3.8 Article

Effect of limbal explant orientation on the histology, phenotype, ultrastructure and barrier function of cultured limbal epithelial cells

Journal

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 85, Issue 4, Pages 377-386

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2006.00873.x

Keywords

cell culture; corneal epithelium; Delta Np63 alpha; limbal explant; ocular surface reconstruction; tissue engineering

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare the histology, phenotype, ultrastructure and barrier function of cultured limbal epithelial cells using two explant culture protocols. Methods: Epithelial cells were cultured for 16 days from limbal explants, positioned with either the stromal side (stromal group) or the epithelial side (epithelial group) on intact amniotic membranes. The cultured epithelium (n = 56) was examined using light microscopy, immunohistochemistry for K3, Cx43, ABCG2 and p63 expression, Western blot analysis of Delta Np63 alpha, transmission electron microscopy, a horseradish peroxidase (HRP) permeability assay and scanning electron microscopy. Results: The epithelial group demonstrated a significantly higher expression of p63-positive cells (85.7 +/- 4.2%) than the stromal group (75.3 +/- 8.9%), and Western blots showed a stronger band of Delta Np63 alpha. K3 and ABCG2 were not detected in either group, whereas Cx43 displayed moderate immunostaining in the suprabasal layer. The number of cell layers, the desmosome number and the undulation length in the epithelial group were not significantly different from those in the stromal group. In both groups, HRP accumulated on the apical surface of the superficial cells, and scanning electron microscopy demonstrated tightly apposed superficial cells. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that limbal explants positioned epithelial side down may give rise to cultured epithelia with higher expression of p63 and Delta Np63 alpha.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available