4.2 Article

Molecular Genetic and Immunophenotypical Analysis of Pax6 Transcription Factor and Neural Differentiation Markers in Human Fetal Neocortex and Retina In Vivo and In Vitro

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10517-010-0797-3

关键词

human neural stem/progenitor cells; retina; neocortex; Pax6; immunohistochemistry; cell cultures

资金

  1. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [08-04-00081]
  2. Federal Agency for Science and Innovations [02.512.12.2008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neurotransplantation of various cells, including heterotransplantation of fetal cerebral stem/progenitor cells into the eye is used in experimental studies of central nervous tissue repair during neurodegeneration. For evaluation of this approach, human fetal (weeks 9-20) stem/progenitor cells of the neocortex and retina were studied in vivo and in vitro by quantitative PCR and immunohistochemical staining. Native tissues and cultures were characterized by expression of Pax6 transcription factor (critical for the development of the retina and neocortex) and differentiation markers (nestin, beta III-tubulin, glial. brillary acidic protein, recoverin, NeuN, neuro. laments, Ki-67). The expression of Pax6 gene in the retina during active neurogenesis was stable and much higher than in the neocortex. In primary cultures, the pattern of Pax6 gene expression is retained and repeats that in native tissues. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed similarity of nestin and beta III-tubulin expression in the neocortex and retina during the early (9-10 weeks) and later (20 weeks) periods and differences in cell phenotypes and their distribution. Culture studies showed that neocortical and retinal stem/progenitor cells are determined and exhibit specific differentiation characteristic of the corresponding native tissues. It can be hypothesized that heterotransplantation of the cerebral progenitor cells into the retina of experimental animals can lead to realization of their neurotrophic effect, but not to their functional integration.

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

4.2
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