4.8 Article

Neighboring cells override 3D hydrogel matrix cues to drive human MSC quiescence

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 176, 期 -, 页码 13-23

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.05.032

关键词

Mesenchymal stem cell; Hydrogel; Quiescence; Extracellular matrix

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Francis Crick Institute from Cancer Research UK [FC001999]
  3. UK Medical Research Council [FC001999]
  4. Wellcome Trust [FC001999]
  5. NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre
  6. Imperial College Healthcare Tissue Bank

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Physical properties of modifiable hydrogels can be tuned to direct stem cell differentiation in a role akin to that played by the extracellular matrix in native stem cell niches. However, stem cells do not respond to matrix cues in isolation, but rather integrate soluble and non-soluble signals to balance quiescence, self-renewal and differentiation. Here, we encapsulated single cell suspensions of human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSC) in hyaluronic acid-based hydrogels at high and low densities to unravel the contributions of matrix- and non-matrix-mediated cues in directing stem cell response. We show that in high density (HD) cultures, hMSC do not rely on hydrogel cues to guide their fate. Instead, they take on characteristics of quiescent cells and secrete a glycoprotein-rich pericellular matrix (PCM) in response to signaling from neighboring cells. Preventing quiescence precluded the formation of a glycoprotein-rich PCM and forced HD cultures to differentiate in response to hydrogel composition. Our observations may have important implications for tissue engineering as neighboring cells may act counter to matrix cues provided by scaffolds. Moreover, as stem cells are most regenerative if activated from a quiescent state, our results suggest that ex vivo native-like niches that incorporate signaling from neighboring cells may enable the production of clinically relevant, highly regenerative cells. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.8
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