3.8 Review

Characterization and differentiation of human embryonic stem cells

期刊

CLONING AND STEM CELLS
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 79-88

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/153623003321512193

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cell replacement therapies have been limited by the availability of sufficient quantities of cells for transplantation. Human ES (hES) cell lines have recently been generated by several laboratories. When maintained for over 1 year in vitro, they remain karyotypically and phenotypically stable and may therefore provide an excellent source material for cell therapies. Currently, data is available for 26 hES cell lines. Although limited characterization has been performed on most of these lines, there are remarkable similarities in expression of markers. hES cell lines derived in different laboratories show similar expression profiles of surface markers, including SSEA-4, Tra-1-60, and Tra-1-81. In addition, markers associated with pluripotent cells such as OCT-4 are expressed at in all cell lines tested. These cells express high levels of telomerase and appear to have indefinite growth potential. The generation of the large quantities of cells necessary for cell replacement therapies will require a cell population which is stable over long term culture. We have characterized the properties of multiple hES cell lines that have been maintained in culture for extended periods. Quantitative analyses demonstrate that all of the cell lines examined show consistent marker expression and retain a normal karyotype after long-term culture. hES cells have been differentiated into the derivatives of all three germ layers. Specifically this includes cardiomyocytes, neural cells, hepatocyte-like cells, endothelial cells and hematopoietic progenitor cells. These data demonstrating the karyotypic and phenotypic stability of hES cells and their extensive differentiative capacity indicate that they may be an appropriate source of cells for multiple regenerative medicine applications.

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

3.8
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