4.8 Article

A fluorescent chemical probe CDy9 selectively stains and enables the isolation of live naive mouse embryonic stem cells

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 180, 期 -, 页码 12-23

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.07.007

关键词

Naive ESCs; Fluorescence probe; Live isolation; Inner cell mass; Primed ESCs; Slc13a5

资金

  1. Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) - Ministry of Health and Welfare [HI14C3365]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [2017M3A9B3061843, 2017R1A2A2A05000766]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017M3A9B3061843, 2017R1A2A2A05000766] 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

Human and mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) differ in terms of their pluripotency status, i.e., naive vs. primed. This affects various biological properties and leads to several technical hurdles for future clinical applications, such as difficulties in chimera formation, single-cell passaging, and gene editing. In terms of generating functional human tissues and organs via mammalian interspecies chimerism, a fluorescent chemical probe that specifically labels naive ESCs would help to isolate these cells and monitor their conversion. This study demonstrates that the fluorescent chemical probe compound of designation yellow 9 (CDy9) selectively stains naive, but not primed, mouse ESCs (mESC5). CDy9 entered cells via Slc13a5, a highly expressed membrane transporter in naive mESCs. Fluorescence-based cell sorting based on CDy9 staining successfully separated naive mESC5 from primed mESCs. Mice generated using CDy9(+) cells isolated during the conversion of mouse epiblast stem cells into naive mESCs exhibited coat color chimerism. Furthermore, CDy9 specifically stained cells in the inner cell mass of mouse embryos. These findings suggest that CDy9 is a useful tool to isolate functional naive mESCs. (C) 2018 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