4.5 Article

Cord blood mesenchymal stem cells: Potential use in neurological disorders

期刊

STEM CELLS AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 497-506

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/scd.2006.15.497

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our previous studies demonstrate enhanced neural protective effects of cord blood ( CB) cells in comparison to stem cells from adult marrow. To determine further whether mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) derived from human umbilical cord blood (hUCB) possess optimal characteristics for neural therapy, we isolated populations of plastic-adherent CB MSCs. These cells generated CD34(-), CD45(-), CD11b(-), CD3(-), CD19(-) cells in culture and failed to produce CFU-M, CFU-GEMM, or CFU-GM hematopoietic colonies in methylcellulose. However, cultured CB MSCs possessed a remarkable ability to support proliferation as well as differentiation of hematopoietic cells in vitro. In addition, supernatants from cultured CB MSCs promoted survival of NT2 N neural cells and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (MNCs) cultured under conditions designed to induce cell stress and limit protein synthesis. After incubation in neural differentiation medium, CB MSCs expressed the neural cell-surface antigen A2B5, the neurofilament polypeptide NF200, the oligodendrocyte precursor marker 04, intermediate filament proteins characteristic of neural differentiation (nestin and vimentin), as well as the astrocyte marker glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and the neural progenitor marker TUJ-1. We examined the immunomodulatory effects of the CB MSCs after co-culture with murine splenocytes. Whereas spleen cells from normal C57B1/6 mice exhibited a prominent immunoglobulin M (IgM) response after immunization with the T cell-dependent antigen sheep red blood cells, this response was significantly decreased after incubation with CB MSCs. These data indicate that CB MSCs possess multiple utilities that may contribute to their therapeutic potency in the treatment of neurological disorders.

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

4.5
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