4.7 Article

Feeder-Free Monolayer Cultures of Human Embryonic Stem Cells Express an Epithelial Plasma Membrane Protein Profile

期刊

STEM CELLS
卷 26, 期 11, 页码 2777-2781

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1634/stemcells.2008-0365

关键词

Embryonic stem cell; Monolayer; Feeder-free; Epithelial; Mesenchymal; Cell-cell adhesion complex

资金

  1. Netherlands Proteomics Centre Bsik
  2. Bsik Dutch Platform for Tissue Engineering
  3. Bsik Stem Cells in Development and Disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are often cocultured on mitotically inactive fibroblast feeder cells to maintain their undifferentiated state. Under these growth conditions, hESCs form multilayered colonies of morphologically heterogeneous cells surrounded by flattened mesenchymal cells. In contrast, hESCs grown in feeder cell-conditioned medium on Matrigel instead tend to grow as monolayers with uniform morphology. Using mass spectrometry and immunofluorescence microscopy, we showed that hESCs under these conditions primarily express proteins belonging to epithelium-related cell-cell adhesion complexes, including adherens junctions, tight junctions, desmosomes, and gap junctions. This indicates that monolayers of hESCs cultured under feeder-free conditions retain a homogeneous epithelial phenotype similar to that of the upper central cell layer of colonies maintained on feeder cells. Notably, feeder-free hESCs also coexpressed vimentin, which is usually associated with mesenchyme, suggesting that these cells may have undergone epithelium-to-mesenchyme transitions, indicating differentiation. However, if grown on a soft substrate (Hydrogel), intracellular vimentin levels were substantially reduced. Moreover, when hESCs were transferred back to feeder cells, expression of vimentin was again absent from the epithelial cell population. These results imply that on tissue culture substrates, vimentin expression is most likely a stress-induced response, unrelated to differentiation. STEM CELLS 2008;26:2777-2781

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