| Literature DB >> 35451583 |
HyoSuk Ahn1, JaeSung Ryu1, Jaeseo Lee1, Seon Ju Mun1,2, YeonHwa Hong1,2, Yongbo Shin1,2, KyungSook Chung3,4, Myung Jin Son5,2.
Abstract
Objective: Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) is a rare type of primary liver cancer with characteristics of both hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC). The pathogenesis of cHCCCC is poorly understood due to a shortage of suitable in vitro models. Due to scarce availability of human liver tissue, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are a useful alternative source to produce renewable liver cells. For use in the development of liver pathology models, here we successfully developed and evaluated iPSCs from liver fibroblasts of a patient with cHCC-CC. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: Cholangiocarcinoma; Hepatocellular Carcinoma; Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells
Year: 2022 PMID: 35451583 PMCID: PMC9035233 DOI: 10.22074/cellj.2022.7765
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cell J ISSN: 2228-5806 Impact factor: 3.128
Fig.1Generation of human liver fibroblast induced pluripotent stem cells (HLF iPSCs) from a patient with combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC). A. Experimental schematic for the generation of human iPSCs. HLFs derived from a patient with cHCC-CC and human skin fibroblasts (HSFs) from a healthy individual were reprogrammed into iPSCs using retroviral transduction of OSKM. B. Representative morphology of HSFs-derived control iPSCs (Con iPSCs) and cHCC-CC patient-derived iPSCs (HLF iPSCs). C. Confirmation of lack of mycoplasma contamination of the HLF iPSCs. D. Representative alkaline phosphatase (AP) activity of Con iPSCs and HLF iPSCs. E. Short tandem repeat (STR) profiles of HLFs and HLF-derived iPSCs (scale bar: 200 μm).
Fig.2Pluripotency marker expressions in combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC)-derived human liver fibroblast induced pluripotent stem cells (HLF iPSCs). A. mRNA expression levels of pluripotency markers OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, and REX-1 in fibroblasts and iPSCs from normal control (upper) and cHCC-CC patient (lower). B. Representative immunostaining images of HSFs-derived control iPSCs (Con iPSCs) (upper) and cHCC-CC patient-derived iPSCs (HLF iPSCs) (lower) stained for pluripotency markers using the indicated antibodies. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM (n=3) and were analysed using the student’s t test, **; P<0.01 and ***; P<0.001 (scale bar: 100 μm).
Fig.3In vitro and in vivo differentiation potential of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC)-derived human liver fibroblast induced pluripotent stem cells (HLF iPSCs). A. In vitro differentiation of the iPSCs determined through embryoid body (EB) formation. Representative immunofluorescence images of ectodermal, mesodermal, and endodermal markers in differentiated cells from HSFs-derived control iPSCs (Con iPSCs) (upper) and cHCC-CC patient-derived iPSCs (HLF iPSCs) (lower) (scale bar: 100 μm) B. In vivo differentiation of Con iPSCs (upper) and HLF iPSCs (lower) determined through teratoma formation. Representative histology of teratomas, including the three germ layers, stained with haematoxylin and eosin (scale bar: 200 μm).
Fig.4Expression of markers for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC) in combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC)-derived human liver fibroblast induced pluripotent stem cells (HLF iPSCs) during differentiation. A. mRNA expression levels of stem cell markers OCT4 and NANOG on days 0, 2, and 6 after embryoid body (EB) formation of HSF-derived control iPSCs (Con iPSCs) and HCC-CC patient-derived iPSCs (HLF iPSCs). B. mRNA expression levels of definitive endoderm markers FOXA2 and CXCR4 on days 0, 2, and 6 after EB formation of Con iPSCs and HLF iPSCs. C. mRNA expression levels of HCC markers AFP and DKK1 on days 0, 2, and 6 after EB formation of Con iPSCs and HLF iPSCs. D. mRNA expression levels of CC marker CK7 and CC tumour suppressor marker SOX17 on days 0, 2, and 6 after EB formation of Con iPSCs and HLF iPSCs. Data are shown as the mean ± SEM (n=3) and were analysed by the student’s t test, *; P<0.05, **; P<0.01, and ***; P<0.001.