4.5 Article

Tumorigenic Development of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells in Ischemic Mouse Brain

期刊

CELL TRANSPLANTATION
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 883-891

出版社

COGNIZANT COMMUNICATION CORP
DOI: 10.3727/096368910X539092

关键词

Induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells; Cerebral ischemia; Tumorigenesis; Cell transplantation

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports of Japan
  2. Research Committee of CNS Degenerative Diseases
  3. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan
  4. [21390267]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells may provide cures for various neurological diseases. However, undifferentiated iPS cells have high tumorigenicity, and evaluation of the cells fates, especially in pathologic condition model, is needed. In this study, we demonstrated the effect of ischemic condition to undifferentiated iPS cells fates in a mouse model of transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO). Undifferentiated iPS cells were characterized with immunofluorescent staining. The iPS cells (5 x 10(5)) were injected into ipsilateral striatum and cortex after 24 h of MCAO. Histological analysis was performed from 3 to 28 days after cell transplantation. iPS cells in ischemic brain formed teratoma with higher probability (p < 0.05) and larger volume (p < 0.01) compared with those in intact brain. Among the four transcriptional factors to produce iPS cells, c-Myc, Oct3/4, and Sox2 strongly expressed in iPS-derived tumors in ischemic brain (p < 0.01). Additionally, expression of matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) and phosphorylated vascular endothelial growth factor receptor2 (phospho-VEGFR2) were significantly increased in iPS-derived tumors in the ischemic brain (p < 0.05). These results suggest that the transcriptional factors might increase expression of MMP-9 and activate VEGFR2, promoting teratoma formation in the ischemic brain. We strongly propose that the safety of iPS cells should be evaluated not only in normal condition, but also in a pathologic, disease model.

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