4.1 Article

Construction and characterization of EGFP reporter plasmid harboring putative human RAX promoter for in vitro monitoring of retinal progenitor cells identity

期刊

BMC MOLECULAR AND CELL BIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12860-021-00378-2

关键词

Human retinal progenitor cells; Retinal regeneration; Proliferation capacity; RAX promoter

资金

  1. national institute for medical research development (NIMAD) [971117]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the regulatory regions of the human RAX gene and validates the potential promoter activity in cells. The findings offer insights into the vital functions of the RAX gene in retina development.
Background In retinal degenerative disease, progressive and debilitating conditions result in deterioration of retinal cells and visual loss. In human, retina lacks the inherent capacity for regeneration. Therefore, regeneration of retinal layer from human retinal progenitor cells (hRPCs) is a challenging task and restricted in vitro maintenance of hRPCs remains as the main hurdle. Retina and anterior neural fold homeobox gene (RAX) play critical roles in developing retina and maintenance of hRPCs. In this study, for the first time regulatory regions of human RAX gene with potential promoter activity were experimentally investigated. Results For this purpose, after in silico analysis of regulatory regions of human RAX gene, the expression of EGFP reporter derived by putative promoter sequences was first evaluated in 293 T cells and then in hRPCS derived from human embryonic stem cells. The candidate region (RAX-3258 bp) showed the highest EGFP expression in hRPCs. This reporter construct can be used for in vitro monitoring of hRPC identity and verification of an efficient culture medium for maintenance of these cells. Conclusions Furthermore, our findings provide a platform for better insight into regulatory regions of human RAX gene and molecular mechanisms underlying its vital functions in retina development.

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

4.1
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