4.6 Article

Neural Progenitors Derived From Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Survive and Differentiate Upon Transplantation Into a Rat Model of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

期刊

STEM CELLS TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 167-174

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.5966/sctm.2012-0042

关键词

Spinal cord injury; Stem cell transplantation; Rat model; Neurons; Neural stem cell; Neural differentiation

资金

  1. Latran Foundation
  2. Institut Pasteur Paris
  3. INSERM
  4. Zone 62 du Lions Club District 112D Belgium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) offer hope for personalized regenerative cell therapy in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). We analyzed the fate of human iPSC-derived neural progenitors transplanted into the spinal cord of wild-type and transgenic rats carrying a human mutated SOD1(G93A) gene. The aim was to follow survival and differentiation of human neural progenitors until day 60 post-transplantation in two different in vivo environments, one being ALS-like. iPSC-derived neural progenitors efficiently engrafted in the adult spinal cord and survived at high numbers. Different neural progenitor, astroglial, and neuronal markers indicated that, over time, the transplanted nestin-positive cells differentiated into cells displaying a neuronal phenotype in both wild-type and transgenic SOD1 rats. Although a transient microglial phenotype was detected at day 15, astroglial staining was negative in engrafted cells from day 1 to day 60. At day 30, differentiation toward a neuronal phenotype was identified, which was further established at day 60 by the expression of the neuronal marker MAP2. A specification process into motoneuron-like structures was evidenced in the ventral horns in both wild-type and SOD1 rats. Our results demonstrate proof-of-principle of survival and differentiation of human iPSC-derived neural progenitors in in vivo ALS environment, offering perspectives for the use of iPSC-based therapy in ALS. STEM CELLS TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE 2013;2:167-174

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

4.6
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