4.7 Article

A new technique for the isolation and surface immobilization of mesenchymal stem cells from whole bone marrow using high-specific DNA aptamers

期刊

STEM CELLS
卷 24, 期 10, 页码 2220-2231

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1634/stemcells.2006-0015

关键词

mesenchymal stem cells; aptamer; fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adult mesenchymal stem cells (aMSCs) are a stem cell population present in bone marrow, which can be isolated and expanded in culture and characterized. Due to the lack of specific surface markers, it is difficult to separate the MSCs from bone marrow directly. Here, we present a novel method using high-specific nucleic acids called aptamers. Porcine MSCs were used as a target to generate aptamers by combinatorial chemistry out of a huge random library with in vitro technology called systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment (SELEX). After cloning and sequencing, the binding affinity was detected using a cell-sorting assay with streptavidin-coated magnetic microbeads. We also used 12-well plates immobilized with aptamers to fish out MSCs from the cell solution and a fluorescein isothiocyanate-labeled aptamer to sort MSCs from bone marrow using high-speed fluorescence-activated cell sorting. The cells showed high potency to differentiate into osteogenic, as well as into adipogenic, lineages with typical morphological characteristics. Surface marker staining showed that the attached cells were CD29(+), CD44(+), CD45(-), CD90(+), SLA class I+, SLA DQ(-), and SLA DR-. Compared with existing methods, this study established a novel, rapid, and efficient method for direct isolation of aMSCs from porcine bone marrow by using an aptamer as a probe to fish out the aMSCs. This new application of aptamers can facilitate aMSC isolation and enrichment greatly, thereby enhancing the rate of aMSC-derived cells after in vitro differentiation for various applications in the emerging field of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.

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