4.3 Article

Effect of matrix stiffness on the proliferation and differentiation of umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells

Journal

DIFFERENTIATION
Volume 96, Issue -, Pages 30-39

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diff.2017.07.001

Keywords

Umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells; Matrix stiffness; Proliferation; Differentiation

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31201052, 81572139]
  2. Youth Science and Technology Development Fund of Jilin Province [20150520036JH]
  3. Bethune Medical Research Support Program [2013101004]
  4. Bethune Advanced Interdisciplinary Innovation Project [2013101004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are a compatible cellular alternative for regenerative medicine and tissue engineering because of their powerful multipotency. Matrix stiffness plays a profound role on stem cell behavior. Nevertheless, the effect of matrix stiffness on umbilical cordmesenchymal stem cells (UC-MSCs) remains unexplored. To conduct an in-depth exploration, we cultured UC-MSCs on different stiffness (Young's modulus: 13-16, 35-38, 48-53, and 62-68 kPa) polyacrylamide gels coated with fibronectin. We found that the proliferation and adhesion of UC-MSCs varied when cultured on the different matrices, and the spreading capacity was stronger as the stiffness increased (*P < 0.05). Real-time quantitative PCR results showed that the soft matrix promoted adipogenic differentiation, with higher expression levels of adipocytic markers like PPAR. and C/EBPa (*P < 0.05). In contrast, cells tended to differentiate into muscle when cultured on the 48-53 kPa matrix, which was validated by increased expression of myogenic makers like desminand MOYG (*P < 0.05). Moreover, increased expression of osteoblastic makers (*P < 0.05), such as ALP, collagen type I, osteocalcin, and Runx2, confirmed that cells differentiated into bone on the high-stiffness matrix.

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