4.6 Article

Effect of Storage Temperature on Structure and Function of Cultured Human Oral Keratinocytes

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128306

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway [5142001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose/Aims To assess the effect of storage temperature on the viability, phenotype, metabolism, and morphology of cultured human oral keratinocytes (HOK). Materials and Methods Cultured HOK cells were stored in HEPES- and sodium bicarbonate-buffered Minimum Essential Medium (MEM) at nine temperatures in approximately 4 degrees C increments from 4 degrees C to 37 degrees C for seven days. Cells were characterized for viability by calcein fluorescence, phenotype retention by immunocytochemistry, metabolic parameters (pH, glucose, lactate, and O-2) within the storage medium by blood gas analysis, and morphology by scanning electron microscopy and light microscopy. Results Relative to the cultured, but non-stored control cells, a high percentage of viable cells were retained only in the 12 degrees C and 16 degrees C storage groups (85%+/- 13% and 68%+/- 10%, respectively). Expression of ABCG2, Bmi1, C/EBP delta, PCNA, cytokeratin 18, and caspase-3 were preserved after storage in the 5 groups between 4 degrees C and 20 degrees C, compared to the non-stored control. Glucose, pH and pO(2) in the storage medium declined, whereas lactate increased with increasing storage temperature. Morphology was best preserved following storage of the three groups between 12 degrees C, 16 degrees C, and 20 degrees C. Conclusion We conclude that storage temperatures of 12 degrees C and 16 degrees C were optimal for maintenance of cell viability, phenotype, and morphology of cultured HOK. The storage method described in the present study may be applicable for other cell types and tissues; thus its significance may extend beyond HOK and the field of ophthalmology.

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