4.5 Article

Cellular Stiffness as a Novel Sternness Marker in the Corneal Limbus

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 111, 期 8, 页码 1761-1772

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2016.09.005

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences
  2. National Institutes of Health (Biotechnology Training Grant on Cell and Tissue Engineering) [T32 GM008433]
  3. Knights Templar Eye Foundation
  4. Center for Regenerative Engineering and Medicine
  5. Sharon Stewart Aniridia Research Trust
  6. Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation Division
  7. National Science Foundation [1538161]
  8. Directorate For Engineering
  9. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1538161] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Healthy eyes contain a population of limbal stem cells (LSCs) that continuously renew the corneal epithelium. However, each year, 1 million Americans are afflicted with severely reduced visual acuity caused by corneal damage or disease, including LSC deficiency (LSCD). Recent advances in corneal transplant technology promise to repair the cornea by implanting healthy LSCs to encourage regeneration; however, success is limited to transplanted tissues that contain a sufficiently high percentage of LSCs. Attempts to screen limbal tissues for suitable implants using molecular sternness markers are confounded by the poorly understood signature of the LSC phenotype. For cells derived from the corneal limbus, we show that the performance of cell stiffness as a stemness indicator is on par with the performance of Delta NP63 alpha, a common molecular marker. In combination with recent methods for sorting cells on a biophysical basis, the biomechanical sternness markers presented here may enable the rapid purification of LSCs from a heterogeneous population of corneal cells, thus potentially enabling clinicians and researchers to generate corneal transplants with sufficiently high fractions of LSCs, regardless of the LSC percentage in the donor tissue.

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