4.6 Article

Electrical stimulation of human embryonic stem cells: Cardiac differentiation and the generation of reactive oxygen species

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL CELL RESEARCH
Volume 315, Issue 20, Pages 3611-3619

Publisher

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2009.08.015

Keywords

Human embryonic stem cells; Electrical stimulation; Reactive oxygen species; Cardiac differentiation

Funding

  1. NIH [P41-B002520]
  2. Regione Veneto
  3. Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Exogenous electric fields have been implied in cardiac differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells and the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). In this work, we explored the effects of electrical field stimulation on ROS generation and cardiogenesis in embryoid bodies (EBs) derived from human embryonic stern cells (hESC, line H13), using a custom-built electrical stimulation bioreactor. Electrical properties of the bioreactor system were characterized by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and analysis of electrical currents. The effects of the electrode material (stainless steel, titanium-nitride-coated titanium, titanium), length of stimulus ( 1 and 90 s) and age of EBs at the onset of electrical stimulation (4 and 8 days) were investigated with respect to ROS generation. The amplitude of the applied electrical field was 1 V/mm. The highest rate of ROS generation was observed for stainless steel electrodes, for signal duration of 90 s and for 4-day-old EBs. Notably, comparable ROS generation was achieved by incubation of EBs with 1 nM H2O2. Cardiac differentiation in these EBs was evidenced by spontaneous contractions, expression of troponin T and its sarcomeric organization. These results imply that electrical stimulation plays a role in cardiac differentiation of hESCs, through mechanisms associated with the intracellular generation of ROS. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available