Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2016
[Difference of in vitro osteogenic differentiation and osteoclast capacity between stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth and dental pulp stem cells].
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lu Bo-Wen, Liu Na, Xu Lu-Lu, Shi Hai-Gang, Zhang Yang, Zhang Wei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the osteogenic differentiation potential and osteoclast capacity between stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth (SHED) in the physiological root resorption period and dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs).
METHODS: SHED and DPSCs were isolated, purified and cultured in vitro. The two stem cells were examined with ALP staining at 14 days and with alizarin red staining at 21 days of osteogenic induction, and the expressions of the genes associated with osteogenesis and osteoclastogenesis were detected using real-time PCR.
RESULTS: The isolated SHED and DPSCs both showed an elongate spindle-shaped morphology. After osteogenic induction of the cells, Alizarin red staining visualized a greater number of mineralized nodules in SHED than in DPSCs (P<0.05), and SHED also exhibited a stronger ALP activity than DPSCs (P<0.05). RT-PCR test results showed that the two stem cells expressed RANKL,OCN, ALP, OPG and Runx2 mRNA after osteogenic induction, but the expression levels of Runx2, OCN and ALP were lower in DPSCs than in SHED (P<0.05), and the ratio of RANKL/OPG was significantly higher in SHED (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DPSCs, SHED has not only the ability of osteogenic differentiation but also an osteoclast capacity, which sheds light on the regulatory role of SHED in physiological root resorption bone remodeling.
METHODS: SHED and DPSCs were isolated, purified and cultured in vitro. The two stem cells were examined with ALP staining at 14 days and with alizarin red staining at 21 days of osteogenic induction, and the expressions of the genes associated with osteogenesis and osteoclastogenesis were detected using real-time PCR.
RESULTS: The isolated SHED and DPSCs both showed an elongate spindle-shaped morphology. After osteogenic induction of the cells, Alizarin red staining visualized a greater number of mineralized nodules in SHED than in DPSCs (P<0.05), and SHED also exhibited a stronger ALP activity than DPSCs (P<0.05). RT-PCR test results showed that the two stem cells expressed RANKL,OCN, ALP, OPG and Runx2 mRNA after osteogenic induction, but the expression levels of Runx2, OCN and ALP were lower in DPSCs than in SHED (P<0.05), and the ratio of RANKL/OPG was significantly higher in SHED (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DPSCs, SHED has not only the ability of osteogenic differentiation but also an osteoclast capacity, which sheds light on the regulatory role of SHED in physiological root resorption bone remodeling.