4.6 Article

Development and limitations of lentivirus vectors as tools for tracking differentiation in prostate epithelial cells

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL CELL RESEARCH
卷 316, 期 19, 页码 3161-3171

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2010.08.004

关键词

Prostate; Epithelial cells; Lentivirus; Fluorescent proteins; Differentiation

资金

  1. Yorkshire Cancer Research
  2. MRC [G0900871] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0900871] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate hierarchy in human prostate epithelial cells, we generated recombinant lentiviruses, infected primary cultures and cell lines, and followed their fate in vitro. The lentiviruses combined constitutive promoters including CMV and beta-actin, or late-stage differentiation promoters including PSCA (prostate stem cell antigen) and PSAPb (prostate specific antigen/probasin) driving expression of monomeric, dimeric and tetrameric fluorescent proteins. Significantly, rare CD133(+) cells from primary prostate epithelial cultures were successfully infected and activation of late-stage promoters was observed in basal epithelial cultures following induction of differentiation. Lentiviruses also infected CD133(+) cells within the P4E6 cell line. However, promoter silencing was observed in several cell lines (P4E6, BPH-1, PC3). We examined the promoter methylation status of the lentiviral insertions in heterogeneously fluorescent cultures from PC3 clones and found that DNA methylation was not the primary mechanism of silencing of the CMV promoter. We also describe limitations to the lentivirus system including technical challenges due to low titers and low infection efficiency in primary cultures. However, we have identified a functional late-stage promoter that indicates differentiation from a basal to a luminal phenotype and demonstrate that this strategy for lineage tracking of prostate epithelial cells is valid with further optimisation. (C) 2010 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