| Literature DB >> 30889226 |
Linda Harkness1, Xiaoli Chen1, Marianne Gillard1, Peter Paul Gray1, Anthony Mitchell Davies2.
Abstract
Undifferentiated <Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30889226 PMCID: PMC6424453 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213678
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Morphological changes and pluripotency transcript expression in MEL1 cultured in differing medias.
(A) Live imaging of MEL1 and staining performed using TUBB4A-488, counterstained with Phalloidin-555 and Hoechst on cells plated in different medias. Differences in colony formation, morphology and F-actin distribution can be observed; lower magnification images are shown for reference; scale bar = 100 μm. (B) RT PCR of pluripotency markers; data presented as mean ± SD with statistical differences shown between CM and other medias; n = 3 independent experiments. (C) Analysis of MEL1 morphological parameters; data presented as mean ± SEM, n = 8 independent experiments. Statistical differences between CM and all other medias are shown in graphs (* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.005; **** p < 0.001); statistics for all other parameters can be found in S1 Table.
Fig 2Imaging and analysis of MEL1 ST differentiated cells.
(A) MEL1 were differentiated to ST cells in DMEMF/12 with 20% FBS for, minimally, 3 passages and subsequently cultured in SP, mT and E8 media. Staining was performed using TUBBA4A- 488 and counterstained with Phalloidin-555 and Hoechst; scale bar = 100 μm. (B) Analysis of MEL1 ST showing changes in morphological parameters between the different media; data presented as mean ± SEM; n = 3 independent experiments. Statistical differences between CM and all other medias are shown in graphs (* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.005; **** p < 0.001); statistics for all other parameters can be found in S2 Table.
Fig 3Transcript expression of pluripotency and cytoskeletal for MEL1.
(A) Data from RT2 profiler array demonstrating fold change of cytoskeletal genes, up and down regulated over 1.5 fold between SP and E8 (p < 0.05), the majority of genes were up regulated in E8 as compared to SP media for MEL1 (n = 3 independent experiments). (B) RT-PCR validation of selected cytoskeletal genes for 5 hESC medias in MEL1. Data presented as mean ± SD, n = 3 independent experiments. Statistical analysis from multiple t-tests are shown on graphs between CM and all other medias (* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.005; **** p < 0.001); statistics for all other parameters can be found in S3 Table.
Fig 4Analysis of protein expression of cytoskeletal markers and differentiation potential of MEL1 cultured in different medias.
(A) Differentiation potential of d5 EB in different medias, data suggests SP and mT media have multilineage potential, with CM, E8 and SM showing a more restricted potential. Red bars show upregulated and blue down regulated gene expression as compared to undifferentiated hESC. (B) Western blots showing protein expression of cytoskeletal markers in different medias. (C) Heatmaps of all three hESC lines using morphological parameters and genes utilised for media validation to establish if medias cluster together. For all medias, CM and SP were most similar. Data presented from 3 independent experiments.