4.7 Article

Phenotypic changes of adult porcine mesenchymal stem cells induced by prolonged passaging in culture

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY
卷 205, 期 2, 页码 194-201

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcp.20376

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL55324, HL61610] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The in vitro culture of porcine bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) was used for the investigation of adult stem cell biology. Isolated porcine MSCs possessed the ability to proliferate extensively in an antioxidants-rich medium containing 5% fetal bovine serum (FBS). Greater than 40 serial MSC passages and 100 cell population doublings have been recorded for some MSC batches. Early and late passage MSCs were defined here as those cultures receiving less than 5 trypsin passages and more than 15 trypsin passages, respectively. Consistent with their robust ability to proliferate, both the early and late passage MSCs expressed the cell-cycle promoting enzyme p34cdc2 kinase. Late MSCs, however, exhibited certain features reminiscent of cellular aging such as actin accumulation, reduced substrate adherence, and increased activity of lysosomal acid beta-galactosidase. Early MSCs retained the multipotentiality capable of chondrogenic, osteogenic, and adipogenic differentiation upon induction in vitro. In contrast, late MSCs were only capable of adipogenic differentiation, which was greatly enhanced at the expense of the osteochondrogenic potential. Along with these changes in multi potentiality, late MSCs expressed decreased levels of the bone morphogenic protein (BMP-7) and reduced activity of alkaline phosphatase. Late MSCs also exhibited attenuated synthesis of the hematopoietic cytokines granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF), and stem cell factor (SCF). The long-term porcine MSC culture, thus, provides a model system to study the molecular interplay between multiple MSC differentiation cascades in the context of cellular aging.

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