4.7 Article

Functional characterization of iPSC-derived arterial- and venous-like endothelial cells

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-40417-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. FEDER through the Program COMPETE
  2. Portuguese fund through FCT [MITP-TB/ECE/0013/2013]
  3. ERA Chair project ERA@UC through European Union [669088]
  4. Portugal 2020 [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016385]
  5. FCT [SFRH/BPD/79232/2011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current work reports the functional characterization of human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)-arterial and venous-like endothelial cells (ECs), derived in chemically defined conditions, either in monoculture or seeded in a scaffold with mechanical properties similar to blood vessels. iPSC-derived arterial- and venous-like endothelial cells were obtained in two steps: differentiation of iPSCs into endothelial precursor cells (CD31(pos)/KDRpos/VE-Cad(med)/EphB2(neg)/COUP-TFneg) followed by their differentiation into arterial and venous-like ECs using a high and low vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) concentration. Cells were characterized at gene, protein and functional levels. Functionally, both arterial and venous-like iPSC-derived ECs responded to vasoactive agonists such as thrombin and prostaglandin E2 (PGE(2)), similar to somatic ECs; however, arterial- like iPSC-derived ECs produced higher nitric oxide (NO) and elongation to shear stress than venous-like iPSC-derived ECs. Both cells adhered, proliferated and prevented platelet activation when seeded in poly(caprolactone) scaffolds. Interestingly, both iPSC-derived ECs cultured in monoculture or in a scaffold showed a different inflammatory profile than somatic ECs. Although both somatic and iPSC-derived ECs responded to tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) by an increase in the expression of intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), only somatic ECs showed an upregulation in the expression of E-selectin or vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1).

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