4.7 Article

Two sides of the same coin? Unraveling subtle differences between human embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells by Raman spectroscopy

期刊

STEM CELL RESEARCH & THERAPY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13287-017-0720-1

关键词

Human induced pluripotent stem cells; Human embryonic stem cells; Raman imaging; Multivariate analysis

资金

  1. Programma Operativo Nazionale: iCARE (Infrastruttura Calabrese per la Medicina Rigenerativa: Generazione di Biobanche per la Preservazione di Cellule Staminali Umane e di Tessuto Osseo per Uso Clinico e Design e Sviluppo di Bioscaffold Innovativi) [PON03PE_00009_2]
  2. Programma Operativo Nazionale PON: Exchanger: Share Your Science [PON04a3_00433]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Human pluripotent stem cells, including embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells, hold enormous promise for many biomedical applications, such as regenerative medicine, drug testing, and disease modeling. Although induced pluripotent stem cells resemble embryonic stem cells both morphologically and functionally, the extent to which these cell lines are truly equivalent, from a molecular point of view, remains controversial. Methods: Principal component analysis and K-means cluster analysis of collected Raman spectroscopy data were used for a comparative study of the biochemical fingerprint of human induced pluripotent stem cells and human embryonic stem cells. The Raman spectra analysis results were further validated by conventional biological assays. Results: Raman spectra analysis revealed that the major difference between human embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells is due to the nucleic acid content, as shown by the strong positive peaks at 785, 1098, 1334, 1371, 1484, and 1575 cm(-1), which is enriched in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Conclusions: Here, we report a nonbiological approach to discriminate human induced pluripotent stem cells from their native embryonic stem cell counterparts.

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