PURPOSE: Extraocular muscle (EOM) has a distinct skeletal muscle phenotype. The hypothesis for the study was that fibroblasts support the unique EOM phenotype and that perimysial fibroblasts derived from EOM have properties that distinguish them from fibroblasts derived from other skeletal muscle. METHODS: Perimysial fibroblasts from leg muscle (LM-Fibro) and EOM (EOM-Fibro) of mice were derived and maintained in culture. EOM- and LM-Fibro were assessed morphologically and for vimentin, smooth muscle actin, and Thy-1 immunoreactivity. DNA microarray analysis was performed on LM- and EOM-Fibro grown in conditions that support myoblast differentiation. To assess trophic interactions, co-cultures of myoblasts from established cell lines, CL-EOM and CL-LM with, EOM- or LM-Fibro were performed in direct contact and in a permeable filter support culture. The degree of myotube maturation was assessed by the percentage of myotubes with more than three myonuclei per myotube. RESULTS: EOM- and LM-Fibro cells exhibited distinct morphologies. Both cell types proliferated as a monolayer and expressed vimentin. Fifty-five percent (SD 4.4%) of EOM-Fibro were Thy-1 positive compared with only 24% (SD 4.4%) of LM-Fibro. DNA microarray analysis demonstrated differential expression of structural, immune response, and metabolism-related genes between EOM- and LM-Fibro. Co-cultures demonstrated that mature myotube formation in EOM-derived cell lines was supported to a greater extent by EOM-Fibro than by LM-Fibro, compared with CL-EOM grown with LM-Fibro. CONCLUSIONS: Fibroblasts from EOM demonstrate distinct properties that distinguish them from leg muscle-derived fibroblasts. The distinct properties of EOM-Fibro may support the unique EOM phenotype and contribute to their differential involvement in disease.
PURPOSE: Extraocular muscle (EOM) has a distinct skeletal muscle phenotype. The hypothesis for the study was that fibroblasts support the unique EOM phenotype and that perimysial fibroblasts derived from EOM have properties that distinguish them from fibroblasts derived from other skeletal muscle. METHODS: Perimysial fibroblasts from leg muscle (LM-Fibro) and EOM (EOM-Fibro) of mice were derived and maintained in culture. EOM- and LM-Fibro were assessed morphologically and for vimentin, smooth muscle actin, and Thy-1 immunoreactivity. DNA microarray analysis was performed on LM- and EOM-Fibro grown in conditions that support myoblast differentiation. To assess trophic interactions, co-cultures of myoblasts from established cell lines, CL-EOM and CL-LM with, EOM- or LM-Fibro were performed in direct contact and in a permeable filter support culture. The degree of myotube maturation was assessed by the percentage of myotubes with more than three myonuclei per myotube. RESULTS: EOM- and LM-Fibro cells exhibited distinct morphologies. Both cell types proliferated as a monolayer and expressed vimentin. Fifty-five percent (SD 4.4%) of EOM-Fibro were Thy-1 positive compared with only 24% (SD 4.4%) of LM-Fibro. DNA microarray analysis demonstrated differential expression of structural, immune response, and metabolism-related genes between EOM- and LM-Fibro. Co-cultures demonstrated that mature myotube formation in EOM-derived cell lines was supported to a greater extent by EOM-Fibro than by LM-Fibro, compared with CL-EOM grown with LM-Fibro. CONCLUSIONS: Fibroblasts from EOM demonstrate distinct properties that distinguish them from leg muscle-derived fibroblasts. The distinct properties of EOM-Fibro may support the unique EOM phenotype and contribute to their differential involvement in disease.
Authors: James J Tomasek; Giulio Gabbiani; Boris Hinz; Christine Chaponnier; Robert A Brown Journal: Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 94.444
Authors: J D Porter; S Khanna; H J Kaminski; J S Rao; A P Merriam; C R Richmonds; P Leahy; J Li; F H Andrade Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-09-25 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Joel M Miller; Joseph L Demer; Vadims Poukens; Dmitri S Pavlovski; Hien N Nguyen; Ethan A Rossi Journal: J Vis Date: 2003 Impact factor: 2.240
Authors: Howard Y Chang; Jen-Tsan Chi; Sandrine Dudoit; Chanda Bondre; Matt van de Rijn; David Botstein; Patrick O Brown Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-09-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: John D Porter; Anita P Merriam; Sangeeta Khanna; Francisco H Andrade; Chelliah R Richmonds; Patrick Leahy; Georgiana Cheng; Paraskevi Karathanasis; Xiaohua Zhou; Linda L Kusner; Marvin E Adams; Michael Willem; Ulrike Mayer; Henry J Kaminski Journal: FASEB J Date: 2003-03-28 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Derek Y C Yuen; Renee M Dwyer; Vance B Matthews; Lei Zhang; Brian G Drew; Bronwyn Neill; Bronwyn A Kingwell; Michael G Clark; Stephen Rattigan; Mark A Febbraio Journal: Diabetes Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Brenda L Bohnsack; Donika Gallina; Hannah Thompson; Daniel S Kasprick; Mark J Lucarelli; Gregory Dootz; Christine Nelson; Imelda M McGonnell; Alon Kahana Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2011-04-11
Authors: Sam J Mathew; Jody M Hansen; Allyson J Merrell; Malea M Murphy; Jennifer A Lawson; David A Hutcheson; Mark S Hansen; Melinda Angus-Hill; Gabrielle Kardon Journal: Development Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 6.868
Authors: Yuefang Zhou; Henry J Kaminski; Bendi Gong; Georgiana Cheng; Jason M Feuerman; Linda Kusner Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Andrea B Agarwal; Cheng-Yuan Feng; Amy L Altick; David R Quilici; Dan Wen; L Alan Johnson; Christopher S von Bartheld Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 4.799