4.5 Article

Characterization of Neurogenic Potential of Dental Pulp Stem Cells Cultured in Xeno/Serum-Free Condition: In Vitro and In Vivo Assessment

期刊

STEM CELLS INTERNATIONAL
卷 2016, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2016/6921097

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [2014R1A1A3052554, 2009-0093829, NRF-2015R1A2A1A15053883, NRF-2015R1D1A1A02061196]
  2. Korea Health Technology R&D Project by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI14C0522]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2014R1A1A3052554] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neural stem cells (NSCs) have a high potency for differentiation to neurons and glial cells for replacement of damaged cells and paracrine effects for the regeneration and remyelination of host axons. Dental pulp is known to have a potential to differentiate into neural-like cells; therefore, dental pulp may be used as an autologous cell source for neural repair. In this study, we selectively expanded stem cells from human dental pulp in an initial culture using NSC media under xeno-and serum-free conditions. At the initial step of primary culture, human dental pulp was divided into two groups according to the culture media: 10% fetal bovine serum medium group (FBS group) and NSC culture medium group (NSC group). In the NSC group relative to the FBS group, the expression of NSC markers and the concentrations of leukemia inhibitory factor, nerve growth factor, and stem cell factor were higher, although their expression levels were lower than those of human fetal NSCs. The transplanted cells of the NSC group survived well within the normal brain and injured spinal cord of rats and expressed nestin and Sox2. Under the xeno-and serum-free conditions, autologous human dental pulp-derived stem cells might prove useful for clinical cell-based therapies to repair damaged neural tissues.

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