4.8 Article

Directed and systematic differentiation of cardiovascular cells from mouse induced pluripotent stem cells

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 118, 期 5, 页码 498-506

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.769562

关键词

differentiation; endothelium; myocardium; stem cells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background - Induced pluripotent stem ( iPS) cells are a novel stem cell population induced from mouse and human adult somatic cells through reprogramming by transduction of defined transcription factors. However, detailed differentiation properties and the directional differentiation system of iPS cells have not been demonstrated. Methods and Results - Previously, we established a novel mouse embryonic stem ( ES) cell differentiation system that can reproduce the early differentiation processes of cardiovascular cells. We applied our ES cell system to iPS cells and examined directional differentiation of mouse iPS cells to cardiovascular cells. Flk1 ( also designated as vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2)-expressing mesoderm cells were induced from iPS cells after approximate to 4- day culture for differentiation. Purified Flk1(+) cells gave rise to endothelial cells and mural cells by addition of vascular endothelial growth factor and serum. Arterial, venous, and lymphatic endothelial cells were also successfully induced. Self-beating cardiomyocytes could be induced from Flk1(+) cells by culture on OP9 stroma cells. Time course and efficiency of the differentiation were comparable to those of mouse ES cells. Occasionally, reexpression of transgene mRNAs, including c-myc, was observed in long-term differentiation cultures. Conclusions - Various cardiovascular cells can be systematically induced from iPS cells. The differentiation properties of iPS cells are almost completely identical to those of ES cells. This system would greatly contribute to a novel understanding of iPS cell biology and the development of novel cardiovascular regenerative medicine.

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

4.8
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