown by making artificial muscle using human or mouse mesangioblasts to generate multinucleated myotubes in a PEG-Fibrin hydrogel in vitro. Transplantation of such murine mesangioblast/PEG-fibrin hydrogel artificial muscles onto the tibialis anterior resulted in de novo muscle-like tissue, complete with host-derived blood vessels. Indeed, replacement of the murine tibialis anterior with a mesangioblast/hydrogel construct allowed functional recovery – demonstrating the potential for generation of patient-specific replacement muscle if suitable scale-up can be achieved (Fuoco et al. 2015).

In pathological settings, intra-arterial delivery of murine mesangioblasts in a limb-girdle muscular dystrophy mouse model (Sampaolesi et al. 2003) or intramuscular injection in mdx mice (Berry et al. 2007) increases muscle regeneration. The potential of mesangioblasts to effectively contribute to muscle regeneration in DMD was shown using a microchip engineered model of muscle regeneration. Co-culture of either healthy myoblasts or mesangioblasts with DMD donor-derived myotubes revealed that restoration of dystrophin expression was significantly increased with mesangioblasts (Serena et al. 2016). At least in facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy though, human mesangioblasts can vary in their ability to support skeletal muscle regeneration dependent on the characteristics of the muscle from which they are derived (Morosetti et al. 2007, 2011).

Mesoangioblasts have been used in a first-human phase 1/2 clinical trial via intra-arterial delivery for patients suffering from DMD, showing that the procedure is safe, although negligible beneficial effects were seen in muscle function, in part, likely due to the advanced stage of disease at grafting (Cossu et al. 2015). Generally speaking though, mesoangioblasts seem a useful tool for therapy, as they are readily isolated from postnatal tissue, can be extensively expanded in vitro while maintaining their myogenic potential, are easily modifiable to carry therapeutic genes, and are safe for delivery in man (Sancricca 2010).

10 Pluripotent Stem Cells

Differentiation of pluripotent stem cells to skeletal muscle has been achieved with and without genetic manipulation of the pluripotent derivatives. Induction of murine embryonic stem (ES) cells can be achieved by stimulation with DMSO; this however causes differentiation to cardiac, smooth, and skeletal muscle in similar amounts. ES cells would only differentiate specifically to skeletal muscle when simultaneously modified to express MyoD (Dinsmore et al. 1996). Even though transdifferentiation of ES cells into skeletal muscle has been possible for more than 20 years, one of the major difficulties was a low efficiency (Klinger et al. 2003). A way to bypass this efficiency problem is by generation and isolation of mesenchymal precursors from ES cells and subsequent differentiation into skeletal muscle cells (Barberi et al. 2005). Recently, protocols have emerged that allow for direct differentiation of human or murine ES cells first into Pax7-expressing skeletal muscle progenitors and then into mature myocytes (Borchin et al. 2013; Caron et al. 2016; Shelton et al. 2014, 2016; Swartz et al. 2016). Apart from allowing for a higher efficiency in generation of skeletal muscle cells, no genetic manipulation is used in these protocols, making these cells a feasible tool for therapeutic applications, with the caveat of ethical considerations.

Another approach to generate pluripotent stem cells for the subsequent differentiation into skeletal muscle is using inducible pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). First described by Takahashi and Yamanaka in 2006, iPSCs are mature somatic cells that are reprogrammed to achieve a pluripotent state by the overexpression of four transcription factors: Oct3/4, Sox2, c-Myc, and Klf4 (Takahashi and Yamanaka 2006). IPSCs allow researchers to investigate early developmental processes without the limitations of scarcity of embryonic cells or the ethical concerns associated with the use of embryonic tissue. Importantly, patient cells can be reprogrammed, which has been performed for many conditions, including patients suffering from muscular dystrophies (Tedesco et al. 2012; Smith et al. 2016) and laminopathies (Steele-Stallard et al. 2018), also permitting ex vivo correction of pathogenic mutations (Tedesco et al. 2012). Subsequent differentiation into defined lineages provides powerful insight into pathomechanisms and provides a valuable tool for screening/testing potential therapies (Young et al. 2016). Again, commitment of iPSCs to the myogenic line can be achieved by MyoD overexpression (Maffioletti et al. 2015), but single-cell RNA-seq indicates lack of extracellular cues (insulin) or an inhibitory signaling loop (initialized by overexpressed BMP4) can impede the process (Cacchiarelli et al. 2018). Conditional expression of Pax7 in human ES/iPSCs can direct them to not only make muscle but also allow them to contribute to the myogenic progenitor pool (Darabi et al. 2012), occupying the satellite cell niche and responding to repeated injuries, and so conferring an enduring regenerative potential (Incitti et al. 2019). Indeed, gene expression in such grafted iPSC-derived satellite cells matures in vivo, from their initial embryonic/fetal signature to that more closely resembling postnatal myoblasts (Incitti et al. 2019). Transgene-free protocols are now emerging though, to generate human satellite-like cells and myofibers from iPSC (Chal et al. 2016).

Recently, muscle tissue has been constructed ex vivo from iPSCs (Rao et al. 2018) and now multi-lineage isogenic artificial muscle with myofibers, pericytes, endothelium, and motoneurones all being derived from the same iPSC source (Maffioletti et al. 2018). This artificial muscle was successfully grafted into mouse (Maffioletti et al. 2018), meaning volumetric muscle could be addressed by isogenic artificial muscles derived from the patient’s own iPSCs. It will be important to determine how such isogenic artificial muscles perform in an in vivo regenerative setting.

11 Summary

In this brief overview, we have highlighted the range of cells that are able to contribute to the skeletal myogenic lineage. The preeminent resident stem cell of skeletal muscle is the satellite cells, which is essential for successful and complete muscle regeneration, since genetic ablation of Pax7+ cells leads to a block in regeneration, with no/few myoblasts detectable in the injured area (Lepper et al. 2011; McCarthy et al. 2011; Relaix and Zammit 2012). In the absence of satellite cells, noncanonical muscle precursors are unable to act as a replacement for repairing muscle. Such non-regenerated muscle tissue is prone to infiltration by inflammatory cells and formation of fibrotic and adipose tissue, showing the importance of prompt and full regeneration.

Satellite cells are not a uniform population though (Biressi and Rando 2010). Recent clustering analysis on single-cell RNA-seq of satellite cells from uninjured muscle segregates them into multiple populations (Cho and Doles 2017), suggesting that they move along an activation continuum with fluid boundaries, with single-cell mass cytometry (CyTOF) analysis (Porpiglia et al. 2017) also indicating potential subsets. These studies used fluorescent markers to FACs isolate satellite cells, which predefine the population analyzed, and activation will have already been initiated in many of these cells. Gene expression is also dynamic, so such studies provide a snapshot of the mean expression profile of the population at the point of fixation, but new markers will further aid in identification/isolation of satellite cells (Giordani et al. 2019; Hicks et al. 2018; Porpiglia et al. 2017). More recent transcriptomic analysis has used satellite cells fixed much closer to quiescence, allowing more detailed examination of the gene expression profile of quiescent cells (Machado et al. 2017). Employing such methodology at the single-cell level will help further define the nature of satellite cell heterogeneity. Satellite cells remain the most potent cell contributing to myogenesis, and factors including availability, difficulty of isolation, in vitro expansion limitations, loss of potency ex vivo, delivery to patients or difficulty of genetic manipulation are being addressed to enhance their usefulness as therapeutic tools (e.g., Gilbert et al. 2010; Ho et al. 2017). However, alternative myogenic cell types are also being considered and tested for therapy.

At present, the main unorthodox skeletal myogenic progenitors are broadly classed as MICs, those associated with blood vessels and BMDCs. A difficulty in dissecting the contribution of these different cell types to myogenic differentiation lies in their inherent heterogeneity and complex interactions. A panel of markers are normally required for isolation, since many antigens are promiscuous, e.g., Sca1 is found in FAPs and endothelial cells, and CD34 is expressed by both FAPS and satellite cells. Indeed, these populations can overlap, with some PICs, for example, now classed as a subpopulation of FAPs. More subpopulations are being identified as analysis methods are increasingly refined and achieve characterization at an enhanced depth. Single-cell RNA sequencing of mononucleated cells isolated from uninjured muscle shows that cells can be clustered into three major groups: CD45+ blood cells, CD31+ endothelial cells, and Lin cells (showing the greatest group diversity) (Giordani et al. 2019) with two newly characterized populations emerging as Itga7+/Vcam or Scx+ cells.

There may also be a closer relationship between myoblasts and such noncanonical myogenic precursors from in vitro evidence. Some unfused mononucleated cells derived from cultures of multinucleated myotubes derived from immortalized human myoblasts, show a distinct mesenchymal state, with many not expressing myogenin or Myf5, but being positive for ID2 and ID3 (inhibitors of myogenic differentiation) and SPHK1 (Zeng et al. 2016). SPHK1 plays a role in epithelial to mesenchymal transition and expression correlates with invasiveness in cancer cells (Xu et al. 2017). Could transition of some myoblasts to a more mesenchymal state also be an origin for some MICs in skeletal muscle?

Techniques allowing us to characterize cell population at high resolution are constantly evolving, and we can expect that the future will shed more light on the heterogeneity within satellite cells and other cell types with myogenic potential, and the complex cell interactions that govern skeletal muscle regeneration.



JP is supported by a Wellcome Trust PhD Studentship [203949/Z/16/A]. The Zammit laboratory is supported by the Medical Research Council [MR/P023215/1 and MR/S002472/1], FSH Society Shack Family and Friends research grant [FSHS-82013-06], and Association Française contre les Myopathies [AFM 17865 and 20082].


  1. Acharyya S, Butchbach MER, Sahenk Z, Wang H, Saji M, Carathers M, Ringel MD, Skipworth RJE, Fearon KCH, Hollingsworth MA et al (2005) Dystrophin glycoprotein complex dysfunction: a regulatory link between muscular dystrophy and cancer cachexia. Cancer Cell 8:421–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agley CC, Rowlerson AM, Velloso CP, Lazarus NL, Harridge SDR (2015) Isolation and quantitative immunocytochemical characterization of primary myogenic cells and fibroblasts from human skeletal muscle. J Vis Exp 95:e52049Google Scholar
  3. Aguennouz M, Vita GL, Messina S, Cama A, Lanzano N, Ciranni A, Rodolico C, Di Giorgio RM, Vita G (2011) Telomere shortening is associated to TRF1 and PARP1 overexpression in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neurobiol Aging 32:2190–2197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allouh MZ, Yablonka-Reuveni Z, Rosser BWC (2008) Pax7 reveals a greater frequency and concentration of satellite cells at the ends of growing skeletal muscle fibers. J Histochem Cytochem 56:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asakura A, Seale P, Girgis-Gabardo A, Rudnicki MA (2002) Myogenic specification of side population cells in skeletal muscle. J Cell Biol 159:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker JH, Poindextor CE (1991) Muscle regeneration following segmental necrosis in tenotomized muscle fibers. Muscle Nerve 14:348–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barberi T, Willis LM, Socci ND, Studer L (2005) Derivation of multipotent mesenchymal precursors from human embryonic stem cells. PLoS Med 2:e161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bareja A, Holt JA, Luo G, Chang C, Lin J, Hinken AC, Freudenberg JM, Kraus WE, Evans WJ, Billin AN (2014) Human and mouse skeletal muscle stem cells: convergent and divergent mechanisms of myogenesis. PLoS One 9:e90398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baroffio A, Aubry JP, Kaelin A, Krause RM, Hamann M, Bader CR (1993) Purification of human muscle satellite cells by flow cytometry. Muscle Nerve 16:498–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beauchamp JR, Heslop L, Yu DS, Tajbakhsh S, Kelly RG, Wernig A, Buckingham ME, Partridge TA, Zammit PS (2000) Expression of CD34 and Myf5 defines the majority of quiescent adult skeletal muscle satellite cells. J Cell Biol 151:1221–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benchaouir R, Meregalli M, Farini A, D’Antona G, Belicchi M, Goyenvalle A, Battistelli M, Bresolin N, Bottinelli R, Garcia L et al (2007) Restoration of human dystrophin following transplantation of exon-skipping-engineered DMD patient stem cells into dystrophic mice. Cell Stem Cell 1:646–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berry SE, Liu J, Chaney EJ, Kaufman SJ (2007) Multipotential mesoangioblast stem cell therapy in the mdx/utrn-/- mouse model for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Regen Med 2:275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Besson V, Smeriglio P, Wegener A, Relaix F, Nait Oumesmar B, Sassoon DA, Marazzi G (2011) PW1 gene/paternally expressed gene 3 (PW1/Peg3) identifies multiple adult stem and progenitor cell populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:11470–11475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Betsholtz C (2004) Insight into the physiological functions of PDGF through genetic studies in mice. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 15:215–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bharathy N, Ling BMT, Taneja R (2013) Epigenetic regulation of skeletal muscle development and differentiation. Subcell Biochem 61:139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Birbrair A, Zhang T, Wang Z-M, Messi ML, Enikolopov GN, Mintz A, Delbono O (2013a) Role of pericytes in skeletal muscle regeneration and fat accumulation. Stem Cells Dev 22:2298–2314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Birbrair A, Zhang T, Wang Z-M, Messi ML, Mintz A, Delbono O (2013b) Type-1 pericytes participate in fibrous tissue deposition in aged skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 305:C1098–C1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Biressi S, Rando TA (2010) Heterogeneity in the muscle satellite cell population. Semin Cell Dev Biol 21:845–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Biressi S, Tagliafico E, Lamorte G, Monteverde S, Tenedini E, Roncaglia E, Ferrari S, Ferrari S, Cusella-De Angelis MG, Tajbakhsh S et al (2007) Intrinsic phenotypic diversity of embryonic and fetal myoblasts is revealed by genome-wide gene expression analysis on purified cells. Dev Biol 304:633–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Blanco-Bose WE, Yao CC, Kramer RH, Blau HM (2001) Purification of mouse primary myoblasts based on alpha 7 integrin expression. Exp Cell Res 265:212–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Blau HM, Webster C (1981) Isolation and characterization of human muscle cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:5623–5627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Blau HM, Webster C, Pavlath GK (1983) Defective myoblasts identified in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 80:4856–4860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Boldrin L, Morgan JE (2012) Human satellite cells: identification on human muscle fibres. PLoS Curr 3:RRN1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Borchin B, Chen J, Barberi T (2013) Derivation and FACS-mediated purification of PAX3+/PAX7+ skeletal muscle precursors from human pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Reports 1:620–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bosnakovski D, Xu Z, Li W, Thet S, Cleaver O, Perlingeiro RCR, Kyba M (2008) Prospective isolation of skeletal muscle stem cells with a Pax7 reporter. Stem Cells 26:3194–3204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Brazelton TR, Nystrom M, Blau HM (2003) Significant differences among skeletal muscles in the incorporation of bone marrow-derived cells. Dev Biol 262:64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Briggs D, Morgan JE (2013) Recent progress in satellite cell/myoblast engraftment - relevance for therapy. FEBS J 280:4281–4293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cacchiarelli D, Qiu X, Srivatsan S, Manfredi A, Ziller M, Overbey E, Grimaldi A, Grimsby J, Pokharel P, Livak KJ et al (2018) Aligning single-cell developmental and reprogramming trajectories identifies molecular determinants of myogenic reprogramming outcome. Cell Syst 7:258–268.e3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Calhabeu F, Hayashi S, Morgan JE, Relaix F, Zammit PS (2013) Alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma-associated proteins PAX3/FOXO1A and PAX7/FOXO1A suppress the transcriptional activity of MyoD-target genes in muscle stem cells. Oncogene 32:651–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cantini M, Giurisato E, Radu C, Tiozzo S, Pampinella F, Senigaglia D, Zaniolo G, Mazzoleni F, Vitiello L (2002) Macrophage-secreted myogenic factors: a promising tool for greatly enhancing the proliferative capacity of myoblasts in vitro and in vivo. Neurol Sci 23:189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Caron L, Kher D, Lee KL, McKernan R, Dumevska B, Hidalgo A, Li J, Yang H, Main H, Ferri G et al (2016) A human pluripotent stem cell model of facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy-affected skeletal muscles. Stem Cells Transl Med 5:1145–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ceafalan LC, Popescu BO, Hinescu ME (2014) Cellular players in skeletal muscle regeneration. Biomed Res Int 2014:957014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Chal J, Al Tanoury Z, Hestin M, Gobert B, Aivio S, Hick A, Cherrier T, Nesmith AP, Parker KK, Pourquié O (2016) Generation of human muscle fibers and satellite-like cells from human pluripotent stem cells in vitro. Nat Protoc 11:1833–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Chargé SBP, Rudnicki MA (2004) Cellular and molecular regulation of muscle regeneration. Physiol Rev 84:209–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Chazaud B, Brigitte M, Yacoub-Youssef H, Arnold L, Gherardi R, Sonnet C, Lafuste P, Chretien F (2009) Dual and beneficial roles of macrophages during skeletal muscle regeneration. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 37:18–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Cho DS, Doles JD (2017) Single cell transcriptome analysis of muscle satellite cells reveals widespread transcriptional heterogeneity. Gene 636:54–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ciciliot S, Schiaffino S (2010) Regeneration of mammalian skeletal muscle. Basic mechanisms and clinical implications. Curr Pharm Des 16:906–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Collins CA, Olsen I, Zammit PS, Heslop L, Petrie A, Partridge TA, Morgan JE (2005) Stem cell function, self-renewal, and behavioral heterogeneity of cells from the adult muscle satellite cell niche. Cell 122:289–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Conrad MF, Crawford RS, Hackney LA, Paruchuri V, Abularrage CJ, Patel VI, Lamuraglia GM, Cambria RP (2011) Endovascular management of patients with critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg 53:1020–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Cornelison DD, Wold BJ (1997) Single-cell analysis of regulatory gene expression in quiescent and activated mouse skeletal muscle satellite cells. Dev Biol 191:270–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Cornelison DD, Filla MS, Stanley HM, Rapraeger AC, Olwin BB (2001) Syndecan-3 and syndecan-4 specifically mark skeletal muscle satellite cells and are implicated in satellite cell maintenance and muscle regeneration. Dev Biol 239:79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Cosgrove BD, Gilbert PM, Porpiglia E, Mourkioti F, Lee SP, Corbel SY, Llewellyn ME, Delp SL, Blau HM (2014) Rejuvenation of the muscle stem cell population restores strength to injured aged muscles. Nat Med 20:255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Cossu G, Bianco P (2003) Mesoangioblasts – vascular progenitors for extravascular mesodermal tissues. Curr Opin Genet Dev 13:537–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Cossu G, Previtali SC, Napolitano S, Cicalese MP, Tedesco FS, Nicastro F, Noviello M, Roostalu U, Natali Sora MG, Scarlato M et al (2015) Intra-arterial transplantation of HLA-matched donor mesoangioblasts in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. EMBO Mol Med 7:1513–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Cottle BJ, Lewis FC, Shone V, Ellison-Hughes GM (2017) Skeletal muscle-derived interstitial progenitor cells (PICs) display stem cell properties, being clonogenic, self-renewing, and multi-potent in vitro and in vivo. Stem Cell Res Ther 8:158Google Scholar
  46. Crisan M, Yap S, Casteilla L, Chen C-W, Corselli M, Park TS, Andriolo G, Sun B, Zheng B, Zhang L et al (2008) A perivascular origin for mesenchymal stem cells in multiple human organs. Cell Stem Cell 3:301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Darabi R, Arpke RW, Irion S, Dimos JT, Grskovic M, Kyba M, Perlingeiro RCR (2012) Human ES- and iPS-derived myogenic progenitors restore DYSTROPHIN and improve contractility upon transplantation in dystrophic mice. Cell Stem Cell 10:610–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Daubas P, Tajbakhsh S, Hadchouel J, Primig M, Buckingham M (2000) Myf5 is a novel early axonal marker in the mouse brain and is subjected to post-transcriptional regulation in neurons. Development 127:319–331Google Scholar
  49. Day K, Shefer G, Richardson JB, Enikolopov G, Yablonka-Reuveni Z (2007) Nestin-GFP reporter expression defines the quiescent state of skeletal muscle satellite cells. Dev Biol 304:246–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. De Angelis L, Berghella L, Coletta M, Lattanzi L, Zanchi M, Cusella-De Angelis MG, Ponzetto C, Cossu G (1999) Skeletal myogenic progenitors originating from embryonic dorsal aorta coexpress endothelial and myogenic markers and contribute to postnatal muscle growth and regeneration. J Cell Biol 147:869–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Delbono O (2011) Expression and regulation of excitation-contraction coupling proteins in aging skeletal muscle. Curr Aging Sci 4:248–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Dellavalle A, Sampaolesi M, Tonlorenzi R, Tagliafico E, Sacchetti B, Perani L, Innocenzi A, Galvez BG, Messina G, Morosetti R et al (2007) Pericytes of human skeletal muscle are myogenic precursors distinct from satellite cells. Nat Cell Biol 9:255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Dellavalle A, Maroli G, Covarello D, Azzoni E, Innocenzi A, Perani L, Antonini S, Sambasivan R, Brunelli S, Tajbakhsh S et al (2011) Pericytes resident in postnatal skeletal muscle differentiate into muscle fibres and generate satellite cells. Nat Commun 2:499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Diaz-Flores L, Gutierrez R, Varela H (1992) Behavior of postcapillary venule pericytes during postnatal angiogenesis. J Morphol 213:33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Dinsmore J, Ratliff J, Deacon T, Pakzaban P, Jacoby D, Galpern W, Isacson O (1996) Embryonic stem cells differentiated in vitro as a novel source of cells for transplantation. Cell Transplant 5:131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Dreyfus PA, Chretien F, Chazaud B, Kirova Y, Caramelle P, Garcia L, Butler-Browne G, Gherardi RK (2004) Adult bone marrow-derived stem cells in muscle connective tissue and satellite cell niches. Am J Pathol 164:773–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Dulauroy S, Di Carlo SE, Langa F, Eberl G, Peduto L (2012) Lineage tracing and genetic ablation of ADAM12(+) perivascular cells identify a major source of profibrotic cells during acute tissue injury. Nat Med 18:1262–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Enge M, Bjarnegård M, Gerhardt H, Gustafsson E, Kalén M, Asker N, Hammes H-P, Shani M, Fässler R, Betsholtz C (2002) Endothelium-specific platelet-derived growth factor-B ablation mimics diabetic retinopathy. EMBO J 21:4307–4316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ferrari G, Cusella-De Angelis G, Coletta M, Paolucci E, Stornaiuolo A, Cossu G, Mavilio F (1998) Muscle regeneration by bone marrow-derived myogenic progenitors. Science 279:1528–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Fiore D, Judson RN, Low M, Lee S, Zhang E, Hopkins C, Xu P, Lenzi A, Rossi FMV, Lemos DR (2016) Pharmacological blockage of fibro/adipogenic progenitor expansion and suppression of regenerative fibrogenesis is associated with impaired skeletal muscle regeneration. Stem Cell Res 17:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Fukada S, Higuchi S, Segawa M, Koda K, Yamamoto Y, Tsujikawa K, Kohama Y, Uezumi A, Imamura M, Miyagoe-Suzuki Y et al (2004) Purification and cell-surface marker characterization of quiescent satellite cells from murine skeletal muscle by a novel monoclonal antibody. Exp Cell Res 296:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Fukada S, Uezumi A, Ikemoto M, Masuda S, Segawa M, Tanimura N, Yamamoto H, Miyagoe-Suzuki Y, Takeda S’i (2007) Molecular signature of quiescent satellite cells in adult skeletal muscle. Stem Cells 25:2448–2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Fukada S, Ma Y, Ohtani T, Watanabe Y, Murakami S, Yamaguchi M (2013) Isolation, characterization, and molecular regulation of muscle stem cells. Front Physiol 4:317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Fukushima K, Badlani N, Usas A, Riano F, Fu F, Huard J (2001) The use of an antifibrosis agent to improve muscle recovery after laceration. Am J Sports Med 29:394–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Fuoco C, Sangalli E, Vono R, Testa S, Sacchetti B, Latronico MVG, Bernardini S, Madeddu P, Cesareni G, Seliktar D et al (2014) 3D hydrogel environment rejuvenates aged pericytes for skeletal muscle tissue engineering. Front Physiol 5:203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Fuoco C, Rizzi R, Biondo A, Longa E, Mascaro A, Shapira-Schweitzer K, Kossovar O, Benedetti S, Salvatori ML, Santoleri S et al (2015) In vivo generation of a mature and functional artificial skeletal muscle. EMBO Mol Med 7:411–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Galvez BG, Sampaolesi M, Brunelli S, Covarello D, Gavina M, Rossi B, Constantin G, Torrente Y, Cossu G (2006) Complete repair of dystrophic skeletal muscle by mesoangioblasts with enhanced migration ability. J Cell Biol 174:231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Garry DJ, Meeson A, Elterman J, Zhao Y, Yang P, Bassel-Duby R, Williams RS (2000) Myogenic stem cell function is impaired in mice lacking the forkhead/winged helix protein MNF. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:5416–5421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Gerli MFM, Moyle LA, Benedetti S, Ferrari G, Ucuncu E, Ragazzi M, Constantinou C, Louca I, Sakai H, Ala P et al (2019) Combined notch and PDGF signaling enhances migration and expression of stem cell markers while inducing perivascular cell features in muscle satellite cells. Stem Cell Reports 12:461–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Gilbert PM, Havenstrite KL, Magnusson KEG, Sacco A, Leonardi NA, Kraft P, Nguyen NK, Thrun S, Lutolf MP, Blau HM (2010) Substrate elasticity regulates skeletal muscle stem cell self-renewal in culture. Science 329:1078–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Giordani L, He GJ, Negroni E, Sakai H, Law JYC, Siu MM, Wan R, Corneau A, Tajbakhsh S, Cheung TH et al (2019) High-dimensional single-cell cartography reveals novel skeletal muscle-resident cell populations. Molecular Cell 74:609–621.e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Glass DJ (2010) Signaling pathways perturbing muscle mass. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 13:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Gnocchi VF, White RB, Ono Y, Ellis JA, Zammit PS (2009) Further characterisation of the molecular signature of quiescent and activated mouse muscle satellite cells. PLoS One 4:e5205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Goodell MA, Brose K, Paradis G, Conner AS, Mulligan RC (1996) Isolation and functional properties of murine hematopoietic stem cells that are replicating in vivo. J Exp Med 183:1797–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Goupille O, Pallafacchina G, Relaix F, Conway SJ, Cumano A, Robert B, Montarras D, Buckingham M (2011) Characterization of Pax3-expressing cells from adult blood vessels. J Cell Sci 124:3980–3988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Greising SM, Gransee HM, Mantilla CB, Sieck GC (2012) Systems biology of skeletal muscle: fiber type as an organizing principle. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med 4:457–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Guimarães-Camboa N, Cattaneo P, Sun Y, Moore-Morris T, Gu Y, Dalton ND, Rockenstein E, Masliah E, Peterson KL, Stallcup WB et al (2017) Pericytes of multiple organs do not behave as mesenchymal stem cells In Vivo. Cell Stem Cell 20:345–359.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Gussoni E, Soneoka Y, Strickland CD, Buzney EA, Khan MK, Flint AF, Kunkel LM, Mulligan RC (1999) Dystrophin expression in the mdx mouse restored by stem cell transplantation. Nature 401:390–394Google Scholar
  79. Gussoni E, Bennett RR, Muskiewicz KR, Meyerrose T, Nolta JA, Gilgoff I, Stein J, Chan Y, Lidov HG, Bönnemann CG et al (2002) Long-term persistence of donor nuclei in a Duchenne muscular dystrophy patient receiving bone marrow transplantation. J Clin Invest 110:807–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Hanson J, Huxley HE (1953) Structural basis of the cross-striations in muscle. Nature 172:530–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Helal MAM, Shaheen NEM, Abu Zahra FA (2016) Immunomodulatory capacity of the local mesenchymal stem cells transplantation after severe skeletal muscle injury in female rats. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol 38:414–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Hellström M, Gerhardt H, Kalén M, Li X, Eriksson U, Wolburg H, Betsholtz C (2001) Lack of pericytes leads to endothelial hyperplasia and abnormal vascular morphogenesis. J Cell Biol 153:543–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Hernández-Hernández JM, García-González EG, Brun CE, Rudnicki MA (2017) The myogenic regulatory factors, determinants of muscle development, cell identity and regeneration. Semin Cell Dev Biol 72:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Heslop L, Morgan JE, Partridge TA (2000) Evidence for a myogenic stem cell that is exhausted in dystrophic muscle. J Cell Sci 113(Pt 12):2299–2308Google Scholar
  85. Hicks MR, Hiserodt J, Paras K, Fujiwara W, Eskin A, Jan M, Xi H, Young CS, Evseenko D, Nelson SF et al (2018) ERBB3 and NGFR mark a distinct skeletal muscle progenitor cell in human development and hPSCs. Nat Cell Biol 20:46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ho ATV, Palla AR, Blake MR, Yucel ND, Wang YX, Magnusson KEG, Holbrook CA, Kraft PE, Delp SL, Blau HM (2017) Prostaglandin E2 is essential for efficacious skeletal muscle stem-cell function, augmenting regeneration and strength. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(26):6675–6684Google Scholar
  87. Hogendoorn S, Duijnisveld BJ, van Duinen SG, Stoel BC, van Dijk JG, Fibbe WE, Nelissen RGHH (2014) Local injection of autologous bone marrow cells to regenerate muscle in patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury: a pilot study. Bone Joint Res 3:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ikemoto M, Fukada S-I, Uezumi A, Masuda S, Miyoshi H, Yamamoto H, Wada MR, Masubuchi N, Miyagoe-Suzuki Y, Takeda S’i (2007) Autologous transplantation of SM/C-2.6(+) satellite cells transduced with micro-dystrophin CS1 cDNA by lentiviral vector into mdx mice. Mol Ther 15:2178–2185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Incitti T, Magli A, Darabi R, Yuan C, Lin K, Arpke RW, Azzag K, Yamamoto A, Stewart R, Thomson JA, et al (2019) Pluripotent stem cell-derived myogenic progenitors remodel their molecular signature upon in vivo engraftment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116(10):4346–4351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Irintchev A, Zeschnigk M, Starzinski-Powitz A, Wernig A (1994) Expression pattern of M-cadherin in normal, denervated, and regenerating mouse muscles. Dev Dyn 199:326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Jackson KA, Mi T, Goodell MA (1999) Hematopoietic potential of stem cells isolated from murine skeletal muscle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:14482–14486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Wang ZM, Ross R (2000) Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18–88 yr. J Appl Physiol (1985) 89:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Järvinen TAH, Järvinen TLN, Kääriäinen M, Kalimo H, Järvinen M (2005) Muscle injuries: biology and treatment. Am J Sports Med 33:745–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Joe AWB, Yi L, Natarajan A, Le Grand F, So L, Wang J, Rudnicki MA, Rossi FMV (2010) Muscle injury activates resident fibro/adipogenic progenitors that facilitate myogenesis. Nat Cell Biol 12:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Jørgensen LH, Jensen CH, Wewer UM, Schrøder HD (2007) Transgenic overexpression of ADAM12 suppresses muscle regeneration and aggravates dystrophy in aged mdx mice. Am J Pathol 171:1599–1607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Kakulas BA, Papadimitriou JM, Knight JO, Mastaglia FL (1968) Normal and abnormal human muscle in tissue culture. Proc Aust Assoc Neurol 5:79–85Google Scholar
  97. Kale S, Hanai J, Chan B, Karihaloo A, Grotendorst G, Cantley L, Sukhatme VP (2005) Microarray analysis of in vitro pericyte differentiation reveals an angiogenic program of gene expression. FASEB J 19:270–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Katz B (1961) The termination of the afferent nerve fibre in the muscle spindle of the frog. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 243:221–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Klinger F-G, Scaldaferri M-L, Di Carlo A, Baiocchi M, Coletta M, Cossu G, De Felici M (2003) Myogenic potential of mouse primordial germ cells. Int J Dev Biol 47:303–305Google Scholar
  100. Kobari L, Giarratana MC, Pflumio F, Izac B, Coulombel L, Douay L (2001) CD133+ cell selection is an alternative to CD34+ cell selection for ex vivo expansion of hematopoietic stem cells. J Hematother Stem Cell Res 10:273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Kostallari E, Baba-Amer Y, Alonso-Martin S, Ngoh P, Relaix F, Lafuste P, Gherardi RK (2015) Pericytes in the myovascular niche promote post-natal myofiber growth and satellite cell quiescence. Development 142:1242–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Kowalski K, Dos Santos M, Maire P, Ciemerych MA, Brzoska E (2018) Induction of bone marrow-derived cells myogenic identity by their interactions with the satellite cell niche. Stem Cell Res Ther 9:258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Kuang S, Kuroda K, Le Grand F, Rudnicki MA (2007) Asymmetric self-renewal and commitment of satellite stem cells in muscle. Cell 129:999–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. LaBarge MA, Blau HM (2002) Biological progression from adult bone marrow to mononucleate muscle stem cell to multinucleate muscle fiber in response to injury. Cell 111:589–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Labbe R, Lindsay T, Walker PM (1987) The extent and distribution of skeletal muscle necrosis after graded periods of complete ischemia. J Vasc Surg 6:152–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Lapidos KA, Chen YE, Earley JU, Heydemann A, Huber JM, Chien M, Ma A, McNally EM (2004) Transplanted hematopoietic stem cells demonstrate impaired sarcoglycan expression after engraftment into cardiac and skeletal muscle. J Clin Invest 114:1577–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Latil M, Rocheteau P, Châtre L, Sanulli S, Mémet S, Ricchetti M, Tajbakhsh S, Chrétien F (2012) Skeletal muscle stem cells adopt a dormant cell state post mortem and retain regenerative capacity. Nat Commun 3:903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Lepper C, Partridge TA, Fan C-M (2011) An absolute requirement for Pax7-positive satellite cells in acute injury-induced skeletal muscle regeneration. Development 138:3639–3646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Linard C, Brachet M, L’homme B, Strup-Perrot C, Busson E, Bonneau M, Lataillade J-J, Bey E, Benderitter M (2018) Long-term effectiveness of local BM-MSCs for skeletal muscle regeneration: a proof of concept obtained on a pig model of severe radiation burn. Stem Cell Res Ther 9:299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Lindström M, Thornell L-E (2009) New multiple labelling method for improved satellite cell identification in human muscle: application to a cohort of power-lifters and sedentary men. Histochem Cell Biol 132:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Liu N, Garry GA, Li S, Bezprozvannaya S, Sanchez-Ortiz E, Chen B, Shelton JM, Jaichander P, Bassel-Duby R, Olson EN (2017) A Twist2-dependent progenitor cell contributes to adult skeletal muscle. Nat Cell Biol 19:202–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Luth ES, Jun SJ, Wessen MK, Liadaki K, Gussoni E, Kunkel LM (2008) Bone marrow side population cells are enriched for progenitors capable of myogenic differentiation. J Cell Sci 121:1426–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Luz MAM, Marques MJ, Santo Neto H (2002) Impaired regeneration of dystrophin-deficient muscle fibers is caused by exhaustion of myogenic cells. Braz J Med Biol Res 35:691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Machado L, Esteves de Lima J, Fabre O, Proux C, Legendre R, Szegedi A, Varet H, Ingerslev LR, Barrès R, Relaix F et al (2017) In situ fixation redefines quiescence and early activation of skeletal muscle stem cells. Cell Rep 21:1982–1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Maffioletti SM, Gerli MFM, Ragazzi M, Dastidar S, Benedetti S, Loperfido M, VandenDriessche T, Chuah MK, Tedesco FS (2015) Efficient derivation and inducible differentiation of expandable skeletal myogenic cells from human ES and patient-specific iPS cells. Nat Protoc 10:941–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Maffioletti SM, Sarcar S, Henderson ABH, Mannhardt I, Pinton L, Moyle LA, Steele-Stallard H, Cappellari O, Wells KE, Ferrari G et al (2018) Three-dimensional human iPSC-derived artificial skeletal muscles model muscular dystrophies and enable multilineage tissue engineering. Cell Rep 23:899–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Marg A, Escobar H, Gloy S, Kufeld M, Zacher J, Spuler A, Birchmeier C, Izsvák Z, Spuler S (2014) Human satellite cells have regenerative capacity and are genetically manipulable. J Clin Invest 124:4257–4265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Massagué J (2012) TGFβ signalling in context. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 13:616–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Mauro A (1961) Satellite cell of skeletal muscle fibers. J Biophys Biochem Cytol 9:493–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. McCarthy JJ, Mula J, Miyazaki M, Erfani R, Garrison K, Farooqui AB, Srikuea R, Lawson BA, Grimes B, Keller C et al (2011) Effective fiber hypertrophy in satellite cell-depleted skeletal muscle. Development 138:3657–3666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Meng J, Muntoni F, Morgan JE (2011) Stem cells to treat muscular dystrophies – Where are we? Neuromuscul Disord 21:4–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Meng J, Chun S, Asfahani R, Lochmüller H, Muntoni F, Morgan J (2014) Human skeletal muscle-derived CD133(+) cells form functional satellite cells after intramuscular transplantation in immunodeficient host mice. Mol Ther 22:1008–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Meng J, Muntoni F, Morgan J (2018) CD133+ cells derived from skeletal muscles of Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients have a compromised myogenic and muscle regenerative capability. Stem Cell Res 30:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Minasi MG, Riminucci M, De Angelis L, Borello U, Berarducci B, Innocenzi A, Caprioli A, Sirabella D, Baiocchi M, De Maria R et al (2002) The meso-angioblast: a multipotent, self-renewing cell that originates from the dorsal aorta and differentiates into most mesodermal tissues. Development 129:2773–2783Google Scholar
  125. Mintz B, Baker WW (1967) Normal mammalian muscle differentiation and gene control of isocitrate dehydrogenase synthesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 58:592–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Mitchell KJ, Pannérec A, Cadot B, Parlakian A, Besson V, Gomes ER, Marazzi G, Sassoon DA (2010) Identification and characterization of a non-satellite cell muscle resident progenitor during postnatal development. Nat Cell Biol 12:257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Moncaut N, Rigby PWJ, Carvajal JJ (2013) Dial M(RF) for myogenesis. FEBS J 280:3980–3990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Montanaro F, Liadaki K, Schienda J, Flint A, Gussoni E, Kunkel LM (2004) Demystifying SP cell purification: viability, yield, and phenotype are defined by isolation parameters. Exp Cell Res 298:144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Montarras D, Morgan J, Collins C, Relaix F, Zaffran S, Cumano A, Partridge T, Buckingham M (2005) Direct isolation of satellite cells for skeletal muscle regeneration. Science 309:2064–2067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Morosetti R, Mirabella M, Gliubizzi C, Broccolini A, De Angelis L, Tagliafico E, Sampaolesi M, Gidaro T, Papacci M, Roncaglia E et al (2006) MyoD expression restores defective myogenic differentiation of human mesoangioblasts from inclusion-body myositis muscle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:16995–17000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Morosetti R, Mirabella M, Gliubizzi C, Broccolini A, Sancricca C, Pescatori M, Gidaro T, Tasca G, Frusciante R, Tonali PA et al (2007) Isolation and characterization of mesoangioblasts from facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy muscle biopsies. Stem Cells 25:3173–3182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Morosetti R, Gidaro T, Broccolini A, Gliubizzi C, Sancricca C, Tonali PA, Ricci E, Mirabella M (2011) Mesoangioblasts from facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy display in vivo a variable myogenic ability predictable by their in vitro behavior. Cell Transplant 20:1299–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Motohashi N, Asakura Y, Asakura A (2014) Isolation, culture, and transplantation of muscle satellite cells. J Vis Exp e50846.
  134. Moyle LA, Zammit PS (2014) Isolation, culture and immunostaining of skeletal muscle fibres to study myogenic progression in satellite cells. Methods Mol Biol 1210:63–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Naldaiz-Gastesi N, Goicoechea M, Alonso-Martín S, Aiastui A, López-Mayorga M, García-Belda P, Lacalle J, San José C, Araúzo-Bravo MJ, Trouilh L et al (2016) Identification and characterization of the dermal panniculus carnosus muscle stem cells. Stem Cell Reports 7:411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Negroni E, Riederer I, Chaouch S, Belicchi M, Razini P, Di Santo J, Torrente Y, Butler-Browne GS, Mouly V (2009) In vivo myogenic potential of human CD133+ muscle-derived stem cells: a quantitative study. Mol Ther 17:1771–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Negroni E, Bigot A, Butler-Browne GS, Trollet C, Mouly V (2016) Cellular therapies for muscular dystrophies: frustrations and clinical successes. Hum Gene Ther 27:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Negroni E, Vallese D, Vilquin JT, Butler-Browne G, Mouly V, Trollet C (2011) Current advances in cell therapy strategies for muscular dystrophies. Expert Opin Biol Ther 11:157–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Nehls V, Denzer K, Drenckhahn D (1992) Pericyte involvement in capillary sprouting during angiogenesis in situ. Cell Tissue Res 270:469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Ontell M, Hughes D, Bourke D (1982) Secondary myogenesis of normal muscle produces abnormal myotubes. Anat Rec 204:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Ortuste Quiroga HP, Goto K, Zammit PS (2016) Isolation, cryosection and immunostaining of skeletal muscle. Methods Mol Biol 1460:85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Ozerdem U, Stallcup WB (2003) Early contribution of pericytes to angiogenic sprouting and tube formation. Angiogenesis 6:241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Pannerec A, Formicola L, Besson V, Marazzi G, Sassoon DA (2013) Defining skeletal muscle resident progenitors and their cell fate potentials. Development 140:2879–2891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Pawlikowski B, Lee L, Zuo J, Kramer RH (2009) Analysis of human muscle stem cells reveals a differentiation-resistant progenitor cell population expressing Pax7 capable of self-renewal. Dev Dyn 238:138–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Pelagiadis I, Relakis K, Kalmanti L, Dimitriou H (2012) CD133 immunomagnetic separation: effectiveness of the method for CD133(+) isolation from umbilical cord blood. Cytotherapy 14:701–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Périé S, Trollet C, Mouly V, Vanneaux V, Mamchaoui K, Bouazza B, Marolleau JP, Laforêt P, Chapon F, Eymard B et al (2014) Autologous myoblast transplantation for oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy: a phase I/IIa clinical study. Mol Ther 22:219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Pette D, Spamer C (1986) Metabolic properties of muscle fibers. Fed Proc 45:2910–2914Google Scholar
  148. Pisani DF, Clement N, Loubat A, Plaisant M, Sacconi S, Kurzenne J-Y, Desnuelle C, Dani C, Dechesne CA (2010) Hierarchization of myogenic and adipogenic progenitors within human skeletal muscle. Stem Cells 28:2182–2194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Pisconti A, Bernet JD, Olwin BB (2012) Syndecans in skeletal muscle development, regeneration and homeostasis. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J 2:1–9Google Scholar
  150. Pogogeff IA, Murray MR (1946) Form and behavior of adult mammalian skeletal muscle in vitro. Anat Rec 95:321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Porpiglia E, Samusik N, Van Ho AT, Cosgrove BD, Mai T, Davis KL, Jager A, Nolan GP, Bendall SC, Fantl WJ et al (2017) High-resolution myogenic lineage mapping by single-cell mass cytometry. Nat Cell Biol 19:558–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Quarta M, Brett JO, DiMarco R, De Morree A, Boutet SC, Chacon R, Gibbons MC, Garcia VA, Su J, Shrager JB et al (2016) An artificial niche preserves the quiescence of muscle stem cells and enhances their therapeutic efficacy. Nat Biotechnol 34:752–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Rao L, Qian Y, Khodabukus A, Ribar T, Bursac N (2018) Engineering human pluripotent stem cells into a functional skeletal muscle tissue. Nat Commun 9:126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Reimann J, Brimah K, Schroder R, Wernig A, Beauchamp JR, Partridge TA (2004) Pax7 distribution in human skeletal muscle biopsies and myogenic tissue cultures. Cell Tissue Res 315:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Relaix F, Zammit PS (2012) Satellite cells are essential for skeletal muscle regeneration: the cell on the edge returns centre stage. Develepment 139:2845–2856Google Scholar
  156. Relaix F, Montarras D, Zaffran S, Gayraud-Morel B, Rocancourt D, Tajbakhsh S, Mansouri A, Cumano A, Buckingham M (2006) Pax3 and Pax7 have distinct and overlapping functions in adult muscle progenitor cells. J Cell Biol 172:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Richler C, Yaffe D (1970) The in vitro cultivation and differentiation capacities of myogenic cell lines. Dev Biol 23:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Rivier F (2004) Role of bone marrow cell trafficking in replenishing skeletal muscle SP and MP cell populations. J Cell Sci 117:1979–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Rosen GD, Sanes JR, LaChance R, Cunningham JM, Roman J, Dean DC (1992) Roles for the integrin VLA-4 and its counter receptor VCAM-1 in myogenesis. Cell 69:1107–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Rosenblatt JD (1992) A time course study of the isometric contractile properties of rat extensor digitorum longus muscle injected with bupivacaine. Comp Biochem Physiol Comp Physiol 101:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Saini J, McPhee JS, Al-Dabbagh S, Stewart CE, Al-Shanti N (2016) Regenerative function of immune system: Modulation of muscle stem cells. Ageing Res Rev 27:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Sambasivan R, Gayraud-Morel B, Dumas G, Cimper C, Paisant S, Kelly RG, Tajbakhsh S (2009) Distinct regulatory cascades govern extraocular and pharyngeal arch muscle progenitor cell fates. Dev Cell 16:810–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Sampaolesi M, Torrente Y, Innocenzi A, Tonlorenzi R, D’Antona G, Pellegrino MA, Barresi R, Bresolin N, De Angelis MGC, Campbell KP et al (2003) Cell therapy of alpha-sarcoglycan null dystrophic mice through intra-arterial delivery of mesoangioblasts. Science 301:487–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Sancricca C (2010) Vessel-associated stem cells from skeletal muscle: from biology to future uses in cell therapy. World J Stem Cells 2:39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Scharner J, Zammit PS (2011) The muscle satellite cell at 50: the formative years. Skelet Muscle 1:28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Schmalbruch H (1976) The morphology of regeneration of skeletal muscles in the rat. Tissue Cell 8:673–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Schultz E, Gibson MC, Champion T (1978) Satellite cells are mitotically quiescent in mature mouse muscle: an EM and radioautographic study. J Exp Zool 206:451–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Seale P, Sabourin LA, Girgis-Gabardo A, Mansouri A, Gruss P, Rudnicki MA (2000) Pax7 is required for the specification of myogenic satellite cells. Cell 102:777–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Serena E, Zatti S, Zoso A, Lo Verso F, Tedesco FS, Cossu G, Elvassore N (2016) Skeletal muscle differentiation on a chip shows human donor mesoangioblasts’ efficiency in restoring dystrophin in a duchenne muscular dystrophy model. Stem Cells Transl Med 5:1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Shefer G, Van de Mark DP, Richardson JB, Yablonka-Reuveni Z (2006) Satellite-cell pool size does matter: defining the myogenic potency of aging skeletal muscle. Dev Biol 294:50–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Shefer G, Rauner G, Yablonka-Reuveni Z, Benayahu D (2010) Reduced satellite cell numbers and myogenic capacity in aging can be alleviated by endurance exercise. PLoS One 5:e13307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Shelton M, Metz J, Liu J, Carpenedo RL, Demers S-P, Stanford WL, Skerjanc IS (2014) Derivation and expansion of PAX7-positive muscle progenitors from human and mouse embryonic stem cells. Stem Cell Reports 3:516–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Shelton M, Kocharyan A, Liu J, Skerjanc IS, Stanford WL (2016) Robust generation and expansion of skeletal muscle progenitors and myocytes from human pluripotent stem cells. Methods 101:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Shen W, Li Y, Tang Y, Cummins J, Huard J (2005) NS-398, a cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitor, delays skeletal muscle healing by decreasing regeneration and promoting fibrosis. Am J Pathol 167:1105–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Sherwood RI, Christensen JL, Conboy IM, Conboy MJ, Rando TA, Weissman IL, Wagers AJ (2004) Isolation of adult mouse myogenic progenitors: functional heterogeneity of cells within and engrafting skeletal muscle. Cell 119:543–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Sinha-Hikim I, Taylor WE, Gonzalez-Cadavid NF, Zheng W, Bhasin S (2004) Androgen receptor in human skeletal muscle and cultured muscle satellite cells: up-regulation by androgen treatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:5245–5255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Smith AST, Davis J, Lee G, Mack DL, Kim D-H (2016) Muscular dystrophy in a dish: engineered human skeletal muscle mimetics for disease modeling and drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 21:1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Springer ML, Ozawa CR, Blau HM (2002) Transient production of ?-smooth muscle actin by skeletal myoblasts during differentiation in culture and following intramuscular implantation. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton 51:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Steele-Stallard HB, Pinton L, Sarcar S, Ozdemir T, Maffioletti SM, Zammit PS, Tedesco FS (2018) Modeling skeletal muscle laminopathies using human induced pluripotent stem cells carrying pathogenic LMNA mutations. Front Physiol 9:1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Strömberg A, Jansson M, Fischer H, Rullman E, Hägglund H, Gustafsson T (2013) Bone marrow derived cells in adult skeletal muscle tissue in humans. Skelet Muscle 3:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Stumm J, Vallecillo-García P, Vom Hofe-Schneider S, Ollitrault D, Schrewe H, Economides AN, Marazzi G, Sassoon DA, Stricker S (2018) Odd skipped-related 1 (Osr1) identifies muscle-interstitial fibro-adipogenic progenitors (FAPs) activated by acute injury. Stem Cell Res 32:8–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Swartz EW, Baek J, Pribadi M, Wojta KJ, Almeida S, Karydas A, Gao F-B, Miller BL, Coppola G (2016) A novel protocol for directed differentiation of C9orf72-associated human induced pluripotent stem cells into contractile skeletal myotubes. Stem Cells Transl Med 5:1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Tajbakhsh S, Bober E, Babinet C, Pournin S, Arnold H, Buckingham M (1996) Gene targeting the myf-5 locus with nlacZ reveals expression of this myogenic factor in mature skeletal muscle fibres as well as early embryonic muscle. Dev Dyn 206:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S (2006) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126:663–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Takano H, Komuro I, Oka T, Shiojima I, Hiroi Y, Mizuno T, Yazaki Y (1998) The Rho family G proteins play a critical role in muscle differentiation. Mol Cell Biol 18:1580–1589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Tamaki T, Akatsuka A, Yoshimura S, Roy RR, Edgerton VR (2002) New fiber formation in the interstitial spaces of rat skeletal muscle during postnatal growth. J Histochem Cytochem 50:1097–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Tamaki T, Akatsuka A, Okada Y, Matsuzaki Y, Okano H, Kimura M (2003) Growth and differentiation potential of main- and side-population cells derived from murine skeletal muscle. Exp Cell Res 291:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Tanaka KK, Hall JK, Troy AA, Cornelison DDW, Majka SM, Olwin BB (2009) Syndecan-4-expressing muscle progenitor cells in the SP engraft as satellite cells during muscle regeneration. Cell Stem Cell 4:217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Tedesco FS, Dellavalle A, Diaz-Manera J, Messina G, Cossu G (2010) Repairing skeletal muscle: regenerative potential of skeletal muscle stem cells. J Clin Invest 120:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Tedesco FS, Gerli MFM, Perani L, Benedetti S, Ungaro F, Cassano M, Antonini S, Tagliafico E, Artusi V, Longa E et al (2012) Transplantation of genetically corrected human iPSC-derived progenitors in mice with limb-girdle muscular dystrophy. Sci Transl Med 4:140ra89–140ra89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Tierney MT, Sacco A (2016) Satellite cell heterogeneity in skeletal muscle homeostasis. Trends Cell Biol 26:434–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Torrente Y, Belicchi M, Sampaolesi M, Pisati F, Meregalli M, D’Antona G, Tonlorenzi R, Porretti L, Gavina M, Mamchaoui K et al (2004) Human circulating AC133(+) stem cells restore dystrophin expression and ameliorate function in dystrophic skeletal muscle. J Clin Invest 114:182–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Torrente Y, Belicchi M, Marchesi C, D’Antona G, Cogiamanian F, Pisati F, Gavina M, Giordano R, Tonlorenzi R, Fagiolari G et al (2007) Autologous transplantation of muscle-derived CD133+ stem cells in Duchenne muscle patients. Cell Transplant 16:563–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Uezumi A, Fukada S, Yamamoto N, Takeda S’i, Tsuchida K (2010) Mesenchymal progenitors distinct from satellite cells contribute to ectopic fat cell formation in skeletal muscle. Nat Cell Biol 12:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Uezumi A, Ito T, Morikawa D, Shimizu N, Yoneda T, Segawa M, Yamaguchi M, Ogawa R, Matev MM, Miyagoe-Suzuki Y et al (2011) Fibrosis and adipogenesis originate from a common mesenchymal progenitor in skeletal muscle. J Cell Sci 124:3654–3664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. van Velthoven CTJ, de Morree A, Egner IM, Brett JO, Rando TA (2017) Transcriptional profiling of quiescent muscle stem cells in vivo. Cell Rep 21:1994–2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Vilquin J-T, Catelain C, Vauchez K (2011) Cell therapy for muscular dystrophies: advances and challenges. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 16:640–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. Volonte D, Liu Y, Galbiati F (2005) The modulation of caveolin-1 expression controls satellite cell activation during muscle repair. FASEB J 19:237–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Walsh FS, Ritter MA (1981) Surface antigen differentiation during human myogenesis in culture. Nature 289:60–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Weintraub H (1993) The MyoD family and myogenesis: redundancy, networks, and thresholds. Cell 75:1241–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Wernig G, Janzen V, Schäfer R, Zweyer M, Knauf U, Hoegemeier O, Mundegar RR, Garbe S, Stier S, Franz T et al (2005) The vast majority of bone-marrow-derived cells integrated into mdx muscle fibers are silent despite long-term engraftment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:11852–11857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. Whalen RG, Harris JB, Butler-Browne GS, Sesodia S (1990) Expression of myosin isoforms during notexin-induced regeneration of rat soleus muscles. Dev Biol 141:24–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Xu X, Wilschut KJ, Kouklis G, Tian H, Hesse R, Garland C, Sbitany H, Hansen S, Seth R, Knott PD et al (2015) Human satellite cell transplantation and regeneration from diverse skeletal muscles. Stem Cell Reports 5:419–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. Xu C-Y, Liu S-Q, Qin M-B, Zhuge C-F, Qin L, Qin N, Lai M-Y, Huang J-A (2017) SphK1 modulates cell migration and EMT-related marker expression by regulating the expression of p-FAK in colorectal cancer cells. Int J Mol Med 39:1277–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. Yablonka-Reuveni Z (2011) The skeletal muscle satellite cell: still young and fascinating at 50. J Histochem Cytochem 59:1041–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. Yamaguchi M, Ogawa R, Watanabe Y, Uezumi A, Miyagoe-Suzuki Y, Tsujikawa K, Yamamoto H, Takeda S, Fukada S (2012) Calcitonin receptor and Odz4 are differently expressed in Pax7-positive cells during skeletal muscle regeneration. J Mol Histol 43:581–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. Yao Y, Norris EH, Mason EC, Strickland S (2016) Laminin regulates PDGFRβ+ cell stemness and muscle development. Nat Commun 7:11415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Yin H, Price F, Rudnicki MA (2013) Satellite cells and the muscle stem cell niche. Physiol Rev 93:23–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. Young CS, Hicks MR, Ermolova NV, Nakano H, Jan M, Younesi S, Karumbayaram S, Kumagai-Cresse C, Wang D, Zack JA, Kohn DB, Nakano A, Nelson SF, Miceli MC, Spencer MJ, Pyle AD (2016) A single CRISPR-cas9 deletion strategy that targets the majority of DMD patients restores dystrophin function in hiPSC-derived muscle cells. Cell Stem Cell 18:533–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Zammit PS (2008) All muscle satellite cells are equal, but are some more equal than others? J Cell Sci 121:2975–2982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. Zammit PS (2017) Function of the myogenic regulatory factors Myf5, MyoD, Myogenin and MRF4 in skeletal muscle, satellite cells and regenerative myogenesis. Semin Cell Dev Biol 72:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. Zammit PS, Heslop L, Hudon V, Rosenblatt JD, Tajbakhsh S, Buckingham ME, Beauchamp JR, Partridge TA (2002) Kinetics of myoblast proliferation show that resident satellite cells are competent to fully regenerate skeletal muscle fibers. Exp Cell Res 281:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. Zammit PS, Golding JP, Nagata Y, Hudon V, Partridge TA, Beauchamp JR (2004) Muscle satellite cells adopt divergent fates: a mechanism for self-renewal? J Cell Biol 166:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. Zammit PS, Relaix F, Nagata Y, Ruiz AP, Collins CA, Partridge TA, Beauchamp JR (2006) Pax7 and myogenic progression in skeletal muscle satellite cells. J Cell Sci 119:1824–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. Zeng W, Jiang S, Kong X, El-Ali N, Ball AR, Ma CI-H, Hashimoto N, Yokomori K, Mortazavi A (2016) Single-nucleus RNA-seq of differentiating human myoblasts reveals the extent of fate heterogeneity. Nucleic Acids Res 44:e158. gkw739Google Scholar
  216. Zheng B, Cao B, Crisan M, Sun B, Li G, Logar A, Yap S, Pollett JB, Drowley L, Cassino T et al (2007) Prospective identification of myogenic endothelial cells in human skeletal muscle. Nat Biotechnol 25:1025–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. Zuba-Surma EK, Kucia M, Ratajczak J, Ratajczak MZ (2009) “Small stem cells” in adult tissues: very small embryonic-like stem cells stand up! Cytom Part A 75:4–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Randall Centre for Cell and Molecular BiophysicsKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations