4.1 Article

Dentinogenic capacity: immature root papilla stem cells versus mature root pulp stem cells

期刊

BIOLOGY OF THE CELL
卷 103, 期 4, 页码 185-196

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1042/BC20100134

关键词

dental papilla; dental pulp; dentinogenesis; odontoblast; stem cell; tooth root

资金

  1. Nature Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, China [BK2009346]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background information. Immature dental papilla stem cells and mature dental pulp stem cells are capable of performing the dentinogenesis under suitable circumstances. However, a dentinogenic comparison between immature and mature dental root stem cells remains unknown. Results. iRPSCs (immature root papilla stem cells) at the root-forming stage and mRPSCs (mature root pulp stem cells) at the root-completed stage were isolated from 16-day-old and 8-week-old rat first molar roots, respectively. Growth kinetics and flow cytometry results showed that iRPSCs presented more active proliferation properties than mRPSCs. Their odontoblastic differentiation and dentinogenic potential were subsequently compared both in vitro and in vivo. iRPSCs exhibited a more potent odontoblastic differentiation than mRPSCs in vitro, as indicated by the higher levels of gene expression for dentin sialophosphoprotein and ALP (alkaline phosphatase), increased protein expression of dentin sialoprotein and runt-related transcription factor 2, decreased gene/protein expression for osterix/osteocalcin (osteogenic markers), elevated ALP activity and enhanced calcium deposition in the mineralization-inducing media. Allotransplantation results demonstrated that all iRPSCs pellets in vivo performed typical dentinogenesis, whereas mRPSCs pellets mainly produced bone-like tissues. Conclusion. iRPSCs presented stronger dentinogenesis but weaker osteogenesis than did mRPSCs, suggesting that the dentinogenic competence of root rnesenchymal stem cells decreases, whereas their osteogenic potential the increases following the maturation of the tooth root.

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

4.1
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