SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Different Tissue-Derived Stem Cells: A Comparison of Neural Differentiation Capability.

PLoS One · 2015-10-30

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140790PMID: 26517263

Open accessComparative Study; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundStem cells are capable of self-renewal and differentiation into a wide range of cell types with multiple clinical and therapeutic applications. Stem cells are providing hope for many diseases that currently lack effective therapeutic methods, including strokes, Huntington's disease, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. However, the paucity of suitable cell types for cell replacement therapy in patients suffering from neurological disorders has hampered the development of this promising therapeutic approach.AimThe innovative aspect of this study has been to evaluate the neural differentiation capability of different tissue-derived stem cells coming from different tissue sources such as bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, human endometrium and amniotic fluid, cultured under the same supplemented media neuro-transcription factor conditions, testing the expression of neural markers such as GFAP, Nestin and Neurofilaments using the immunofluorescence staining assay and some typical clusters of differentiation such as CD34, CD90, CD105 and CD133 by using the cytofluorimetric test assay.ResultsAmniotic fluid derived stem cells showed a more primitive phenotype compared to the differentiating potential demonstrated by the other stem cell sources, representing a realistic possibility in the field of regenerative cell therapy suitable for neurodegenerative diseases.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.