4.2 Article

Effects of harvesting sites and ages on adipose tissue-derived stem cells in rat

期刊

出版社

KOREAN TISSUE ENGINEERING REGENERATIVE MEDICINE SOC
DOI: 10.1007/s13770-014-0410-3

关键词

Adipose tissue-derived stem cells; harvesting site; age

资金

  1. Kosin University College of Medicine
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  3. Korea government (MEST) [2008-0062611]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adipose tissue-derived stem cells (ADSCs) are able to self-renew and to differentiate into various types of cells. For clinical application of ADSCs, the quality of ADSCs in terms of growth and differentiation should be considered. This study investigated whether the ability of ADSCs for growth and differentiation is affected by the harvesting sites of tissue or ages of animals. ADSCs were harvested from subcutaneous (Sub), inguinal (Ing), epididymal (Epi) and mesenteric (Mes) fat pads of Sprague Dawley rats. The expression levels of CD29 and CD90 were not different among harvesting sites of fat tissue. The growth of ADSCs were significantly higher in Ing and Sub during early passages (p2-p4) of cultures than in Epi and Mes. The growth of ADSCs decreased during the late passages (p6-p10) of cultures. Cell growth of ADSCs from animals of different ages was higher in 8weeks-old animals than in 4weeks-, 16 weeks- and 32 weeks-old animals. The expression levels of CD29 and CD90 were similar in all aged animals. There was no expression of CD34 and CD45 in ADSCs of all aged animals. In cell aggregation assay in ADSCs from different aged animals, ADSCs from 8 weeks- and 16 weeks-old animals formed larger cell aggregates than ADSCs from 4 weeks- and 32 weeks-old animals. The frequency of cell aggregation was higher in early passage of 8 weeks-old animals. These results showed that the harvesting sites of tissue and age of animals may influence the growth and differentiation potential of ADSCs. Therefore, the source of ADSCs should be considered for efficient clinical application.

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

4.2
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