4.7 Article

Human Amniotic Fluid Stem Cells Can Integrate and Differentiate into Epithelial Lung Lineages

Journal

STEM CELLS
Volume 26, Issue 11, Pages 2902-2911

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1634/stemcells.2008-0090

Keywords

Amniotic fluid stem cells; Lung injury; Tissue repair; Regenerative medicine

Funding

  1. NIH National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [HL60231, 44060, 44977, 75773]
  2. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
  3. Childrens Hospital Los Angeles Career Development
  4. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL044977, P01HL060231, R01HL075773, R01HL044060] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A new source of stem cells has recently been isolated from amniotic fluid; these amniotic fluid stem cells have significant potential for regenerative medicine. These cells are multipotent, showing the ability to differentiate into cell types from each embryonic germ layer. We investigated the ability of human amniotic fluid stem cells (hAFSC) to integrate into murine lung and to differentiate into pulmonary lineages after injury. Using microinjection into cultured mouse embryonic lungs, hAFSC can integrate into the epithelium and express the early human differentiation marker thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF1). In adult nude mice, following hyperoxia injury, vein-injected hAFSC localized in the distal lung and expressed both TTF1 and the type II pneumocyte marker surfactant protein C. Specific damage of Clara cells through naphthalene injury produced integration and differentiation of hAFSC at the bronchioalveolar and bronchial positions with expression of the specific Clara cell 10-kDa protein. These results illustrate the plasticity of hAFSC to respond in different ways to different types of lung damage by expressing specific alveolar versus bronchiolar epithelial cell lineage markers, depending on the type of injury to recipient lung. STEM CELLS 2008;26:2902-2911

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available