4.5 Article

Molecular and Phenotypic Characterization of Human Amniotic Fluid-Derived Cells: A Morphological and Proteomic Approach

Journal

STEM CELLS AND DEVELOPMENT
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages 1415-1428

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/scd.2014.0453

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CARICHIETI Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mesenchymal Stem Cells derived from Amniotic Fluid (AFMSCs) are multipotent cells of great interest for regenerative medicine. Two predominant cell types, that is, Epithelial-like (E-like) and Fibroblast-like (F-like), have been previously detected in the amniotic fluid (AF). In this study, we examined the AF from 12 donors and observed the prevalence of the E-like phenotype in 5, whereas the F-like morphology was predominant in 7 samples. These phenotypes showed slight differences in membrane markers, with higher CD90 and lower Sox2 and SSEA-4 expression in F-like than in E-like cells; whereas CD326 was expressed only in the E-like phenotype. They did not show any significant differences in osteogenic, adipogenic or chondrogenic differentiation. Proteomic analysis revealed that samples with a predominant E-like phenotype (HC1) showed a different profile than those with a predominant F-like phenotype (HC2). Twenty-five and eighteen protein spots were differentially expressed in HC1 and HC2 classes, respectively. Of these, 17 from HC1 and 4 from HC2 were identified by mass spectrometry. Protein-interaction networks for both phenotypes showed strong interactions between specific AFMSC proteins and molecular chaperones, such as preproteasomes and mature proteasomes, both of which are important for cell cycle regulation and apoptosis. Collectively, our results provide evidence that, regardless of differences in protein profiling, the prevalence of E-like or F-like cells in AF does not affect the differentiation capacity of AFMSC preparations. This may be valuable information with a view to the therapeutic use of AFMSCs.

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