F1000Research F1000Research 2046-1402 F1000 Research Limited London, UK 10.12688/f1000research.15423.1 Research Article Articles Osteogenic potential of gingival stromal progenitor cells cultured in platelet rich fibrin is predicted by core-binding factor subunit-α1/Sox9 expression ratio ( in vitro)

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

 Nugraha Alexander Patera Conceptualization Data Curation Formal Analysis Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Software Supervision Validation Visualization Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7427-7561 1 2 3 Narmada Ida Bagus Conceptualization Data Curation Formal Analysis Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Software Supervision Validation Visualization Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2453-9601 2 Ernawati Diah Savitri Conceptualization Data Curation Formal Analysis Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Software Supervision Validation Visualization Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 4 Dinaryanti Aristika Conceptualization Data Curation Formal Analysis Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Software Supervision Validation Visualization Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 3 Hendrianto Eryk Conceptualization Data Curation Formal Analysis Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Software Supervision Validation Visualization Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 3 Ihsan Igo Syaiful Conceptualization Data Curation Formal Analysis Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Software Supervision Validation Visualization Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 3 Riawan Wibi Conceptualization Data Curation Formal Analysis Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Software Supervision Validation Visualization Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 5 Rantam Fedik Abdul Conceptualization Data Curation Formal Analysis Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Software Supervision Validation Visualization Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8182-1465 a 3 6 Graduate School of Immunology, Postgraduate School, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, 60132, Indonesia Orthodontic Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, 60132, Indonesia Stem Cell Research and Development Center, Universitas Airlangga,, Surabaya, 60132, Indonesia Oral Medicine Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, 60132, Indonesia Biochemistry Biomolecular Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, 65145, Indonesia Virology and Immunology Laboratory, Microbiology Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Airlangga., Surabaya, 60132, Indonesia fedik-a-r@fkh.unair.ac.id

No competing interests were disclosed.

 25 7 2018 2018 7 1134 10 7 2018 Copyright: © 2018 Nugraha AP et al. 2018 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background: Alveolar bone defect regeneration has long been problematic in the field of dentistry. Gingival stromal progenitor cells (GSPCs) offer a promising solution for alveolar bone regeneration. In order to optimally differentiate and proliferate progenitor cells, growth factors (GFs) are required. Platelet rich fibrin (PRF) has many GFs and can be easily manufactured. Core-binding factor subunit-α1 (CBF-α1) constitutes a well-known osteogenic differentiation transcription factor in SPCs. Sox9, as a chondrogenic transcription factor, interacts and inhibits CBF-α1, but its precise role in direct in vitro osteogenesis remains unknown. GSPCs cultured in vitro in PRF to optimally stimulate osteogenic differentiation has been largely overlooked. The aim of this study was to analyze GSPCs cultured in PRF osteogenic differentiation predicted by CBF-α1/Sox9.

Methods: This study used a true experimental with post-test only control group design and random sampling. GPSCs isolated from the lower gingiva of four healthy, 250-gram, 1-month old, male Wistar rats ( Rattus Novergicus) were cultured for two weeks, passaged every 4–5 days. GSPCs in passage 3–5 were cultured in five M24 plates (N=108; n=6/group) for Day 7, Day 14, and Day 21 in three different mediums (control negative group: αModified Eagle Medium; control positive group: High Glucose-Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM-HG) + osteogenic medium; Treatment group: DMEM-HG + osteogenic medium + PRF). CBF-α1 and Sox9 were examined with ICC monoclonal antibody. A one-way ANOVA continued with Tukey HSD test (p<0.05) based on Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Levene's tests (p>0.05) was performed.

Results: The treatment group showed the highest CBF-α1/Sox9 ratio (16.00±3.000/14.33±2.517) on Day 7, while the lowest CBF-α1/Sox9 ratio (3.33±1.528/3.67±1.155) occurred in the control negative group on Day 21, with significant difference between the groups (p<0.05).

Conclusion: GSPCs cultured in PRF had potential osteogenic differentiation ability predicted by the CBF-α1/sox9 ratio.

 Core-Binding Factor Subunit-α Gingival Stromal Progenitor Cells Osteogenic Differentiation Platelet Rich Fibrin Sox9. Kementerian Riset Teknologi Dan Pendidikan Tinggi Republik Indonesia 2146/D3/PG/2017 The research was funded by the Progam Menuju Doktor Sarjana Unggul (PMDSU) Batch III of the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia (Kemenristekdikti RI) (letter of appointment agreement number, 1035/D3/PG/2017; grant number 2146/D3/PG/2017). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Introduction

Dental caries represents a major global dental public health problem because of their high prevalence. The World Health Organization reported that almost 90% of people worldwide suffered from caries 1 . Basic Health Research of National Health (RISKESDAS) in 2013 reported that 93,998,727 Indonesians, 53.2% of the population, suffered from active caries 2 . Dental caries must be treated appropriately because, if neglected, they become so severe that the affected teeth must be extracted. Indeed, the most common cause of tooth loss is dental caries 3 . Populations experiencing low socioeconomic conditions demonstrate higher prevalence and extent of tooth loss because of extremely limited access to dental treatment 4 .

Tooth extraction has been the most common form of dental treatment performed in Indonesia that can lead to bone defects. RISKESDAS statistics dating from 2014 indicated that treatment involving tooth extraction reached as high as 79.6% of cases 5 . A previous study of tooth extraction-related complications revealed the prevalence of fractures (31.82%), bleeding (4.54%) and swelling (2.27%) 6 . Tooth extraction can lead to alveolar bone resorption and the destruction of alveolar bone components. Moreover, it may lead to resorption of the jawbone 7 . Tooth extraction followed by buccolingual and apicocoronal dimension reduction of the alveolar ridge at the edentulous site might be performed due to bone defects 8 .

Alveolar bone defect regeneration has long represented a challenge in the field of dentistry. Various efforts have been made to accelerate bone regeneration, such as using bone grafts. The most current treatment performed in relation to the alveolar bone involves the use of platelet rich fibrin (PRF). PRF materials encouraging bone regeneration therapy have significantly improved the clinical outcomes stemming from the treatment of infrabony defects. PRF has achieved this through the maintaining of space for tissue regeneration by inducing an osteoinductive and osteoconductive effect in the alveolar bone defect area 9 .

Nowadays, alveolar bone defect treatment involving PRF using stromal progenitor cells (SPCs) is becoming increasingly widespread. SPCs have the advantage of being able to repair and regenerate various organs and tissue, and have been considerably used in bone tissue engineering, which offers encouraging solutions for bone regeneration 10, 11 . SPCs are non-hematopoietic stromal cells. They have multipotent capabilities, including immunomodulators and immunoregulators, paracrine, autocrine action, and migrate directly to the tissue initiating healing and regeneration making SPCs particularly suitable for regenerative medicine development 12– 14 .

The orofacial region is a unique and rich source of SPCs. Those contained in the oral cavity and tooth tissue represent an emerging interesting and topical object for investigation because isolating progenitor cells from the oral tissues can be achieved with minimal invasive procedures compared to bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell (BMSC) obtainment. The utilization of progenitor cells from the oral cavity is still rarely studied and applied. However, it is potentially advantageous for tissue regeneration and, therefore, merits further investigation 15 .

The SPCs that are potentially useful as part of regenerative alveolar bone therapy are gingival stromal progenitor cells (GSPCs) derived from hyperplastic gingival tissue (gum overgrowth) by means of a gingivectomy. GSPCs have phenotypic characteristics and abilities similar to those of BMSCs. GSPCs possess self-renewal capabilities and also demonstrate the specific ability to regenerate into alveolar bone when transplanted into immunocompromised mice. GSPCs also specifically induce bone matrix formation in lamellar structures by recruiting host cells 11, 15– 17 . The osteogenic ability of GSPCs needs to be explored for further application and therapy.

During skeletal formation, master transcription genes such core-binding factor subunit-α (CBF-α1) and Osterix have been identified 18 . However, their specific and distinct roles in various tissue types are still unclear. Sox9 is well known as a master gene regulator during chondrogenic differentiation, while CBF-α1 plays an important role during osteogenic differentiation. GSPCs, as osteoprogenitors and chondroprogenitors, express Sox9 and Runx2 during skeletal formation condensation. There is also a direct interaction between Sox9 and CBF-α1, which inhibits Sox9 activity 18 . Sox9 inhibitory effect on osteoblast maturation through CBF-α1 is an essential mechanism for osteo-chondroprogenitor fate determination 19 .

In order for GSPCs to differentiate and proliferate optimally they require growth factors (GFs), various varieties of which are shown to promote osteogenic differentiation of SPCs in vitro. PRF is predicted to be combined to promote SPCs osteogenic differentiation and ensure mineralization in vitro 19 . PRF can be easily produced by centrifuging without anticoagulants. PRF is rich in GFs consisting of platelet derived growth factor-β (PDGF-β), transforming growth factor-β1 (TGFβ-1), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and insulin growth factor (IGF-I). PRF provides an effective scaffold to facilitate osteogenic differentiation of GSPCs 20– 23 .

The osteogenic differentiation of GSPCs can be detected by various osteogenic marker expressions, such as CBF-α1 expression. The observed osteogenic markers of GSPCs are CBF subunit-α1 (CBF-α1) and Sox9 24, 25 . Nonetheless, there is insufficient information regarding Sox9’s role in osteogenesis of GPSCs in vitro. A study conducted by Stockl et al. mentioned that Sox9 plays a positive proliferative role in inhibiting and delaying osteogenic differentiation in rat SPCs 26 .

The hypothesis of the current study is that GSPCs cultured in PRF can increase the CBF-α1/Sox9 expression ratio during osteogenic differentiation. Furthermore, a second objective was to analyze GSPCs cultured in PRF osteogenic differentiation predicted by CBF-α1/Sox9 expression ratio.

 Methods Ethical clearance

This study received ethical clearance relating to animal subjects from the Ethics Research Committee, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia (number 289/HRECC.FODM/XII/2017). The research was conducted at an experimental laboratory within the Stem Cell and Tissue Engineering Development Centre, Universitas Airlangga.

 Research design and experimental animals

The research was fully experimental with a post-test only control group design. Sample groups were selected by means of simple random number sampling. Each animal was assigned a unique number, which were picked out of a hat by a blindfolded researcher.

The subjects consisted of male Wistar rats ( Rattus norvegicus; n=4), who were adapted to the environment for 7 days. Wistar rats were obtained and cared for at the Stem Cell Animal Laboratory, Universitas Airlangga. All animals were housed in polycarbonate cages, subjected to a 12-hour light-dark cycle at the constant temperature of 23°C, and fed a standard pellet diet (expanded pellets; Stepfield, UK) with tap water ad libitum at a temperature of 22°C±2°C.

GPSCs were isolated from the lower gingival tissue of four 1-month old, healthy, mean weight = 250g, male rats through a gingivectomy, before the rats were euthanized with doses 60mg/body weight of ketamine and xylazine. Animal suffering was reduced when removing the GPSCs using rodent’s anesthesia (intramuscular injection at 0.05–0.1ml/10g body weight rodent anesthesia: ketamine, xylazine, acepromazine, and sterile isotonic saline; Sigma Aldrich, USA) following Duan et al’s method 23 .

GPSCs was passaged every 4–5 days following Rantam et al’s SPCs culture method 27 . GSPCs in passage 3–5 were cultured in five M24 plates (Sigma-Aldrich) (N=108; n=6/group) until Day 7, Day 14 and Day 21 in three different culture mediums (control negative group, control positive group and treatment group; see below for details).

Sample size (n=4 for GPSCs isolation; n=36 for PRF isolation) was based on Lemeshow's formula to determine minimum sample size

 Platelet rich fibrin isolation

A different population of rats were used for PRF isolation (n=36; 36 month old; mean weight = 250g). These male Wistar rats were maintained as above. Blood was aspirated through the left ventricle of each animals’ heart, after anesthesia had been administered by injection using a 60mg/body weight dose of ketamine and a 3mg/body weight dose of xylazine (Sigma Aldrich). 1.5ml of blood was aspirated using a 3ml disposable syringe and then inserted in a vacutainer tube without an anticoagulant before being centrifuged at 3000 rpm/min for 10min (Kubota, Tokyo, Japan). The centrifuging was performed by inserting two balance tubes containing water with the same weight as the tube of blood. When the tube is removed from the centrifuge, three layers will appear that are divided into three sections; the lower section consists of red blood cells, the middle section contains PRF and the upper section is formed of acellular plasma. The PRF was then isolated after which the PRF was cut into small pieces using sterile scissors and inserted into each culture plate of the treatment group 22, 28, 29 .

 Osteogenic differentiation in a combination of platelet rich fibrin and gingival stromal progenitor cells

The analysis was conducted on three groups, consisting of two control groups and one experimental group.

GSPC treatment group: GSPCs were cultured with PRF and containing ITS plus, 2mM L-glutamine, 100μg/ml sodium pyruvate, 0.2mM ascorbic acid-2 phosphate, dexamethasone 10-7 M (GeneTex, Taiwan), 10ng/ml TGF-β3 and high-dose glucose-Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM-HG) (Sigma Aldrich).

Positive control group: GSPCs were placed on an osteogenic medium culture plate of ITS plus, 2 mM L-glutamine, 100μg/ml sodium pyruvate 0.2mM ascorbic acid-2 phosphate, dexamethasone 10-7 M (GeneTex).

Negative control group: GSPCs were cultured with αModified Eagle Medium (αMEM) (Sigma Aldrich).

Every three days, every group cell medium was replaced. Osteogenic differentiation was evaluated on Day 7, 14, 21 culture cells groups 16 .

GSPCs cultured cells were coated with coverslips and, after incubation at 37°C for 1 - 2 hours, were fixed using 10% formaldehyde for 15 min. The coverslips were then rinsed four times with PBS and dried for several minutes. The cells were blocked with PBS and FBS 1% for 15–30 minutes and washed with PBS four times. The samples were then examined following immunocytochemical staining by indirect technique using a 3.3'-diaminobenzidine stain kit (Pierce DAB Substrate Paint Kit 34002, Thermofisher TM, Waltham, MA, USA) and monoclonal antibodies (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Dallas, TX, USA): anti-CBF-α1 (mouse monoclonal; sc-101145) and anti-Sox9 (mouse monoclonal; sc-166505). CBF-α1 and Sox9 expression was read using a light microscope (CX22 Binocular, Olympus) at 200x magnification. Every cell expressing CBF1-α or Sox9 in one field was examined three times by three experts (WR, EH and FAR) and the mean was then calculated 27, 30, 31 .

 Data analysis

The data obtained was analyzed using ANOVA continued with Tukey HSD test (p<0.05) based on a Saphiro-Wilk normality test and a Levene's variance of homogeneity test (p>0.05). Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.0 (IBM SPSS, Chicago, USA).

The experiments were replicated 3 times (n=54). The data was then duplicated (n=108) using an estimation formula and SPSS (see Supplementary File 1 and Supplementary File 2) 32 .

 Results

The highest average CBF-α1 expression was in the treatment group on Day 7, whereas the lowest was in the control (-) group on Day 21 ( Figure 1 and Figure 2). Sox9 expression had the highest mean value in the treatment group on Day 7, while its lowest value was in the negative control group on Day 21 ( Figure 3 and Figure 4).

Core-binding factor subunit-α1 (CBF-α1) expression in gingival stromal progenitor cells (GSPCs) of Wistar rats ( <italic toggle="yes">Rattus Novergicus</italic>).

(A-C) CBF-α1 expression in the negative control group; (D-F) CBF-α1 expression in the positive control group; (G-I) CBF-α1 expression in the treatment group. CBF-α1 expression in GSPCs was observed on Days 7, 14 and 21. Positive CBF-α1 expression is highlighted in brown (red arrow) following an examination at 200x magnification (n=1).

 Mean core-binding factor subunit-α1 (CBF-α1) expression on Days 7, 14, 21 in each treatment group (n=6). Sox9 expression in gingival stromal progenitor cells (GSPCs) of Wistar rats ( <italic toggle="yes">Rattus Novergicus</italic>).

(A-C) Sox9 expression in the negative control group; (D-F) Sox9 expression in the positive control group; (G-I) Sox9 expression in the treatment group. Sox9 expression in GSPCs was observed on Days 7, 14 and 21. Positive Sox9 expression is highlighted in brown (red arrow) following examination at 200x magnification (n=1).

 Mean Sox9 expression on Days 7, 14, 21 in each treatment group (n=6).

The treatment group recorded the highest CBF-α1/Sox9 ratio (16.00±3.000/14.33±2.517/) on Day 7 while the lowest CBF-α1/Sox9 ratio (3.33±1.528/3.67±1.155) was registered by the control negative group on Day 21 ( Table 1). The data obtained was normal with homogeneous distribution (p>0.05). There was significant difference between CBF-α1 and Sox9 expression in each group (p<0.05) ( Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Table 2).

CBF-α1/Sox9 expression ratio between groups.
Day CBF-α1 expression Sox9 expression P-value *
Negative control group Positive control group Treatment group Negative control group Positive control group Treatment group
7 9.00±2.000 11.33±1.528 16.00±3.000 5.67±1.155 11.00±1.00 14.33±2.517 0.00
14 7.33±1.528 9.33±0.577 11.67±2.082 2.67±0.577 7.33±1.528 11.33±1.528 0.00
21 3.33±1.528 8.33±1.155 10.67±1.528 2.33±1.155 6.00±1.000 9.00±2.000 0.00

Results are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. *One-way ANOVA, significant at p<0.05.

CBF-α1: core-binding factor subunit-α1.

 Discussion

GSPCs cultured in PRF expressed CBF-α1 strongly. In this study, the highest CBF-α1 expression was recorded by the treatment group on Day 7, with significant difference between groups. The CBF-α1 expression declined between Day 14 and Day 21. The results of this study were in line with the research by Zou et al., which suggested that CBF-α1 expression is used to detect the osteogenic ability of SPCs using yellow fluorescent protein 33 .

CBF-α1 is a master key gene transcription factor associated with osteoblast differentiation, which initiates temporally and spatially controlled osteogenesis. Disturbances to CBF-α1 result in obstacles to bone formation because osteoblast differentiation cannot occur. Loss of CBF-α1 expression gene function in the early stages will interfere with osteogenic differentiation and homeostasis in bone development. CBF-α1 is often expressed strongly between Day 7 and Day 14 23, 25 . Osterix and CBF-α1 periodically regulate osteoblast differentiation processes 34, 35 . A study conducted by Loebel et al. showed that CBF-α1 expression increased on Day 7, while Duan et al.’s study demonstrated that CBF-α1 expression increased on Day 12 as detected by RT-PCR 19, 23 . Such findings differed from the results of this study due to the contrasting methods and samples employed, but there were similarities in that CBF-α1 was an early marker of osteogenic differentiation.

CBF-α1 plays an important role in the early stages of BMSCs differentiation into preosteoblasts. CBF-α1 is generally a preliminary regulator and Osterix is a regulator activator during osteoblast differentiation. Both of these osteoblastogenic coding genes are stimulated and regulated by various signaling pathways, such as the canonical Wnt signaling pathway and bone morphogenetic protein (BMP). Wnt/Cytosolic β-catenin stimulates osteoblastogenesis through the activation of osteogenic transcription factors CBF-α1 and Osterix 36 . CBF-α1 is known as an important regulatory gene during osteogenic development by enhancing specific osteoblastic differentiation by inducing osteogenic extracellular matrix gene expression during osteoblast maturation, such as collagen-Iα, alkaline phosphatase, and osteocalcin 33 .

In the present study, the GSPCs cultured in PRF stimulates CBF-α1 expression because PRF is rich in various GFs, such as TGFβ-1, PDGF, IGF, VEGF, FGF, EGF, and HGF. PRF promotes migration, proliferation and differentiation of mesenchmymal stem cells as well as neovascularization and collagen synthesis. PRF also promotes, accelerates and improves the quality of soft and bone tissue regeneration 23 . According to Li et al., PRF significantly promotes the induction of mineralization of progenitor cells in alveolar bone, and endogenous stem cells present in the dental tissue that increases exclusively in CBF-α1 expression 37, 38 .

Interestingly, GSPCs cultured PRF in this study increased Sox9 even in an osteogenic culture medium with significant difference with the control groups. In this study, the highest Sox9 expression occurred in the treatment group on Day 7. The results of this study were supported by those of a study by Sumarta et al., which stated that SPCs cultured in PRF stimulate Sox9 expression 22 . Sox9 expression showed a positive expression, thereby establishing the role of Sox9 during bone formation. In a knockout Sox9 animal model, osteogenic differentiation was also delayed 39 . Significantly, recent genetics studies stated that Sox9 in SPCs could eventually differentiate into osteoblasts 40 . Therefore, the inhibitory effect of Sox9 on osteoblastic and chondrocyte maturation via repression of CBF-alpha1 function is an essential mechanism for osteo-chondroprogenitor cell fate determination 41 .

In this study, GSPCs-cultured PRF regulated and stimulated both CBF-α1/Sox9 expression ratio on Day 7 with significant difference between groups. The interaction and cooperation between CBF-α1/Sox9 is a mandatory master transcription gene for cartilage and bone development 18 . As Sox9 inhibited and downregulated CBF-α1 on Day 7, it may be even more sensitive to predict osteogenic differentiation ability of SPCs. Furthermore, while Sox9 expression was downregulated, osteogenic differentiation ability was stimulated during early osteogenic differentiation in vitro. Nevertheless, CBF-α1/Sox9 expression ratio on Day 7 could be used to predict the osteogenic differentiation ability of GMSCs, suggesting a balance between CBF-α1/Sox9 in the earlier regulatory bone formation and regeneration 19, 41 .

 Conclusion

GSPCs cultured in PRF increased CBF-α1/Sox9 expression on Day 7. GSPCs cultured in PRF possessed potential osteogenic differentiation ability as predicted by the CBF-α1/sox9 expression ratio. CBF-α1/Sox9 expression constitutes a promising future in vitro screening method employed to detect the earliest osteogenic differentiation of SPCs. Further study is required to analyze any association with CBF-α1/Sox9 expression ratio in vivo.

Data availability

The data referenced by this article are under copyright with the following copyright statement: Copyright: � 2018 Nugraha AP et al.

Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Dataset 1: Raw results for CBF-α1 and Sox9 expression for all time points for all treatment groups (N=108; n=6/group). DOI, 10.5256/f1000research.15423.d210638 42

Dataset 2: Raw image data. DOI, 10.5256/f1000research.15423.d210639 43

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Postgraduate School, Department of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Stem Cell Research and Development Centre, Universitas Airlangga for its support of the research reported here.

 Supplementary material

Supplementary Table 1. Tukey HSD multiple comparison between groups of CBF-α1.

Click here to access the data.

Supplementary Table 2. Tukey HSD multiple comparison between groups of Sox9 expression.

Click here to access the data.

Supplementary File 1: Estimation resume of CBF-α1 expression.

Click here to access the data.

Supplementary File 2: Estimation resume of Sox9 expression.

Click here to access the data.

 Petersen PE Bourgeois D Ogawa H : The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health. Bull World Health Organ. 2005;83(9):661–69. 16211157 2626328 Ministry of Health and National Institute of Health Research and Development: National report on basic health research, RISKESDAS, 2013.Jakarta, Indonesia, 2014 (and additional analysis). Ministry of Health, Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta. Lee JH Oh JY Choi JK : Trends in the incidence of tooth extraction due to periodontal disease: results of a 12-year longitudinal cohort study in South Korea. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2017;47(5):264–272. 29093985 10.5051/jpis.2017.47.5.264 5663665 Susin C Oppermann RV Haugejorden O : Tooth loss and associated risk indicators in an adult urban population from south Brazil. Acta Odontol Scand. 2005;63(2):85–93. 16134547 10.1080/00016350510019694 Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia: Health Profile in Indonesia 2014.Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia. Sekretaris Jenderal. Jakarta,2015. Reference Source Lande R Kepel BJ Siagian KV : Profile of Risk Factor and Complication of Tooth Extraction at RSGM PSPDG-FK Unsrat. Jurnal E-Gigi (Eg). 2015;3(2):1–6. Hamzah Z Kartikasari N : Irrational Tooth Extraction increasing structural and functional bone resorption. Stomatognatic (J. K. G Unej). 2015;12(2):61–6. Schropp L Wenzel A Kostopoulos L : Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003;23(4):313–323. 12956475 Chang IC Tsai CH Chang YC : Platelet-rich fibrin modulates the expression of extracellular signal- regulated protein kinase and osteoprotegerin in human osteoblasts. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010;95:327–32. 20623670 10.1002/jbm.a.32839 Barzilay R Melamed E Offen D : Introducing transcription factors to multipotent mesenchymal stem cells: making transdifferentiation possible. Stem Cells. 2009;27(10):2509–2515. 19591229 10.1002/stem.172 Egusa H Sonoyama W Nishimura M : Stem cells in dentistry--part I: stem cell sources. J Prosthodont Res. 2012;56(3):151–165. 22796367 10.1016/j.jpor.2012.06.001 Augello A Kurth TB De Bari C : Mesenchymal stem cells: a perspective from in vitro cultures to in vivo migration and niches. Eur Cell Mater. 2010;20:121–133. 21249629 10.22203/eCM.v020a11 Law S Chaudhuri S : Mesenchymal stem cell and regenerative medicine: regeneration versus immunomodulatory challenges. Am J Stem Cells. 2013;2(1):22–38. 23671814 3636724 Gao F Chiu SM Motan DA : Mesenchymal stem cells and immunomodulation: current status and future prospects. Cell Death Dis. 2016;7:e2062. 26794657 10.1038/cddis.2015.327 4816164 Egusa H Sonoyama W Nishimura M : Stem cells in dentistry--Part II: Clinical applications. J Prosthodont Res. 2012;56(4):229–248. 23137671 10.1016/j.jpor.2012.10.001 Niibe K Suehiro F Oshima M : Challenges for stem cell-based "regenerative prosthodontics". J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61(1):3–5. 27720168 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.09.001 Miran S Mitsiadis TA Pagella P : Innovative Dental Stem Cell-Based Research Approaches: The Future of Dentistry. Stem Cells Int. 2016;2016: 7231038. 27648076 10.1155/2016/7231038 5018320 Zhou G Zheng Q Engin F : Dominance of SOX9 function over RUNX2 during skeletogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(50):19004–9. 17142326 10.1073/pnas.0605170103 1748167 Loebel C Czekanska EM Bruderer M : In vitro osteogenic potential of human mesenchymal stem cells is predicted by Runx2/Sox9 ratio. Tissue Eng Part A. 2015;21(1–2):115–23. 24980654 10.1089/ten.TEA.2014.0096 4293088 Baek HS Lee HS Kim BJ : Effect of platelet-rich fibrin on repair of defect in the articular disc in rabbit temporomandibular joint by platelet-rich fibrin. Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. 2011;8(6):530–535. Reference Source Kazemi D Fakhrjou A Dizaji VM : Effect of autologous platelet rich fibrin on the healing of experimental articular cartilage defects of the knee in an animal model. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014: 486436. 25028656 10.1155/2014/486436 4083211 Sumarta NPM Pramono DC Hendrianto E : Chondrogenic Differentiation Capacity of Human Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells with Platelet Rich Fibrin Scaffold in Cartilage Regeneration ( In Vitro Study). Bali Med J. 2016;5(3):420–426. 10.15562/bmj.v5i3.295 Duan X Lin Z Lin X : Study of platelet-rich fibrin combined with rat periodontal ligament stem cells in periodontal tissue regeneration. J Cell Mol Med. 2018;22(2):1047–1055. 29368432 5783838 Marie PJ Fromigué O : Osteogenic differentiation of human marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Regen Med. 2006;1(4):539–48. 17465848 10.2217/17460751.1.4.539 Shui C Spelsberg TC Riggs BL : Changes in Runx2/Cbfa1 expression and activity during osteoblastic differentiation of human bone marrow stromal cells. J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18(2):213–21. 12568398 10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.2.213 Stöckl S Göttl C Grifka J : Sox9 modulates proliferation and expression of osteogenic markers of adipose-derived stem cells (ASC). Cell Physiol Biochem. 2013;31(4–5):703–17. 23711496 10.1159/000350089 Rantam FA Ferdiansyah P : Stem cell mesenchymal, Hematopoetic Stem Cells and Application Model.2nd Ed. Surabaya: Airlangga University Press,2014;2:38. Borie E Oliví DG Orsi IA : Platelet-rich fibrin application in dentistry: a literature review. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(5):7922–7929. 26221349 4509294 Rahmawati D Roestamadji RI Yuliati A : Osteogenic ability of combined hematopoetic stem cell, hydroxyapatite graft and platelet rich fibrin on rats (Rattus novergicus). Journal of Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences University. 2017;6(4):88–95. Reference Source Kamadjaja MJK Salim S Rantam FA : Osteogenic Potential Differentiation of Human Amnion Mesenchymal Stem Cell with Chitosan-Carbonate Apatite scaffold ( in vitro study). Bali Med J. 2016;5(3):427–433. 10.15562/bmj.v5i3.296 Ekizer A Yalvac ME Uysal T : Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells enhance bone formation in orthodontically expanded maxillae in rats. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(3):394–399. 25054344 10.2319/031114-177.1 Karangwa I Kotze D : Using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method to Make Inferences on Items of Data Contaminated by Missing Values. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics. 2013;2(3):48–53. 10.11648/j.ajtas.20130203.12 Zou L Kidwai FK Kopher RA : Use of RUNX2 expression to identify osteogenic progenitor cells derived from human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cell Reports. 2015;4(2):190–198. 25680477 10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.01.008 4325195 Brunetti G Mori G D’Amelio P : The crosstalk between the bone and the immune system: Osteoimmunology. Clinical and Developmental Immunology. 2013;2013: 617319. 10.1155/2013/617319 Crotti TN Dharmapatni AA Alias E : Osteoimmunology: Major and Costimulatory Pathway Expression Associated with Chronic Inflammatory Induced Bone Loss. J Immunol Res. 2015;2015: 281287. 26064999 10.1155/2015/281287 4433696 Graves DT Kayal RA Oates T : Chapter 19 - Osteoimmunology in the Oral Cavity (Periodontal Disease, Lesions of Endodontic Origin, and Orthodontic Tooth Movement). Osteoimmunology. 2016;325–344. 10.1016/B978-0-12-800571-2.00019-0 Li Q Pan S Dangaria SJ : Platelet-rich fibrin promotes periodontal regeneration and enhances alveolar bone augmentation. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013: 638043. 23586051 10.1155/2013/638043 3622372 Li Q Reed DA Min L : Lyophilized platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) promotes craniofacial bone regeneration through Runx2. Int J Mol Sci. 2014;15(5):8509–8525. 24830554 10.3390/ijms15058509 4057745 Akiyama H Lyons JP Mori-Akiyama Y : Interactions between Sox9 and beta-catenin control chondrocyte differentiation. Genes Dev. 2004;18(9):1072–1087. 15132997 10.1101/gad.1171104 406296 Akiyama H Kim JE Nakashima K : Osteo-chondroprogenitor cells are derived from Sox9 expressing precursors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(41):14665–14670. 16203988 10.1073/pnas.0504750102 1239942 Zhou G Zheng Q Engin F : Dominance of SOX9 function over RUNX2 during skeletogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(50):19004–19009. 17142326 10.1073/pnas.0605170103 1748167 Nugraha AP Narmada IB Ernawati DS : Dataset 1 in: Osteogenic potential of gingival stromal progenitor stem cells cultured in plasma rich fibrin is predicted by core-binding factor subunit-a1/Sox9 expression ratio ( in vitro). F1000Research. 2018. Data Source Nugraha AP Narmada IB Ernawati DS : Dataset 2 in: Osteogenic potential of gingival stromal progenitor stem cells cultured in plasma rich fibrin is predicted by core-binding factor subunit-a1/Sox9 expression ratio ( in vitro). F1000Research. 2018. Data Source 10.5256/f1000research.16808.r36777 Reviewer response for version 1 Soegiharto Benny M. 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0310-0990 Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 16 8 2018 Copyright: © 2018 Soegiharto BM 2018 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve-with-reservations

First of all, please allow me to congratulate the authors for attempting to undertake this project which I found very interesting and of valuable additional knowledge. The manuscript itself is well-written and well-structured and I have to also commend the authors for this matter. However, I may require some clarifications on the following issues:

 What would be the arguments of dividing into the 3 groups as well as using such media treatment for each group (GSPC, + and - groups). This would be beneficial for readers to replicate in future use.

What would be the reason for determining  the evaluation of osteogenic differentiation on Day 7, 14 and 21 cell groups? At the end of that sentence, there was a quote of another work. However, I think it would make this manuscript even clearer if this could be briefly mentioned.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

NA

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

 10.5256/f1000research.16808.r36776 Reviewer response for version 1 Alhasyimi Ananto Ali 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1402-4543 Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gadjah Mada University (UGM), Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 15 8 2018 Copyright: © 2018 Alhasyimi AA 2018 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve

The authors of this study have investigated the role of  GSPCs cultured in PRF in increasing the CBF-α1/Sox9 expression ratio during osteogenic differentiation. Based on the study results, the authors have concluded that the GSPCs cultured in PRF increased CBF-α1/Sox9 expression on Day 7. The results are certainly interesting and the authors are commended for executing this study. 

However, the authors need to address the following minor concerns: 

General :

Paper is well organized and easy to follow.

Novelty is sufficient and high impact.

To improve the readability, It is recommended that the text is checked by a native English speaking person as many of the sentences might be misunderstood. I suggest a revision of the English grammar structures by an expert editor in revising manuscripts.

 Introduction :

The authors have mentioned “Furthermore, a second objective was …”, however, I didn’t find the first objective. Please change this section

The Introduction section is too long, you can try to simplify this section (please move some of the key mechanism of the materials in enhancing CBF-α1/Sox9 expression in the discussion part

  

Results:

Please provide and add some information about standard deviation of the data in the diagrams.

Please indicate whether the difference is significant or not in your graph/ diagrams as well, using some symbols (asteric).

Discussion :

Discussion of the results is quite comprehensive. In analyzing the results, the authors also show citations from the previous study to support the explanation of these results.

The answer to the hypothesis of this study should be included at the beginning of the discussion section.

Please mention the limitation of this study in the discussion section for

  

References :

The supporting references are too long for the medium article

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Biological tooth movement

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

 10.5256/f1000research.16808.r36488 Reviewer response for version 1 Hong Guang 1 Referee Liaison Center for Innovative Dentistry, Graduate School of Dentistry, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 13 8 2018 Copyright: © 2018 Hong G 2018 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve-with-reservations

This paper needs major revision. I would make the following comments.

Introduction :

1. In final part, you said “Furthermore, a second objective was …”, however I cannot find your first objective. What is the first objective of your study?

 I think you should change this part to “The objective of this study was to analyze GSPCs cultured in PRF osteogenic differentiation predicted by CBF-α1/Sox9 expression ratio. The hypothesis of the current study is that GSPCs cultured in PRF can increase the CBF-α1/Sox9 expression ratio during osteogenic differentiation.” 

2. The reason that why you do this research in necessary in Introduction section. And also please add the that is the problem of current and past research regarding relationship of osteogenic and CBF-α1/Sox9 ratio? 

Methods:

3. The materials section is too long, you can try to simplify this section. 

Discussion :

4. The answer of hypothesis of this study should be included in the discussion section. 

5. The discussion about the experiment method and selection of material is necessary. There was no discussion why expression differences existed. The authors need to discuss based upon the mechanism otherwise the paper is going to be a laboratory report.  

6. Please add the clinical implications of your study and clinical significance of the findings in discussion section. 

7. What is the limitation of this study? You should indicate at this section. 

Figure :

8. Fig. 1 and Fig. 3: Please indicate which pic is A, B, C……. and H, I. 

9. Fig. 2 and Fig. 4: Please add the SD (standard deviation) to your bar graph. And if possible also add the results of statistical analysis to your graph.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

NA

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.