4.6 Article

Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells Stimulate Proliferation and Neuronal Differentiation of Retinal Progenitor Cells

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076157

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundations of China [81070737]
  2. Education Commission of Shanghai [11YZ47]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars [[2011]1568]
  4. Shanghai Public Health Bureau [2011Y081]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During retina development, retinal progenitor cell (RPC) proliferation and differentiation are regulated by complex inter-and intracellular interactions. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) are reported to express a variety of cytokines and neurotrophic factors, which have powerful trophic and protective functions for neural tissue-derived cells. Here, we show that the expanded RPC cultures treated with BMSC-derived conditioned medium (CM) which was substantially enriched for bFGF and CNTF, expressed clearly increased levels of nuclear receptor TLX, an essential regulator of neural stem cell (NSC) self-renewal, as well as betacellulin (BTC), an EGF-like protein described as supporting NSC expansion. The BMSC CM- or bFGF-treated RPCs also displayed an obviously enhanced proliferation capability, while BMSC CM-derived bFGF knocked down by anti-bFGF, the effect of BMSC CM on enhancing RPC proliferation was partly reversed. Under differentiation conditions, treatment with BMSC CM or CNTF markedly favoured RPC differentiation towards retinal neurons, including Brn3a-positive retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) and rhodopsin-positive photoreceptors, and clearly diminished retinal glial cell differentiation. These findings demonstrate that BMSCs supported RPC proliferation and neuronal differentiation which may be partly mediated by BMSC CM-derived bFGF and CNTF, reveal potential limitations of RPC culture systems, and suggest a means for optimizing RPC cell fate determination in vitro.

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