SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The Different Molecular Code in Generation of Dopaminergic Neurons from Astrocytes and Mesenchymal Stem Cells.

Int J Mol Sci · 2021-11-09

DOI: 10.3390/ijms222212141PMID: 34830023

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Transplantation of exogenous dopaminergic (DA) neurons is an alternative strategy to replenish DA neurons that have lost along the course of Parkinson's disease (PD). From the perspective of ethical acceptation, the source limitations, and the intrinsic features of PD pathology, astrocytes (AS) and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are the two promising candidates of DA induction. In the present study, we induced AS or MSCs primary culture by the combination of the classical transcription-factor cocktails Mash1, Lmx1a, and Nurr1 (MLN), the chemical cocktails (S/C/D), and the morphogens SHH, FGF8, and FGF2 (S/F8/F2); the efficiency of induction into DA neurons was further analyzed by using immunostaining against the DA neuronal markers. AS could be efficiently converted into the DA neurons in vitro by the transcriptional regulation of MLN, and the combination with S/C/D or S/F8/F2 further increased the conversion efficiency. In contrast, MSCs from umbilical cord (UC-MSCs) or adipose tissue (AD-MSCs) showed moderate TH immunoreactivity after the induction with S/F8/F2 instead of with MLN or S/C/D. Our data demonstrated that AS and MSCs held lineage-specific molecular codes on the induction into DA neurons and highlighted the unique superiority of AS in the potential of cell replacement therapy for PD.

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.