4.6 Article

Adenoviral Transduction of Mesenchymal Stem Cells: In Vitro Responses and In Vivo Immune Responses after Cell Transplantation

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042662

关键词

-

资金

  1. Science Foundation Ireland [07/IN.1/B925, 09/SRC/B1794]
  2. Health Research Board [RP/2007/60]
  3. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [07/IN.1/B925] Funding Source: Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adult mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are non-hematopoietic cells with multi-lineage potential which makes them attractive targets for regenerative medicine applications. However, to date, therapeutic success of MSC-therapy is limited and the genetic modification of MSCs using viral vectors is one option to improve their therapeutic potential. Ex-vivo genetic modification of MSCs using recombinant adenovirus (Ad) could be promising to reduce undesired immune responses as Ad will be removed before cell/tissue transplantation. In this regard, we investigated whether Ad-modification of MSCs alters their immunological properties in vitro and in vivo. We found that Ad-transduction of MSCs does not lead to up-regulation of major histocompatibility complex class I and II and co-stimulatory molecules CD80 and CD86. Moreover, Ad-transduction caused no significant changes in terms of pro-inflammatory cytokine expression, chemokine and chemokine receptor and Toll-like receptor expression. In addition, Ad-modification of MSCs had no affect on their ability to suppress T cell proliferation in vitro. In vivo injection of Ad-transduced MSCs did not change the frequency of various immune cell populations (antigen presenting cells, T helper and cytotoxic T cells, natural killer and natural killer T cells) neither in the blood nor in tissues. Our results indicate that Ad-modification has no major influence on the immunological properties of MSCs and therefore can be considered as a suitable gene vector for therapeutic applications of MSCs.

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

4.6
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