4.7 Article

Human multipotent stromal cells undergo sharp transition from division to development in culture

期刊

STEM CELLS
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 193-201

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0524

关键词

multipotent stromal cells; microarray; mesenchymal stem cells; transcriptome; transplantation

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P40 RR 17447] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL073252, HL073755] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [P40RR017447] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL073755, R01HL073252] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human mesenchymal stem cells, or multipotent stromal cells (MSCs), are of interest for clinical therapy, in part because of their capacity for proliferation and differentiation. However, results from clinical trials and in vitro models have been variable, possibly because of MSC heterogeneity and a lack of standardization between MSC in vitro expansion protocols. Here we defined changes in MSCs during expansion in vitro. In low-density cultures, MSCs expand through distinct lag, exponential growth, and stationary phases. We assayed cultures of passage 2 human MSCs from three donors at low density ( 50 cells per cm(2)) at approximately 5% confluence on day 2 and after the cultures had expanded to approximately 70% confluence on day 7. On day 2, genes involved in cell division were upregulated. On day 7, genes for cell development were upregulated. The variations among three donors were less than the variation within the expansion of MSCs from a single donor. The microarray data for selected genes were confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and FACScan analysis. Approximately 50% of cells at day 2 were in S-phase compared with 10% at day 7. The results demonstrated major differences in early and late stage cultures of MSCs that should be considered in using the cells in experiments and clinical applications.

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