4.7 Article

Generating homogenous cortical preplate and deep-layer neurons using a combination of 2D and 3D differentiation cultures

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-62925-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education post-doctoral fellowships (Saudi Arabia)
  2. [1-438-5988]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) can be used to derive different neural subtypes. Current differentiation protocols generate heterogeneous neural subtypes rather than a specific neuronal population. Here, we present a protocol to derive separate two-deep layer cortical neurons from mouse ESCs (mESCs). mESCs were differentiated into mature Tbr1 or Ctip2-positive neurons using a monolayer-based culture for neural induction and neurosphere-based culture for neural proliferation and expansion. The differentiation protocol relies on SMAD inhibition for neural induction and the use of FGF2 and EGF for proliferation and it is relatively short as mature neurons are generated between differentiation days 12-16. Compared with the monolayer-based differentiation method, mESCs can be directed to generate specific deep-layer cortical neurons rather than heterogeneous cortical neurons that are generated using the monolayer differentiation culture. The early analysis of progenitors using flow cytometry, immunocytochemistry, and qRT-PCR showed high neuralization efficiency. The immunocytochemistry and flow cytometry analyses on differentiation days 12 and 16 showed cultures enriched in Tbr1- and Ctip2-positive neurons, respectively. Conversely, the monolayer differentiation culture derived a mixture of Tbr1 and Ctip2 mature neurons. Our findings suggested that implementing a neurosphere-based culture enabled directing neural progenitors to adopt a specific cortical identity. The generated progenitors and neurons can be used for neural-development investigation, drug testing, disease modelling, and examining novel cellular replacement therapy strategies.

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

4.7
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