4.2 Article

Effects of Biologic Scaffolds on Human Stem Cells and Implications for CNS Tissue Engineering

期刊

TISSUE ENGINEERING PART A
卷 20, 期 1-2, 页码 313-323

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.tea.2013.0186

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [5R01AR053603]
  2. Ocular Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Ophthalmology (OTERO) Fellowship from the Louis J. Fox Center for Vision Restoration (UPMC)
  3. Ocular Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Ophthalmology (OTERO) Fellowship from the Louis J. Fox Center for Vision Restoration (University of Pittsburgh)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biologic scaffolds composed of mammalian extracellular matrix (ECM) promote constructive remodeling of tissues via mechanisms that include the recruitment of endogenous stem/progenitor cells, modulation of the host innate immune response, and influence of cell fate differentiation. Such scaffold materials are typically prepared by decellularization of source tissues and are prepared as sheets, powder, or hydrogels. It is plausible that ECM derived from an anatomically distinct tissue would have unique or specific effects on cells that naturally reside in this same tissue. The present study investigated the in vitro effect of a soluble form of ECM derived from central nervous system (CNS) tissue, specifically the spinal cord or brain, versus ECM derived from a non-CNS tissue; specifically, the urinary bladder on the behavior of neural stem cells (NSCs) and perivascular stem cells. All forms of ECM induce positive, mitogenic, and chemotactic effects at concentrations of approximately 100 mu g/mL without affecting stem cell viability. CNS-derived ECMs also showed the ability to differentiate NSCs into neurons as indicted by beta III-tubulin expression in two-dimensional culture and neurite extension on the millimeter scale after 24 days of three-dimensional cultures in an ECM hydrogel. These results suggest that solubilized forms of ECM scaffold materials may facilitate the postinjury healing response in CNS tissues.

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