4.8 Article

Effect of 3D scaffold and dynamic culture condition on the global gene expression profile of mouse embryonic stem cells

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 27, 期 36, 页码 5978-5989

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.05.053

关键词

embryonic stem cells; differentiation; spinner culture; gene expression; cDNA microarray

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously demonstrated that mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells differentiated on three-dimensional (3D), highly porous, tantalum-based scaffolds (Cytomatrix (TM)) have significantly higher hematopoietic differentiation efficiency than those cultured under conventional two-dimensional (2D) tissue culture conditions. In addition, ES cell-seeded scaffolds cultured inside spinner bioreactors showed further enhancement in hematopolesis compared to static conditions. In the present study, we evaluated how these various biomaterial-based culture conditions, e.g. 2D vs. 3D scaffolds and static vs. dynamic, influence the global gene expression profile of differentiated ES cells. We report that compared to 2D tissue culture plates, cells differentiated on porous, Cytomatrix (TM) scaffolds possess significantly higher expression levels of extracellular matrix (ECM)-related genes, as well as genes that regulate cell growth, proliferation and differentiation. In addition, these differences in gene expression were more pronounced in 3D dynamic culture compared to 3D static culture. We report specific genes that are either uniquely expressed under each condition or are quantitatively regulated, i.e. over expressed or inhibited by a specific culture environment. We conclude that that biomaterial-based 3D cultures, especially under dynamic conditions, might favor efficient hematopoietic differentiation of ES cells by stimulating increased expression of specific ECM proteins, growth factors and cell adhesion related genes while significantly down-regulating genes that act to inhibit expression of these molecules. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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