4.6 Review

Astrocyte Differentiation of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells: New Tools for Neurological Disorder Research

期刊

FRONTIERS IN CELLULAR NEUROSCIENCE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2016.00215

关键词

astrocyte; glial; central nervous system (CNS); Alzheimer disease (AD); brain pathology; microglia; CNTF; brain damage and repair

资金

  1. EU [STEMCAM PIAP-GA-2009-251186, PIAPP-GA-2012-324451, HEALTH-2012-F2-278418, PITN-GA-2012-317146, EU-ToxRisk H2020-PHC-2015-681002]
  2. Research Center of Excellence [11476-3/2016/FEKUT]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Astrocytes have a central role in brain development and function, and so have gained increasing attention over the past two decades. Consequently, our knowledge about their origin, differentiation and function has increased significantly, with new research showing that astrocytes cultured alone or co-cultured with neurons have the potential to improve our understanding of various central nervous system diseases, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, or Alexander disease. The generation of astrocytes derived from pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) opens up a new area for studying neurologic diseases in vitro; these models could be exploited to identify and validate potential drugs by detecting adverse effects in the early stages of drug development. However, as it is now known that a range of astrocyte populations exist in the brain, it will be important in vitro to develop standardized protocols for the in vitro generation of astrocyte subsets with defined maturity status and phenotypic properties. This will then open new possibilities for co-cultures with neurons and the generation of neural organoids for research purposes. The aim of this review article is to compare and summarize the currently available protocols and their strategies to generate human astrocytes from PSCs. Furthermore, we discuss the potential role of human-induced PSCs derived astrocytes in disease modeling.

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