4.5 Article

Teratoma Formation by Human Embryonic Stem Cells Is Site Dependent and Enhanced by the Presence of Matrigel

期刊

STEM CELLS AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 47-54

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/scd.2007.0266

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  2. Lundbeck foundation
  3. Stem Call Treatment Center at the Odense University Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When implanted into immunodeficient mice, human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) give rise to teratoma, tumor-like formations containing tissues belonging to all three germ layers. The ability to form teratoma is a sine qua non characteristic of pluripotent stem cells. However, limited data are available regarding the effects of implantation site and the methods employed for implantation on the success rate of teratoma formation. In this study, the rate of teratoma formation in immunodeficient mice was site dependent: subcutaneous (25-100%), intratesticular (60%), intramuscular (12.5%), and under the kidney capsule (100%). Co-injecting the hESCs with Matrigel increased subcutaneous teratoma formation efficiency from 25-40% to 80-100%. We did not observe site-specific differences in the teratoma composition at the histological level. However, subcutaneous teratomas were quite distinct, easy to remove, and caused minimal discomfort to the mice. Also, subcutaneous teratomas displayed larger proportion of solid tissues as opposed to cyst formation that dominated the teratomas formed at the other sites. Interestingly, a chromosomally abnormal hESCs with trisomy 20 formed teratomas where the ratio of differentiated to undifferentiated tissues was significantly decreased suggesting defective pluripotency of the cells. In conclusion, subcutaneous implantation of hESCs in presence of Matrigel appears to be the most efficient, reproducible, and the easiest approach for teratoma formation by hESCs. Also, teratoma formation can be employed to study the development defects exhibited by the chromosomally abnormal hESC lines.

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