4.6 Article

Diverse hematopoietic potentials of five human embryonic stem cell lines

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL CELL RESEARCH
卷 314, 期 16, 页码 2930-2940

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2008.07.019

关键词

human embryonic stem cells; mesodermal differentiation; hematopoiesis; hematopoietic differentiation; erythroid; erythropoietic differentiation; globin expression

资金

  1. NIH [K01 DK077864, R01 HL46557]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite a growing body of literature concerning the hematopoietic differentiation of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), the full hematopoietic potential of the majority of existing hESC lines remains unknown. In this study, the hematopoietic response of five NIH-approved hESC lines (H1, hSF6, BG01, BG02, and BG03) was compared. Our data show that despite expressing similar hESC markers under self-renewing conditions and initiating mesodermal differentiation under spontaneous differentiation conditions, marked differences in subsequent hematopoietic differentiation potential among these lines existed. A high degree of hematopoietic differentiation was attained only by H1 and BG02, whereas this process appeared to be abortive in nature for hSF6, BG01, and BG03. This difference in hematopoietic differentiation predisposition was readily apparent during spontaneous differentiation, and further augmented under hematopoietic-inducing conditions. This predisposition appeared to be intrinsic to the specific hESC line and independent of passage number or gender karyotype. Interestingly, HI and BG02 displayed remarkable similarities in their kinetics of hematopoietic marker expression, hernatopoietic colony formation, erythroid differentiation, and globin expression, suggesting that a similar, predetermined differentiation sequence is followed. The identification of intrinsic and extrinsic factors governing the hematopoietic differentiation potential of hESCs will be of great importance for the putative clinical utility of hESC lines. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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