4.6 Article

Comparison of Surface Markers between Human and Rabbit Mesenchymal Stem Cells

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111390

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Council of Taiwan [NSC100-2314-B-182A-011-MY2]
  2. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan [CMRPG6C0481]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated whether there are marked differences in surface markers between rabbit and human mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Murine and rabbit MSCs have been reported to be CD90-negative. Rat MSCs have been reported to be CD71-negative. Our previous study also shows that rabbit MSCs are CD29-negative. However, human MSCs are generally considered to be CD29-, CD71-, and CD90-positive. Therefore, the surface markers of human MSCs might differ from those of other species. Rabbit bone marrow MSCs were obtained that had a multi-differentiation potential. The phenotype of these cells was studied using flow cytometry antibodies for 25 rabbit surface markers, namely, CD13, CD14, CD29, CD31, CD34, CD44, CD45, CD49d, CD49f, CD51, CD54, CD59, CD71, CD73, CD90, CD105, CD106, CD133, CD166, MHC I, MHC II, alpha-smooth muscle actin (alpha-SMA), cytokeratin, desmin, and vimentin. The phenotype of commercially available human MSCs was similarly studied using antibodies for human surface markers. CD14, CD31, CD34, CD45, CD49d, CD49f, CD51, CD54, CD71, CD106, CD133, MHC II, and cytokeratin were absent from both rabbit and human MSCs, while CD44, alpha-SMA, and vimentin were present on both cell lines. CD13, CD29, CD59, CD73, CD90, CD105, CD166, and MHC I were present on human MSCs, but not on rabbit MSCs. However, desmin was present on rabbit MSCs, but not on human MSCs. In total, the surface expression of nine markers differed between human and rabbit MSCs, whereas the surface expression of 16 markers was the same in the two cell lines.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available