4.7 Article

Characterization of adult prostatic progenitor/stem cells exhibiting self-renewal and multilineage differentiation

期刊

STEM CELLS
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 600-610

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0309

关键词

adult stem cells; cell culture; clonal assays; self-renewal

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA101023, R01-CA101023, T32 CA079448, R01 CA101023-04] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA101023, T32CA079448] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Demonstration of the hallmarks of stem cells, self-renewal and multilineage differentiation, is a challenge that has not been met for numerous tissues postulated to possess adult stem cells, including prostate tissue. Using a defined medium, we reproducibly isolated and maintained adult mouse prostatic cells with characteristics of progenitor/stem cells. Clonal populations of cells demonstrated tissue-specific multilineage differentiation by their ability to generate organized prostatic ductal structures in vivo, with luminal and basal cell layers, when grafted under the renal capsules of mice in the presence of fetal rat urogenital mesenchyme. Complete differentiation was demonstrated by the expression and secretion of terminally differentiated prostatic secretory products into the lumens. Self-renewal was demonstrated by serial transplantation of clonal populations that generated fully differentiated ductal structures in vivo. In vitro, undifferentiated cells expressed markers associated with prostate stem cells, including Sca 1 and CD49f, as well as basal cell markers (p63 and cytokeratins 5 and 14) and, at a low level, luminal cell markers (androgen receptor and cytokeratins 8 and 18). When grafted and allowed to differentiate in the presence of fetal urogenital mesenchyme, the cells differentiated into luminal cells and basal cells with more restricted protein expression patterns. These studies are the first to report a reproducible system to assess adult prostatic progenitor/stem cells.

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

4.7
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