4.7 Article

Stirred suspension bioreactors maintain naive pluripotency of human pluripotent stem cells

期刊

COMMUNICATIONS BIOLOGY
卷 3, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s42003-020-01218-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Calgary Center for Health Genomic and Informatics
  2. International Microbiome Centre
  3. Canada Foundation for Innovation [CFI-JELF 34986]
  4. Alberta Innovates Translational Health Chair
  5. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  6. Eyes High Fellowship from the University of Calgary
  7. Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship
  8. Stem Cell Network
  9. NIH [U2C-DK119886]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to their ability to standardize key physiological parameters, stirred suspension bioreactors can potentially scale the production of quality-controlled pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) for cell therapy application. Because of differences in bioreactor expansion efficiency between mouse (m) and human (h) PSCs, we investigated if conversion of hPSCs, from the conventional primed pluripotent state towards the naive state prevalent in mPSCs, could be used to enhance hPSC production. Through transcriptomic enrichment of mechano-sensing signaling, the expression of epigenetic regulators, metabolomics, and cell-surface protein marker analyses, we show that the stirred suspension bioreactor environment helps maintain a naive-like pluripotent state. Our research corroborates that converting hPSCs towards a naive state enhances hPSC manufacturing and indicates a potentially important role for the stirred suspension bioreactor's mechanical environment in maintaining naive-like pluripotency. Rohani et al show that converting human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) to the naive state enhances hPSC manufacturing. Further, through transcriptomics, the expression of epigenetic regulators, metabolomics, and cell-surface protein marker analyses, they indicate a potentially important role for the stirred bioreactor's mechanical environment in maintaining naive-like pluripotency.

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