4.4 Article

An improved protocol that induces human embryonic stem cells to differentiate into neural cells in vitro

Journal

CELL BIOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 80-85

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cellbi.2007.08.015

Keywords

Human embryonic stem (ES) cells; Neural differentiation; Noggin; In vitro

Categories

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [001CB509903, 001CB509904]
  2. Hi-Tech Research and Development Program of China [2001AA216121, 2004AA205010]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30040003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human embryonic stem (ES) cells have the capacity for self-renewal and are able to differentiate into any cell type. However, obtaining high-efficient neural differentiation from human ES cells remains a challenge. This study describes an improved 4-stage protocol to induce a human ES cell line derived from a Chinese population to differentiate into neural cells. At the first stage, embryonic bodies (EBs) were formed in a chemically-defined neural inducing medium rather than in traditional serum or serum-replacement medium. At the second stage, rosette-like structures were formed. At the third stage, the rosette-like structures were manually selected rather than enzymatically digested to form floating neurospheres. At the fourth stage, the neurospheres were further differentiated into neurons. The results show that, at the second stage, the rate of the formation of rosette-like structures from EBs induced by noggin was 88 +/- 6.32%, higher than that of retinoic acid 55 +/- 5.27%. Immunocytochemistry staining was used to confirm the neural identity of the cells. These results show a major improvement in obtaining efficient neural differentiation of human ES cells. (C) 2007 International Federation for Cell Biology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available