4.2 Article

Neural Ganglioside GD2 Identifies a Subpopulation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Umbilical Cord

期刊

CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 23, 期 4-6, 页码 415-424

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000218188

关键词

Umbilical cord; Mesenchymal stem cells; Neural Ganglioside GD2; Purification; Differentiation

资金

  1. 863 projects from Ministry Science & Technology of China [2006AA02A110]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30570357, 30600238]
  3. Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Commission [06YFSZSF01300, 07JCYBJC11200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In contrast to hematopoietic stem cells, there is still a lack of definitive cell markers for specific isolation and identification of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Thus a homogenous population of MSCs is only obtained after several passages, when multilineage potential or other distinctive features of very early progenitors may be already somewhat compromised. Recently a novel surface marker the neural ganglioside GD2 has been reported to distinguish MSCs from all other cells within marrow. Here, we found that MSCs derived from umbilical cord (UC-MSCs) also expressed this marker at early-passages. More importantly, UC-MSCs were the only cells within umbilical cord expressing this marker. Compared to unsorted cells, GD(2+)-sorted cells not only possessed much higher clonogenicity and proliferation capacity but also had significantly stronger multi-differentiation potentials. Flow cytometric analysis revealed that GD(2+)-sorted cells showed increased expression of SSEA-4, Oct-4, Sox-2 and Nanog, the typical markers expressed in embryonic stem cells, in comparison to unsorted or GD2-negative MSCs. Take together, our data demonstrate that the cells selected by GD2 are a subpopulation of MSCs with feature of primitive precursor cells and provide evidence that GD2 can be a cell surface marker suitable for the isolation and purification of UC-MSCs in early-passage culture. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.2
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