4.3 Article

Stem/progenitor cells from inflamed human dental pulp retain tissue regeneration potential

期刊

REGENERATIVE MEDICINE
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 617-631

出版社

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/RME.10.30

关键词

cytokine; dental pulp stem cell; IL-beta; immunocompromised mice; inflamed pulp; pulp/dentin complex; tissue regeneration; TNF-alpha

资金

  1. American Association of Endodontists Foundation
  2. NIH [RO1 DE17449, R21 DE017632]
  3. NIH/NIAMS
  4. [R01 DE019156-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Potent stem/progenitor cells have been isolated from normal human dental pulps termed dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs). However, it is unknown whether these cells exist in inflamed pulps (IPs). Aims: To determine whether DPSCs can be identified and isolated from IPs; and if they can be successfully cultured, whether they retain tissue regeneration potential in vivo. Materials & methods: DPSCs from freshly collected normal pulps (NPs) and IPs were characterized in vitro and their tissue regeneration potential tested using an in vivo study model. Results: The immunohistochemical analysis showed that IPs expressed higher levels of mesenchymal stem cell markers STRO-1, CD90, CD105 and CD146 compared with NPs (p < 0.05). Flow cytometry analysis showed that DPSCs from both NPs and IPs expressed moderate to high levels of CD146, stage-specific embryonic antigen-4, CD73 and CD166. Total population doubling of DPSCs-IPs (44.6 +/- 2.9) was lower than that of DPSCs-NPs (58.9 +/- 2.5) (p < 0.05), and DPSCs-IPs appeared to have a decreased osteo/dentinogenic potential compared with DPSCs-NPs based on the mineral deposition in cultures. Nonetheless, DPSCs-IPs formed pulp/dentin complexes similar to DPSCs-NPs when transplanted into immunocompromised mice. Conclusion: DPSCs-IPs can be isolated and their mesenchymal stem cell marker profiles are similar to those from NPs. Although some stem cell properties of DPSCs-IPs were altered, cells from some samples remained potent in tissue regeneration in vivo.

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

4.3
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