4.6 Article

Differentiation of human fetal mesenchymal stem cells into cells with an oligodendrocyte phenotype

期刊

CELL CYCLE
卷 8, 期 7, 页码 1069-1079

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.4161/cc.8.7.8121

关键词

oligodendrocyte; mesenchymal; stem; fetal; differentiation

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0300340, MC_U120081323] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. MRC [G0300340, MC_U120081323] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0300340, MC_U120081323] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The potential of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) to differentiate into neural lineages has raised the possibility of autologous cell transplantation as a therapy for neurodegenerative diseases. We have identified a population of circulating human fetal mesenchymal stem cells (hfMSC) that are highly proliferative and can readily differentiate into mesodermal lineages such as bone, cartilage, fat and muscle. Here, we demonstrate for the first time that primary hfMSC can differentiate into cells with an oligodendrocyte phenotype both in vitro and in vivo. By exposing hfMSC to neuronal conditioned medium or by introducing the pro-oligodendrocyte gene, Olig-2, hfMSC adopted an oligodendrocyte-like morphology, expressed oligodendrocyte markers and appeared to mature appropriately in culture. Importantly we also demonstrate the differentiation of a clonal population of hfMSC into both mesodermal (bone) and ectodermal (oligodendrocyte) lineages. In the developing murine brain transplanted hfMSC integrated into the parenchyma but oligodendrocyte differentiation of these naive hfMSC was very low. However, the proportion of cells expressing oligodendrocyte markers increased significantly (from 0.2% to 4%) by pre-exposing the cells to differentiation medium in vitro prior to transplantation. Importantly, the process of in vivo differentiation occurred without cell fusion. These findings suggest that hfMSC may provide a potential source of oligodendrocytes for study and potential therapy.

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