Extracellular matrix-mediated osteogenic differentiation of murine embryonic stem cells

Comparison of Osteogenic Differentiation of Embryonic Stem Cells and Primary Osteoblasts Revealed by Responses to IL-1β, TNF-α, and IFN-γ

“…In vitro osteogenic differentiation of primary osteoblasts [8][9][10][11][12][13]44] and ESCs [17][18][19][20][21] have both been well described, but there have been few comparative studies. In this study, both cell types showed expression of markers indicative of osteogenic differentiation and formed nodules comprising Values corrected to proportion of osteogenic control.…”

“…The ECM deposited by osteoblasts in vitro has been shown to include collagen-I (col-I), fibronectin, osteocalcin (OCN), and osteopontin (OPN), and staining for these proteins is often most predominant around the mineralized nodules [10][11][12][13]. The process of osteogenesis is coordinated by various transcription factors, with Runx2 and osterix being regarded as key regulators [14][15][16].…”

Surface Engineering to Control Embryonic Stem Cell Fate

“…Other groups have directed stem cell differentiation toward neural lineages by using laminin, fibronectin, and gelatin (Goetz et al, 2006). In another report, decellularized bone-specific ECM promoted the osteogenic differentiation of ES cells (Evans et al, 2010). Recently, Doran et al used a simple, effective, and efficient method to design a defined high-protein-content surface for stem cell culture (Doran et al, 2010).…”

Topographically and Chemically Modified Surfaces for Expansion or Differentiation of Embryonic Stem Cells

“…To identify culture conditions that lead to efficient and controlled differentiation of ES cells much effort has been put into the development of specific media supplements. However, it is now also recognised that biomaterials influence differentiation of ES cells not only through ECM-ligand presentation to integrin receptors but that also signals inherent in the synthetic biomaterials influence stem-cell state (Bakeine et al, 2009;Evans et al, 2009;Mahlstedt et al, 2010;Villa-Diaz et al, 2010). Consequently cues contributed by biomaterials are a promising and relatively unexplored tool which could increase the control of differentiation into desired cell types and help eliminate potentially teratogenic pluripotent cells from batches intended for therapeutic purposes.…”

“…In the same study, cells grown on a stiffer matrix were stiffer and more tense than cells grown on a more elastic matrix. In the case of ES cells, such an effect of matrix stiffness on cellular differentiation is less clarified than in the case of multipotent stem cells, but mES cell morphology has been found to respond to changes in synthetic matrix stiffness, and mesendoderm marker expression to be upregulated on stiffer substrates compared to softer ones (Blin et al, 2010;Evans et al, 2009). In addition, cell softness regulated the spreading of mES cells in response to mechanical stress imposed via integrin ligands in a process dependent on myosin II, F-actin, and cdc42, but not Rac (Chowdhury et al, 2010).…”