| Literature DB >> 23378720 |
Renata Ruoco Loureiro1, Priscila Cardoso Cristovam, Caio Marques Martins, Joyce Luciana Covre, Juliana Aparecida Sobrinho, José Reinaldo da Silva Ricardo, Rossen Myhailov Hazarbassanov, Ana Luisa Höfling-Lima, Rubens Belfort, Mauro Nishi, José Álvaro Pereira Gomes.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of three culture media for growth, proliferation, differentiation, and viability of ex vivo cultured limbal epithelial progenitor cells.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23378720 PMCID: PMC3559094
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Vis ISSN: 1090-0535 Impact factor: 2.367
Figure 1Optical morphological analysis of the limbal epithelial cells cultivated in three different culture media. A: supplemental hormonal epithelial medium (SHEM), B: keratinocyte serum-free medium (KSFM), and C: Epilife. Light microscope=40×.
Figure 2Plot of cell growth area over time for limbal epithelia cultivated in the culture media supplemental hormonal epithelial medium (SHEM), keratinocyte serum-free medium (KSFM), and Epilife. There were significant differences in cell growth area in SHEM and KSFM media at 10, 12, and 15 days of culture. One-way ANOVA was performed. Bars represent the standard deviation.
Cell migration of limbal epithelia cultivated in the culture media SHEM, KSFM and Epilife®
| Days in culture | SHEM Mean | KSFM Mean | Epilife | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 0.13±0.35 | 0.13±0.35 | 0 | 0.5929 |
| 5 | 7.89±2.67 | 2.67±4.42 | 5.44±3.07 | 0.1146 |
| 7 | 7.89±8.66 | 2.67±4.42 | 5.44±3.07 | 0.1146 |
| 10 | 58.40±30.20 | 26.10±18.70 | 51.40±37.00 | 0.0317* |
| 12 | 100.80±52.90 | 46.90±27.80 | 80.40±58.60 | 0.0275* |
| 15 | 160.50±104.30 | 72.20±39.5 | 119.00±92.80 | 0.0440* |
| 17 | 233.40±139.50 | 136.10±71.75 | 130.90±59.64 | 0.1711 |
| 19 | 314.80±190.50 | 176.20±82.20 | 176.40±61.50 | 0.291 |
| 22 | 334.10±144.80 | 263.90±84.30 | 262.70±71.80 | 0.6388 |
SD=standart deviation; SHEM=supplemental hormonal epithelial medium; KSFM=keratinocyte serum-free medium; One way ANOVA was performed.
Figure 3Immunocytochemistry of limbal epithelial cells cultured in supplemental hormonal epithelial medium (SHEM), keratinocyte serum-free medium (KSFM) and Epilife showing the number of positive cells (N cell +) and percentage of positive cells. The Kruskal–Wallis test was performed. There were significant differences for p63. (Light microscope 40x).
Figure 4Expression level of cell differentiation marker CK3, stem cell marker ABCG2 and undifferentiated cell marker p63, determined with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT–PCR) of limbal epithelial cells cultured in supplemental hormonal epithelial medium (SHEM), keratinocyte serum-free medium (KSFM), and Epilife. One way ANOVA was performed.
Percentage of devitalized throughout cells with Hoechst staining
| Days in culture | SHEM Mean | KSFM Mean | Epilife | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hoechst | 60 | 75 | 51 | 0.9253 |
| −30 | −37.5 | −25.5 |
N cells +=number of positive cells; SHEM=supplemental hormonal epithelial medium; KSFM=keratinocyte serum-free medium; Kruskal–Wallis test was performed.