4.3 Article

Searching for new molecular markers for cells obtained from abdominal aortic aneurysm

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED GENETICS
Volume 62, Issue 3, Pages 487-497

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13353-021-00641-4

Keywords

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA); Gene expression; Layers of AAA; Cytometry useful markers

Funding

  1. Silesian Bio-Farma Center for Biotechnology, Bioengineering and Bioinformatics. Project [POIG.02.01.00-00166/08]
  2. [KNW1-055/K/8/O]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated specific potential markers for cells from different layers of human AAA, identified gene expression differences, and selected new potential cytometry markers. However, none of the tested markers seemed to be optimal for a specific layer.
The aim of the study was to investigate specific potential markers for cells obtained from three layers of human AAA divided into three segments along the AAA based on morphological differences. The isolated cells were compared to control commercial cell types from healthy human abdominal aortas. For each type of aortic layer, three specimens from 6 patients were compared. Total RNA was isolated from 36 cell cultures for gene expression profiling and potential new cytometry markers were typed. Isolated cells were analyzed by flow cytometry by using fluorochrome-conjugated antibodies to markers: CNN1, MYH10, ENG, ICAM2, and TEK. The relative expression of 45 genes in primary cell cultures and control lines was analyzed. Statistically significant differences were found in the expression of most of the analyzed genes between individual layers and control lines. Based on relative expression, antibodies were selected for flow cytometry. Gene expression profiles allowed to select new potential cytometry markers: CNN1, MYH10, MYOCD, ENG, ICAM2, TEK. However, none of the tested markers seems to be optimal and characteristic for a specific layer of AAA.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available