4.5 Article

Effects of extracellular matrix proteins on the growth of haematopoietic progenitor cells

期刊

BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS
卷 6, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1748-6041/6/5/055011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC-Canada)
  2. Hema Quebec Research & Development Department

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Umbilical cord blood (UCB) transplantation and haematological recovery are currently limited by the amount of haematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs) present in each unit. HPCs and haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) normally interact with cells and extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins present within the endosteal and vascular niches. Hence, we investigated whether coating of culture surfaces with ECM proteins normally present in the marrow microenvironment could benefit the ex vivo expansion of HPCs. Towards this, collagen types I and IV (COL I and IV), laminin (LN) and fibronectin (FN) were tested individually or as component of two ECM-mix complexes. Individually, ECM proteins had both common and unique properties on the growth and differentiation of UCB CD34+ cells; some ECM proteins favoured the differentiation of some lineages over that of others (e.g. FN for erythroids), some the expansion of HPCs (e.g. LN and megakaryocyte (MK) progenitor) while others had less effects. Next, two ECM-mix complexes were tested; the first one contained all four ECM proteins (4ECMp), while the second 'basement membrane-like structure' was without COL I (3ECMp). Removal of COL I led to strong reductions in cell growth and HPCs expansion. Interestingly, the 4ECMp-mix complex reproducibly increased CD34+ (1.3-fold) and CD41+ (1.2-fold) cell expansions at day 6 (P < 0.05) versus control, and induced greater myeloid progenitor expansion (P < 0.05) than 3ECMp. In conclusion, these results suggest that optimization of BM ECM protein complexes could provide a better environment for the ex vivo expansion of haematopoietic progenitors than individual ECM protein.

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