4.7 Article

CD200 facilitates the isolation of corneal epithelial cells derived from human pluripotent stem cells

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34845-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [17K11480]
  3. BBSRC [BB/P017843/1, BB/M025349/1, BB/R021244/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The in vitro induction of corneal epithelial cells (CECs) from human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) represents a new strategy for obtaining CE stem/progenitor cells for the surgical reconstruction of a diseased or injured ocular surface. The clinical promise of this strategy is considerable, but if the approaches' potential is to be realised, robust methods for the purification of iPSC-derived CE lineage cells need to be developed to avoid contamination with other cells that may carry the risk of unwanted side effects, such as tumorigenesis. Experiments conducted here revealed that during CEC isolation, CD200-negative selection using a cell sorter considerably reduced the contamination of the cell population with various non-CECs compared with what could be achieved using TRA-1-60, a conventional negative marker for CECs. Furthermore, CD200-negative sorting did not affect the yield of CECs nor that of their stem/progenitor cells. Single-cell gene expression analysis for CEC sheets obtained using CD200-negative sorting showed that all analysed cells were CE-lineage cells, expressing PAX6, delta-N p63, and E-cadherin. Non-CECs, on the other hand, expressed non-CEC genes such as FGFR1 and RPE65. CD200, thus, represents a robust negative marker for purification of induced CE lineage cells, which is expressed by undifferentiated iPSCs and non-CECs, including iPSC-derived neural and retinal cells.

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