4.6 Article

Contractile responses of smooth muscle cells differentiated from rat neural stem cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 540, 期 1, 页码 139-152

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2001.013278

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To characterize the functional differentiation of neural stem cells into smooth muscle cells, multipotent stem cells in the central nervous system (CNS) were isolated from rat embryonic day 14 (E14) cortex and cultured by neurosphere formation in serum-free medium in the presence of 10 ng ml(-1) of basic fibroblast growth factor. Differentiation was induced by the addition of 10% fetal bovine serum to low-density cultures (2.5 x 10(3) cells cm(-2)). Immunological analyses and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction indicated that the differentiated cells expressed smooth-muscle-specific marker proteins such as SM-1, SM-2, and SMemb myosin heavy chains, SM-22, basic calponin and a-smooth-muscle actin, but not the astrocyte marker glial fibrillary acidic protein. To examine whether smooth-muscle-like cells that are differentiated from CNS stem cells possess the characteristics of contractile smooth muscle, we prepared reconstituted collagen gel fibres and measured their contractile tension. The reconstituted fibres were prepared by thermal gelation of collagen and the differentiated cells. The fibres contracted in response to treatment with KCl (80 mm), ACh (100 mum), endothelin-1 (10 nm), endothelin-2 (10 nm), and prostaglandin F2alpha (100 jam). ACh-induced contraction was partially inhibited by the L-type voltage-dependent Ca2+ channel inhibitor nifedipine and by the intracellular Ca2+ chelator 1,2-bis (2-aminophenoxy) ethane-N,N,N',N'-tetraacetic acid acetoxymethyl ester, the myosin light chain kinase inhibitor ML-9, the Rho kinase inhibitor Y-27632, dibutyryl cAMP and 8-bromo-cGMP. These results suggest that CNS stem cells give rise to smooth muscle cells in vitro that have an identical contractile function to smooth muscle in vivo.

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