人胰腺干细胞建系及移植诱导胰岛治疗大鼠糖尿病

供体不足已成为移植胰岛治疗Ⅰ型和部分Ⅱ型糖尿病的主要障碍,分离克隆胰腺干细胞作为种子细胞并诱导其分化为功能性胰岛可提供丰富的移植资源．本研究从人流产胎儿胰腺组织分离获得1例单克隆胰腺干细胞系．无菌取流产胎儿胰腺组织,0．1％Ⅳ型胶原酶消化分离为单个细胞和细胞团．低糖DMEM＋10％FBS培养,单个细胞和细胞团贴壁,原代上皮样胰腺干细胞克隆性生长．0．25％胰蛋白酶＋0．04％已二胺四乙酸（EDTA）消化传代,成纤维样细胞和其他细胞逐渐被消除,上皮样胰腺干细胞逐渐被纯化．克隆环筛选,获得单克隆人胰腺千细胞．在培养液中添加10ng／mL表皮生长因子（EGF）,单克隆人胰腺干细胞快速生长至单层,呈铺路石样．继续传代培养,1例来源于4月龄男性流产胎儿胰腺干细胞已传50代．液氮冷冻保存细胞1×10^9个以上．染色体核型分析,该干细胞系为正常的二倍体细胞．免疫组织化学反应,共表达pdx1,glucagon,nestin及CK19蛋白,不表达insulin,CD34,CD44及CD45．RT-PCR检测,转录pdx1,glucagon,nestin及CK19的mRNA,不转录insulin．β-巯基乙醇诱导,分化为神经细胞,免疫组织化学反应表达NF蛋白．烟酰胺诱导,分化为DTZ染色阳性,转录表达insulin,分泌insulin和C肽的功能性类胰岛．将单克隆人胰腺干细胞体外诱导胰岛移植在STZ制备的糖尿病大鼠肾囊内,能降低糖尿病大鼠血糖水平,延长寿命．     

人胎胰腺巢蛋白阳性细胞的分离培养及其生物学特性研究

胰腺巢蛋白（nestin)阳性细胞是近年发现的与胰腺发育密切相关的一种多能干细胞。我们对人胎胰腺中的nestin^ 细胞进行了分离和体外培养,并对其生物学特性进行了研究。结果表明：（1）胎胰nestin^ 细胞表达高水平ABCG2／BCRP1,并在形态和生长方式上均不同于导管上皮细胞;（2）Nestin^ 细胞在体外可自发形成类胰岛细胞团（ICC,islet-like cell clusters);(3)ICC中的nestin^ 细胞具有多向分化潜能,可表达多种细胞特异抗原,经体外诱导可产生少量胰岛素阳性的类β细胞。     

胚胎干细胞的生物学特性及体外诱导分化

来源于早期胚胎的胚胎干细胞 (ES)和胎儿生殖脊干细胞 (EG)可在未分化状态下长期增殖培养 ,并保持其多向分化潜能 .体外培养ES细胞的条件已趋于稳定 ,国内外建立了来自人和多种动物早期胚胎的ES细胞系 .某些细胞因子和化学物质等可定向诱导ES细胞分化为各种不同类型的组织细胞 .ES细胞在胚胎发育、细胞分化、转基因动物、移植治疗、药物开发等领域具有广阔的应用前景 .     

人胎胰腺巢蛋白阳性细胞的分离培养及其生物学特性研究

胰腺巢蛋白(nestin)阳性细胞是近年发现的与胰腺发育密切相关的一种多能干细胞。我们对人胎胰腺中的nestin~+细胞进行了分离和体外培养,并对其生物学特性进行了研究结果表明:(1)胎胰nestin~+细胞表达高水平ABCG2/BCRP1,并在形态和生长方式上均不同于导管上皮细胞;(2)Nestin~+细胞在体外可自发形成类胰岛细胞团(ICC,islet-likc cell clusters);(3)ICC中的nestin~+细胞具有多向分化潜能,可表达多种细胞特异抗原,经体外诱导可产生少量胰岛素阳性的类β细胞。     

胚胎干细胞向造血细胞分化研究

胚胎干（embryonic stem,ES）细胞是来源于囊胚的内细胞团（inner cell mass,ICM）,具有发育的全能性或多能性,能嵌合到早期胚胎,在体内可以参与各种组织发育甚至包括生殖细胞;在体外分化培养条件下,可以顺序分化出各种组织细胞,与体内完整胚胎发育过程相符合,而且可以通过调节ES细胞某些基因的表达而调节其分化。因此,ES细胞是研究哺乳动物早期胚胎发育、细胞分化及其关键基因鉴定的理想模型。另外,胚胎生殖脊（embryonic germ,EG）细胞系也具有同样的生物学特性,它是由早期胚胎的原始生殖脊（primordial germ,PG）细胞建株而来。最近研究显示：ES细胞在体外不但可以分化为所有造血细胞系,而且还可以分化为具有长期增殖能力的造血干细胞。作者就胚胎干细胞向造血细胞和造血干细胞分化及其诱导因子和调控基因的表达作一综述。     

单克隆人胰腺干细胞分化特性的研究

研究1例来源于4月龄男性流产胎儿胰腺组织的单克隆人胰腺干细胞（monoclonal human pancreatic stem cell,mhPSC）系的体内外分化特性。将mhPSCs接种在铺有0．1％明胶的培养皿内,扩增培养3d后,加高糖DMEM诱导液诱导培养25d。相差显微镜下．观察细胞生长状况。采用双硫腙染色法、RT—PCR及葡萄糖刺激释放胰岛素和C肽实验．对体外定向诱导mhPSCs分化为功能性胰岛进行检测。将mhPSCs悬液注射在成年雄性裸鼠腹股沟皮下．注射30d时,取出移植物,采用SP法进行免疫组织化学反应,以检测mhPSCs的体内自然分化潜能。体外扩增培养,mhPSCs贴壁生长,呈多角形上皮样。生长至单层．呈“铺路石”状。体外定向诱导,细胞逐渐由多角形变成圆形,并聚集成类胰岛。诱导培养15d时．形成的类胰岛中少数细胞分化为B细胞,双硫腙染色阳性。诱导培养25d时,多数细胞分化为8细胞,双硫腙染色阳性,转录表达胰岛素的mRNA。用不同浓度葡萄糖刺激．诱导胰岛不仅释放胰岛素和C肽,而且其释放量随糖刺激浓度升高显著增加（0．01〈P〈0．05）。体内分化实验显示,mhPSCs在裸鼠背部形成类畸胎瘤。类畸胎瘤易与裸鼠分离,色白,血管丰富。显著表达pdx1、胰岛素、胰高血糖素、CK、MBP及NF蛋白。该研究结果证实单克隆人胰腺干细胞系体外定向诱导分化为包含大量β细胞的功能性类胰岛,在体内自然分化为胰岛、上皮及神经组织细胞。     

小分子化合物体外诱导肝上皮样干细胞-WB细胞表达PDX1

目的：近年来干细胞治疗糖尿病一直是国内外研究人员关注的焦点,而肝细胞向胰岛样细胞转变也是热点之一。本实验应用小分子化合物在体外诱导WB-F344大鼠来源肝上皮样干细胞（简写WB细胞）表达胰腺内分泌前体细胞基因PDX1,建立一种体外诱导WB细胞分化为胰腺内分泌前体细胞的实验方法。方法：选用5-AZA TSA,RA,ITS等小分子化合物,分两步法直接诱导WB细胞分化为表达PDX1的胰腺内分泌前体细胞,用含有不同浓度5-AZA分化培养基诱导WB分化,摸索诱导分化的最佳条件。观察细胞形态变化,RT-PCR及实时定量PCR检测部分基因表达情况,免疫荧光检测PDX1的表达。结果：5AZA 5 uM处理2 d,TSA 1 d,RA联合ITS诱导7天,诱导的WB细胞表达PDX1较1-4 uM 5-AZA诱导强,并表达胰腺内分泌前体细胞的相关基因,NGN3,Neurod,NKX2.2,WB表达的Nestin仍持续表达,Insulin1有少量表达。WB表达的肝干细胞基因如ALB,AFP大量下调,标志分化的基因C/EBP下调。结论：5-AZA,TSA,RA,ITS等小分子化合物能够诱导肝上皮样细胞WB表达PDX1,并且这种诱导分化的细胞具有胰腺内分泌前体细胞特征。本实验进一步证明在体外微环境中,肝干细胞能向胰腺内分泌细胞转化,而肝细胞增极强,为将来干细胞治疗糖尿病提供充足的细胞来源     

肝干细胞的可塑性和分化机理的研究进展

对肝干细胞的可塑性、多向分化潜能、分化机理及其与肝癌发病机制的关系等方面进行综述.肝干细胞是一类具有自我更新能力和多向分化潜能的细胞. 在不同的条件下,肝干细胞可分化为肝细胞、胆上皮细胞、胰腺细胞和肠上皮细胞. 肝干细胞的分化涉及微环境、细胞因子和细胞外基质等多种调控因素. 肝干细胞分化为成熟肝细胞受多种转录因子和信号通路的调节,其分化异常有可能诱发形成肝细胞癌.     

胚胎干细胞的体外诱导分化模型

胚胎干细胞是具有全能性及无限制的自我更新与分化能力的一类特殊的细胞群体 ,它能通过祖细胞为中介 ,分化为各种类型的体细胞 ,可重演体内干细胞的分化过程。自 80年代从小鼠囊胚的内细胞团分离到胚胎干细胞并建系到现在已建立了神经细胞、肌肉细胞、上皮细胞、造血细胞等体外分化体系。将胚胎干细胞体外分化成为可利用的分化模型 ,无论从组织结构、细胞及分子水平都体现了体内分化过程的体外重演 ,再加上胚胎干细胞系具有体系简单 ,影响因子少 ,可控制 ,便于研究等特点 ,因此可用于研究早期胚胎发育和细胞分化调控 ;可成为器官移植和修复…     

共表达PDX1和BTC间充质干细胞对转分化胰岛素分泌细胞的影响

该文通过Tet调控下共表达PDX1与BTC的骨髓间充质干细胞系(PDX1~+BTC~+MSCs),探讨PDX1和BTC共表达对骨髓间充质干细胞分化为胰岛素分泌细胞(IPCs)的效率及成熟度的影响。采用两步法对PDX1~+BTC~+MSCs细胞系诱导分化成IPCs,第一步Dox诱导7天检测到Nestin、CK19表达;第二步再诱导7天后形成DTZ染色阳性的胰岛样结构,Ngn3、Nkx6.1 mRNA水平和PDX1、Insulin、Glucagon的蛋白表达阳性。分化后的IPCs在葡萄糖刺激下能产生胰岛素和C肽,但仍不能达到正常胰岛水平。提示利用Tet-On体系调控PDX1和BTC共表达对骨髓间充质干细胞进行修饰,能有效诱导骨髓间充质干细胞分化为胰岛素分泌细胞,但分化成熟度仍然与天然胰岛细胞功能存在差距。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor