4.7 Article

Brief Report: Evaluating the Potential of Putative Pluripotent Cells Derived from Human Testis

期刊

STEM CELLS
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 1304-1309

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/stem.671

关键词

Human adult germline stem cells; Pluripotency; Human testicular biopsies; Reprogramming; Human testis ESC-like cells

资金

  1. Max Planck Society
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG) [SPP 1356, SCHO 340/5-1]
  3. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [FKZ 01GN0811]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human adult germline stem cells (haGSCs) were established from human testicular biopsies and were claimed to be pluripotent. Recently, the gene expression profile of haGSCs demonstrated that these cells presented with a fibroblast rather than a pluripotent identity. Nevertheless, haGSCs were reported to generate teratomas. In this report, we address this discrepancy. Instead of using haGSCs, which are no longer available for the stem cell community, we used a human testicular fibroblastic cell (hTFC) line that presents with a gene expression profile highly similar to that of haGSCs. Indeed, as shown by microarray analysis, the similarity between hTFCs and haGSCs is comparable to human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines derived by different laboratories. We argue that the almost identical gene expression profile of hTFCs and haGSCs should result in a very similar if not identical differentiation potential. Strikingly, hTFCs were not able to generate teratomas after injection into nude mice. Instead, they formed a mesenchymal lesion that morphologically resembled the putative haGSC-derived teratomas reported previously. We conclude that haGSCs, which exhibit a profile similar to that of fibroblasts and could not generate teratomas, are not pluripotent. Future work will have to show if pluripotent cells can be derived from human testicular biopsies. Mouse work and certain testicular germ cell tumors indicate that this will be possible. STEM CELLS 2011;29:1304-1309

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

4.7
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