4.5 Article

Phenotypic changes in cultured smooth muscle cells: limitation or opportunity for tissue engineering of hollow organs?

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/term.451

Keywords

tissue engineering; smooth muscle cell; differentiation; cell culture; in vitro; cell expansion

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [5R01EB008051]
  2. Armed Forces Institute for Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM) [W81XWH-08-2-0032]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Smooth muscle cells (SMCs) are typically used as a cell source for the reconstruction of hollow organs by conventional tissue engineering techniques. However, the necessity for and advantage of the use of tissue-specific SMCs are unknown. The present study investigated the phenotypic changes that occur following isolation and in vitro expansion of rat SMC populations isolated from three different tissues: the aorta, oesophagus and urinary bladder. rSMCs were isolated by enzymatic dispersion and expanded by conventional cell culture techniques, yielding microscopically homogeneous populations. SMC phenotypes were monitored according to their expression of marker proteins during the first two passages. Two of the three SMC populations (rSMC-a and rSMC-e) showed a marked change in their marker protein profiles during the first two passages, which resulted in a homogeneous phenotype that was neither fully contractile nor fully synthetic. SMCs from the urinary bladder did not show such a shift. Differences between the three rSMC populations were observed with regard to proliferative activity and gene expression patterns, suggesting the retention of some tissue-specific cell characteristics. In summary, phenotypic changes in SMCs occur as a result of conventional cell isolation and expansion techniques, thus questioning the necessity for a tissue-specific cell source for regenerative medicine applications. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available