4.5 Article

Long-Term Expansion and Pluripotent Marker Array Analysis of Wharton's Jelly-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells

期刊

STEM CELLS AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 117-130

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC
DOI: 10.1089/scd.2009.0177

关键词

-

资金

  1. Stempeutics Research Pvt Ltd, Bangalore, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) with their multilineage developmental plasticity comprise a promising tool for regenerative cell-based therapy. Despite important biological properties, which the MSCs from different sources share, the differences between them are poorly understood. Hence, it is required to assign a molecular signature to each of these MSC populations, based on stem cell related genes and early lineage or developmental markers. Understanding their propensity to differentiate to different lineages is fundamental for the development of successful cell-based therapies. Culture expansion of MSCs is a prerequisite, since high absolute numbers of stem cells are required to attain a clinical dose. Here, we compared the different culture conditions for long-term expansion of human MSCs isolated from the Wharton's jelly (WJ) of the umbilical cord while preserving their stem cell characteristics and differentiation potential. We find that DMEM-KO and DMEM-F12 are superior as compared to the other media tested in supporting the in vitro expansion of the WJ-MSCs. We studied the gene expression profile of WJ and bone marrow-derived MSCs (BM-MSCs) both at early and late passages using Human Stem Cell Pluripotency Array, and our data revealed differences at the transcriptional level between the two MSC types. Compared to BM-MSCs, WJ-MSCs had higher expression of undifferentiated human embryonic stem cell (hES) markers like NANOG, DNMT3B, and GABRB3, pluripotent/stem cell markers, as well as some early endodermal markers both at early and late passages. To conclude, WJ-MSCs possess properties of true stem cells, which they retain even after extended in vitro culturing.

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