Cargando…

Can manipulation of differentiation conditions eliminate proliferative cells from a population of ES cell-derived forebrain cells?

There is preliminary evidence that implantation of primary fetal striatal cells provides functional benefit in patients with Huntington's disease, a neurodegenerative condition resulting in loss of medium-sized spiny neurons (MSN) of the striatum. Scarcity of primary fetal tissue means it is im...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Precious, Sophie V., Kelly, Claire M., Allen, Nicholas D., Rosser, Anne E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4973593/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27606335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23262133.2015.1127311
_version_ 1782446422408298496
author Precious, Sophie V.
Kelly, Claire M.
Allen, Nicholas D.
Rosser, Anne E.
author_facet Precious, Sophie V.
Kelly, Claire M.
Allen, Nicholas D.
Rosser, Anne E.
author_sort Precious, Sophie V.
collection PubMed
description There is preliminary evidence that implantation of primary fetal striatal cells provides functional benefit in patients with Huntington's disease, a neurodegenerative condition resulting in loss of medium-sized spiny neurons (MSN) of the striatum. Scarcity of primary fetal tissue means it is important to identify a renewable source of cells from which to derive donor MSNs. Embryonic stem (ES) cells, which predominantly default to telencephalic-like precursors in chemically defined medium (CDM), offer a potentially inexhaustible supply of cells capable of generating the desired neurons. Using an ES cell line, with the forebrain marker FoxG1 tagged to the LacZ reporter, we assessed effects of known developmental factors on the yield of forebrain-like precursor cells in CDM suspension culture. Addition of FGF2, but not DKK1, increased the proportion of FoxG1-expressing cells at day 8 of neural induction. Oct4 was expressed at day 8, but was undetectable by day 16. Differentiation of day 16 precursors generated GABA-expressing neurons, with few DARPP32 positive MSNs. Transplantation of day 8 precursor cells into quinolinic acid-lesioned striata resulted in generation of teratomas. However, transplantation of day 16 precursors yielded grafts expressing neuronal markers including NeuN, calbindin and parvalbumin, but no DARPP32 6 weeks post-transplantation. Manipulation of fate of ES cells requires optimization of both concentration and timing of addition of factors to culture systems to generate the desired phenotypes. Furthermore, we highlight the value of increasing the precursor phase of ES cell suspension culture when directing differentiation toward forebrain fate, so as to dramatically reduce the risk of teratoma formation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4973593
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49735932017-01-11 Can manipulation of differentiation conditions eliminate proliferative cells from a population of ES cell-derived forebrain cells? Precious, Sophie V. Kelly, Claire M. Allen, Nicholas D. Rosser, Anne E. Neurogenesis (Austin) Research Paper There is preliminary evidence that implantation of primary fetal striatal cells provides functional benefit in patients with Huntington's disease, a neurodegenerative condition resulting in loss of medium-sized spiny neurons (MSN) of the striatum. Scarcity of primary fetal tissue means it is important to identify a renewable source of cells from which to derive donor MSNs. Embryonic stem (ES) cells, which predominantly default to telencephalic-like precursors in chemically defined medium (CDM), offer a potentially inexhaustible supply of cells capable of generating the desired neurons. Using an ES cell line, with the forebrain marker FoxG1 tagged to the LacZ reporter, we assessed effects of known developmental factors on the yield of forebrain-like precursor cells in CDM suspension culture. Addition of FGF2, but not DKK1, increased the proportion of FoxG1-expressing cells at day 8 of neural induction. Oct4 was expressed at day 8, but was undetectable by day 16. Differentiation of day 16 precursors generated GABA-expressing neurons, with few DARPP32 positive MSNs. Transplantation of day 8 precursor cells into quinolinic acid-lesioned striata resulted in generation of teratomas. However, transplantation of day 16 precursors yielded grafts expressing neuronal markers including NeuN, calbindin and parvalbumin, but no DARPP32 6 weeks post-transplantation. Manipulation of fate of ES cells requires optimization of both concentration and timing of addition of factors to culture systems to generate the desired phenotypes. Furthermore, we highlight the value of increasing the precursor phase of ES cell suspension culture when directing differentiation toward forebrain fate, so as to dramatically reduce the risk of teratoma formation. Taylor & Francis 2016-01-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4973593/ /pubmed/27606335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23262133.2015.1127311 Text en © 2016 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.
spellingShingle Research Paper
Precious, Sophie V.
Kelly, Claire M.
Allen, Nicholas D.
Rosser, Anne E.
Can manipulation of differentiation conditions eliminate proliferative cells from a population of ES cell-derived forebrain cells?
title Can manipulation of differentiation conditions eliminate proliferative cells from a population of ES cell-derived forebrain cells?
title_full Can manipulation of differentiation conditions eliminate proliferative cells from a population of ES cell-derived forebrain cells?
title_fullStr Can manipulation of differentiation conditions eliminate proliferative cells from a population of ES cell-derived forebrain cells?
title_full_unstemmed Can manipulation of differentiation conditions eliminate proliferative cells from a population of ES cell-derived forebrain cells?
title_short Can manipulation of differentiation conditions eliminate proliferative cells from a population of ES cell-derived forebrain cells?
title_sort can manipulation of differentiation conditions eliminate proliferative cells from a population of es cell-derived forebrain cells?
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4973593/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27606335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23262133.2015.1127311
work_keys_str_mv AT precioussophiev canmanipulationofdifferentiationconditionseliminateproliferativecellsfromapopulationofescellderivedforebraincells
AT kellyclairem canmanipulationofdifferentiationconditionseliminateproliferativecellsfromapopulationofescellderivedforebraincells
AT allennicholasd canmanipulationofdifferentiationconditionseliminateproliferativecellsfromapopulationofescellderivedforebraincells
AT rosserannee canmanipulationofdifferentiationconditionseliminateproliferativecellsfromapopulationofescellderivedforebraincells