4.2 Article

Combination of immortalization and inducible death strategies to generate a human mesenchymal stromal cell line with controlled survival

期刊

STEM CELL RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 584-598

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scr.2013.12.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community's Seventh Framework Program (MultiTERM) [238551]
  2. Cell & Gene Therapy, Department of Biomedicine, University Hospital Basel, within the EU-FP7 project 'ANGIOSCAFF' [CP-IP 214402]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hTERT-immortalization of human bonemarrow-derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (hMSCs) was proposed to address availability/standardization issues for experimental or clinical studies, but raised concerns due to possible uncontrolled growth or malignant cell transformation. Here we report a method to generate a hMSCs line with controlled survival, through the implementation of a pre-established suicide system (inducible caspase 9, iCasp9) in hTERT-transduced hMSCs. Primary hMSCs were successfully immortalized (>280 PD) and further transduced with the iCasp9 device. A clone was selected and shown to maintain typical properties of primary hMSCs, including phenotype, differentiation and immunomodulation capacities. The successive transductions did not induce tumorigenic transformation, as assessed by analysis of cell cycle regulators and in vivo luciferase-based cell tracking. Cells could be efficiently induced toward apoptosis (>95%) both in vitro and in vivo. By combining the opposite concepts of 'induced-life' and 'inducible-death', we generated a hMSCs line with defined properties and allowing for temporally controlled survival. The cell line represents a relevant tool for medical discovery in regenerative medicine and a potential means to address availability, standardization and safety requirements in cell & gene therapy. The concept of a hTERT-iCasp9 combination, here explored in the context of hMSCs, could be extended to other types of progenitor/stem cells. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier B. V.

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

4.2
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