4.5 Article

The choriocarcinoma cell line BeWo: syncytial fusion and expression of syncytium-specific proteins

期刊

REPRODUCTION
卷 140, 期 5, 页码 759-766

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/REP-10-0221

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [037244]
  2. Franz-Lanyar-Foundation [331]
  3. Medical University of Graz
  4. EU within the Medical University of Graz [037244]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fusion of the trophoblast-derived choriocarcinoma cell line BeWo can be triggered by forskolin. BeWo cells are regularly used as a cell culture model to mimic in vivo syncytialisation of placental villous trophoblast. The beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin (CGB), placental alkaline phosphatase as well as placental protein 13 (PP13, LGALS13) are exclusively expressed in the syncytiotrophoblast of the human placenta, and CGB is commonly used as a marker of syncytial differentiation. Here we tested the hypothesis that syncytial fusion precedes CGB and LGALS13 expression in trophoblast-derived BeWo cells. BeWo cells were cultured for 48 h in the presence or absence of forskolin and varying concentrations of H-89, a protein kinase A inhibitor that interferes with the forskolin-mediated pathway of syncytial fusion. LGALS13 and CGB expression were quantified by DELFIA and real-time PCR. Cell fusion was determined by morphological analysis and cell counting after immunofluorescence staining. In forskolin-stimulated BeWo cells that were hindered to fuse by treatment with H-89, levels of CGB protein expression were not altered, while LGALS13 protein and mRNA expression decreased significantly to control levels without forskolin. The LGALS13 protein expression data coincided with a significant decrease in syncytial fusion, while CGB protein expression was unaffected by rates of cell fusion and proliferation. We postulate that CGB protein expression is not necessarily linked to syncytial fusion, and thus CGB should be used with great caution as a marker of BeWo cell fusion. Reproduction (2010) 140 759-766

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