4.5 Article

Profiling the Secretome of Human Stem Cells from Dental Apical Papilla

期刊

STEM CELLS AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 499-508

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/scd.2015.0298

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81170928, 81541110]
  2. Peking University [2013-4-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have shown that secretion of bioactive factors from mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) plays a primary role in MSC-mediated therapy; especially for bone marrow-derived MSCs (BMSCs). MSCs from dental apical papilla (SCAPs) are involved in root development and may play a critical role in the formation of dentin and pulp. Bioactive factors secreted from SCAPs actively contribute to their environment; however, the SCAPs secretome remains unclear. To address this and gain a deeper understanding of the relevance of SCAPs secretions in a clinical setting, we used isobaric chemical tags and high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry to profile the secretome of human SCAPs and then compared it to that of BMSCs. A total of 2,046 proteins were detected from the conditioned medium of SCAPs, with a false discovery rate of less than 1.0%. Included were chemokines along with angiogenic, immunomodulatory, antiapoptotic, and neuroprotective factors and extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins. The secreted levels of 151 proteins were found to differ by at least twofold when BMSCs and SCAPs were compared. Relative to BMSCs, SCAPs exhibited increased secretion of proteins that are involved in metabolic processes and transcription and lower levels of those associated with biological adhesion, developmental processes, and immune function. In addition, SCAPs secreted significantly larger amounts of chemokines and neurotrophins than BMSCs, whereas BMSCs secreted more ECM proteins and proangiogenic factors. These results may provide important clues regarding the molecular mechanisms associated with tissue regeneration and how they differ between cell sources.

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

4.5
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