4.5 Article

Differential effects of platelet rich plasma and washed platelets on the proliferation of mouse MSC cells

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 2485-2490

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-010-0385-7

关键词

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs); Platelet-rich plasma (PRP); Washed platelet (WPLT); Osteogenic differentiation

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [NSFC30900860]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multipotent mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapies are being tested clinically for a variety of disorders. However, despite the remarkable clinical advancements in this field, most applications still use traditional culture media containing fetal bovine serum. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) appears as a novel application for tissue engineering and its effect on bone healing is thought to be mainly dependent on the proliferation promoting function, with the molecular mechanisms largely unknown. In this study, mouse osteogenic progenitor mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) were cultured in PRP or washed platelet (WPLT)-treated wells or in untreated wells, and analyzed on cycloxygenase 2 (COX2) expression (qRT-PCR), cell growth (MTT assay) and cell differentiation (alkaline phosphatase activity). The results showed that PRP and WPLT stimulated cell growth similarly in the first 6 days, together with the steady induction of COX2 and PGE2. 10 mu mol/l celecoxib (an inhibitor of COX2) significantly inhibited the pro-proliferation effects. Interestingly, WPLT had stronger effects than PRP in proliferation at the later time points (6-9 days). ALP activity assay and collagen 1a expression revealed PRP had a mild but statistically significant pro-differentiation effect, while no obvious effects observed in WLPT group. In summary, PRP stimulates initial growth of MSCs in a COX2 partially dependent manner and the less obvious osteogenic differentiation promoting effects of WPLT strongly indicates WPLT rather than the PRP should be the optional choice for expanding MSCs in vitro for clinical use.

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