4.8 Article

Osteogenic differentiation of intact human amniotic membrane

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 31, Issue 33, Pages 8659-8665

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.07.090

Keywords

Human amniotic membrane; Sessile stem cells; Biomineralization; Bone tissue engineering; Osteogenesis

Funding

  1. Fondation Jerome LeJeune

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tissue engineering strategies usually require cell isolation and combination with a suitable biomaterial. Human amniotic membrane (AM) represents a natural two-layered sheet comprising cells with proven stem cell characteristics. In our approach, we evaluated the differentiation potential of AM in tow with its sessile stem cells as alternative to conventional approaches requiring cell isolation and combination with biomaterials. For this, AM-biopsies were differentiated in vitro using two osteogenic media compared with control medium (CM) for 28 days. Mineralization and osteocalcin expression was demonstrated by (immuno)histochemistry. Alkaline phosphatase (AP) activity, calcium contents and mRNA expression of RUNX2, AP, osteopontin, osteocalcin, BMP-2 (bone morphogenetic protein), and BMP-4 were quantified and AM viability was evaluated. Under osteogenic conditions, AM-biopsies mineralized successfully and by day 28 the majority of cells expressed osteocalcin. This was confirmed by a significant rise in calcium contents (up to 27.4 +/- 6.8 mg/dl d28), increased AP activity, and induction of RUNX2, AP, BMP-2 and BMP-4 mRNA expression. Relatively high levels of viability were retained, especially in osteogenic media (up to 78.3 +/- 19.0% d14; 62.9 +/- 22.3% d28) compared to CM (42.2 +/- 15.2% d14; 35.1 +/- 8.6% d28). By this strategy, stem cells within human AM can successfully be driven along the osteogenic pathways while residing within their natural environment. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available