4.6 Article

The Phosphate Source Influences Gene Expression and Quality of Mineralization during In Vitro Osteogenic Differentiation of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065943

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [SFB 599, Ho2058/4-1]
  2. Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For in vitro differentiation of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells/mesenchymal stromal cells into osteoblasts by 2-dimensional cell culture a variety of protocols have been used and evaluated in the past. Especially the external phosphate source used to induce mineralization varies considerably both in respect to chemical composition and concentration. In light of the recent findings that inorganic phosphate directs gene expression of genes crucial for bone development, the need for a standardized phosphate source in in vitro differentiation becomes apparent. We show that chemical composition (inorganic versus organic phosphate origin) and concentration of phosphate supplementation exert a severe impact on the results of gene expression for the genes commonly used as markers for osteoblast formation as well as on the composition of the mineral formed. Specifically, the intensity of gene expression does not necessarily correlate with a high quality mineralized matrix. Our study demonstrates advantages of using inorganic phosphate instead of beta-glycerophosphate and propose colorimetric quantification methods for calcium and phosphate ions as cost-and time-effective alternatives to X-ray diffraction and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy for determination of the calcium phosphate ratio and concentration of mineral matrix formed under in vitro-conditions. We critically discuss the different assays used to assess in vitro bone formation in respect to specificity and provide a detailed in vitro protocol that could help to avoid contradictory results due to variances in experimental design.

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