4.6 Article

To go or not to go: Migration of human mesenchymal progenitor cells stimulated by isoforms of PDGF

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 93, 期 5, 页码 990-998

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcb.20219

关键词

PDGF; chemotaxis; mesenchymal progenitor cells; PDGF receptor; osteoblast

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recruitment of mesenchymal progenitor cells (MPCs) and their subsequent differentiation to osteoblasts is mandatory for bone development, remodeling, and repair. To study the possible involvement of platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) isoforms, primary human MPCs and osteogenic differentiated progenitor cells (dOB) were examined for chemotaxic response to homodimeric human platelet-derived growth factor AA, -BB, and heterodimeric PDGF-AB. The role of PDGF receptors was addressed by preincubation with PDGF receptor alpha and beta chain specific antibodies. Migration of MPCs, dOB, and primary osteoblasts (OB) was stimulated by the addition of rhPDGF-AA, rhPDGF-BB, and rhPDGF-AB. The effect was highest in MPCs and for rhPDGF-BB, and declining with osteogenic differentiation. Preincubation with the receptor alpha specific antibody decreased the CI to borderline values while pretreatment with the receptor beta specific antibody led to a complete loss of chemotactic response to PDGF isoforms. In control experiments, basal migration values and rhBMP-2 as well as rxBMP-4 induced chemotaxis of MPC were not influenced by the addition of receptor alpha or beta antibodies. Interestingly, without preincubation the parallel exposure of MPC to rhTGF-beta1 instantaneously leads to a selective loss of migratory stimulation by rhPDGF-AA. The chemotactic effect of PDGF isoforms for primary human MPCs and the influence of osteogenic differentiation suggest a functional role for recruitment of MPCs during bone development and remodeling. Moreover, these observations may be useful for novel approaches towards guided tissue regeneration or tissue engineering of bone. (C) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.6
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