4.5 Article

A Simple Method for Large-Scale Generation of Dopamine Neurons From Human Embryonic Stem Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 88, 期 16, 页码 3467-3478

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jnr.22515

关键词

drug screening; Parkinson's disease; transplantation; neural progenitors; pluripotent stem cells

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council
  2. Swedish Parkinson Foundation
  3. Brain Foundation
  4. Soderberg Foundation
  5. Olle Engqvist Byggmastare Foundation
  6. Marie Curie Initial Training Network
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21591837] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dopamine (DA) neurons derived from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are potentially valuable in drug screening and as a possible source of donor tissue for transplantation in Parkinson's disease. However, existing culture protocols that promote the differentiation of DA neurons from hESCs are complex, involving multiple steps and having unreliable results between cultures. Here we report a simple and highly reproducible culture protocol that induces expandable DA neuron progenitors from hESCs in attached cultures. We found that the hESC-derived neuronal progenitors retain their full capacity to generate DA neurons after repeated passaging in the presence of basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) and medium conditioned with PA6 stromal cells. Using immunocytochemistry and RT-PCR, we found that the differentiated DA neurons exhibit a midbrain phenotype and express, e.g., Aldh1a, Ptx3, Nurr1, and Lmx1a. Using HPLC, we monitored their production of DA. We then demonstrated that the expanded progenitors are possible to cryopreserve without loosing the dopaminergic phenotype. With our protocol, we obtained large and homogeneous populations of dopaminergic progenitors and neurons. We conclude that our protocol can be used to generate human DA neurons suitable for the study of disease mechanisms, toxicology, drug screening, and intracerebral transplantation. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据