4.5 Article

Three-Dimensional High-Density Co-Culture with Primary Tenocytes Induces Tenogenic Differentiation in Mesenchymal Stem Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 9, 页码 1351-1360

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jor.21400

关键词

mesenchymal stem cell; tenocytes; tenogenesis; 3-D co-culture; ultrastructure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have potential applications in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering and may represent an attractive option for tendon repair and regeneration. Thus far the ability of MSCs to differentiate into tenocytes in vitro has not been investigated. Experiments were performed with and without growth factors (IGF-1, TGF-beta 1, IGF-1/TGF-beta 1, PDGF-BB, and BMP-12), in co-cultures of tenocytes and MSCs mixed in different ratios and by culturing MSCs with spent media obtained from primary tenocytes. Tenogenesis was induced in MSCs through a combination of treatment with IGF-1 and TGF-beta 1, in high-density co-cultures and through cultivation with the spent media from primary tenocytes. Electron microscopy and immunoblotting were used to demonstrate up-regulation of collagen I/III, decorin, tenomodulin, beta 1-Integrin, MAPKinase pathway (Shc, Erk1/2), and scleraxis in the co-cultures and provide simultaneous evidence for the inhibition of apoptosis. In monolayer co-cultures extensive intercellular contacts between MSCs and tenocytes were observed. Cells actively exchanged vesicles, which were labeled by using immunofluorescence and immunogold techniques, suggesting the uptake and interchange of soluble factors produced by the MSCs and/or tenocytes. We conclude that MSCs possess tenogenic differentiation potential when provided with relevant stimuli and a suitable microenvironment. This approach may prove to be of practical benefit in future tissue engineering and tendon regenerative medicine research. (C) 2011 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 29: 1351-1360, 2011

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

4.5
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