4.5 Article

Comparing Circadian Dynamics in Primary Derived Stem Cells from Different Sources of Human Adult Tissue

Journal

STEM CELLS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 2017, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2017/2057168

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Analytical Biosciences Group of the Royal Society of Chemistry
  2. MRC-ARUK Centre for Integrated Research on Musculoskeletal Ageing
  3. Welcome Trust Institutional Strategic Fund Fellowship
  4. MRC [MR/P020941/1, MR/P003311/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Optimising cell/tissue constructs so that they can be successfully accepted and integrated within a host body is essential in modern tissue engineering. To do this, adult stem cells are frequently utilised, but there are many aspects of their environment in vivo that are not completely understood. There is evidence to suggest that circadian rhythms and daily circadian temporal cues have substantial effects on stem cell activation, cell cycle, and differentiation. It was hypothesised that the circadian rhythm in human adult stem cells differs depending on the source of tissue and that different entraining signals exert differential effects depending on the anatomical source. Dexamethasone and rhythmic mechanical stretch were used to synchronise stem cells derived from the bone marrow, tooth dental pulp, and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, and it was experimentally evidenced that these different stem cells differed in their circadian clock properties in response to different synchronisation mechanisms. The more primitive dental pulp-derived stem cells did not respond as well to the chemical synchronisation but showed temporal clock gene oscillations following rhythmic mechanical stretch, suggesting that incorporating temporal circadian information of different human adult stem cells will have profound implications in optimising tissue engineering approaches and stem cell therapies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available