File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Endothelial colony forming units: Are they a reliable marker of endothelial progenitor cell numbers?

TitleEndothelial colony forming units: Are they a reliable marker of endothelial progenitor cell numbers?
Authors
KeywordsCell count
Cell culture
Colony forming units
Endothelial progenitor cells
Flow cytometry
Issue Date2007
PublisherTaylor & Francis A B. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/07853890.html
Citation
Annals Of Medicine, 2007, v. 39 n. 6, p. 474-479 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground. Flow cytometry and cell culture, the two main laboratory techniques employed for counting endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), have serious limitations. Mononuclear cells cultured in media favouring endothelial growth allow cells to replicate and differentiate/mature. EPCs under these circumstances tend to form groups of cells called endothelial colony forming units (EC-CFUs). EC-CFUs are widely accepted as a surrogate as an estimate of EPC number and function in cell culture. However, some important limitations may restrict the assumption that EC-CFUs reflect EPC numbers accurately. Our findings. Our own experience of EPC culture in atrial fibrillation has demonstrated that: 1) the size of EC-CFUs and proportion of single cells fluctuate significantly, even on the same culture plate; 2) the ability of EPCs to migrate towards one another to form EC-CFUs varies; and 3) the rate of EPC differentiation and proliferation may significantly affect the number of EC-CFUs, despite similarities in EPC counts on separate plates. In contrast, the count of differentiated cultured EPCs by flow cytometry with specific mature endothelial markers (e.g. CD146, vascular endothelial (VE) cadherin) is a potentially more objective alternative. Summary. Endothelial CFU counts represent the cumulative characteristics of EPC quantity and their functional characteristics, and cannot be reliably used for the estimation of EPC numbers in peripheral blood or the bone marrow. Until stronger definition(s) of bone marrow or peripheral blood population(s) of EPCs are developed, flow cytometry may be the more optimal technique for EPC quantification. © 2007 Taylor & Francis.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/163112
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 4.9
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.306
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorShantsila, Een_US
dc.contributor.authorWatson, Ten_US
dc.contributor.authorTse, HFen_US
dc.contributor.authorLip, GYHen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-09-05T05:27:45Z-
dc.date.available2012-09-05T05:27:45Z-
dc.date.issued2007en_US
dc.identifier.citationAnnals Of Medicine, 2007, v. 39 n. 6, p. 474-479en_US
dc.identifier.issn0785-3890en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/163112-
dc.description.abstractBackground. Flow cytometry and cell culture, the two main laboratory techniques employed for counting endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), have serious limitations. Mononuclear cells cultured in media favouring endothelial growth allow cells to replicate and differentiate/mature. EPCs under these circumstances tend to form groups of cells called endothelial colony forming units (EC-CFUs). EC-CFUs are widely accepted as a surrogate as an estimate of EPC number and function in cell culture. However, some important limitations may restrict the assumption that EC-CFUs reflect EPC numbers accurately. Our findings. Our own experience of EPC culture in atrial fibrillation has demonstrated that: 1) the size of EC-CFUs and proportion of single cells fluctuate significantly, even on the same culture plate; 2) the ability of EPCs to migrate towards one another to form EC-CFUs varies; and 3) the rate of EPC differentiation and proliferation may significantly affect the number of EC-CFUs, despite similarities in EPC counts on separate plates. In contrast, the count of differentiated cultured EPCs by flow cytometry with specific mature endothelial markers (e.g. CD146, vascular endothelial (VE) cadherin) is a potentially more objective alternative. Summary. Endothelial CFU counts represent the cumulative characteristics of EPC quantity and their functional characteristics, and cannot be reliably used for the estimation of EPC numbers in peripheral blood or the bone marrow. Until stronger definition(s) of bone marrow or peripheral blood population(s) of EPCs are developed, flow cytometry may be the more optimal technique for EPC quantification. © 2007 Taylor & Francis.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis A B. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/07853890.htmlen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAnnals of Medicineen_US
dc.subjectCell count-
dc.subjectCell culture-
dc.subjectColony forming units-
dc.subjectEndothelial progenitor cells-
dc.subjectFlow cytometry-
dc.subject.meshAtrial Fibrillation - Pathologyen_US
dc.subject.meshCell Counten_US
dc.subject.meshCell Culture Techniquesen_US
dc.subject.meshCell Differentiationen_US
dc.subject.meshCell Lineageen_US
dc.subject.meshCell Movementen_US
dc.subject.meshCell Proliferationen_US
dc.subject.meshCells, Cultureden_US
dc.subject.meshEndothelial Cells - Cytologyen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshStem Cells - Cytologyen_US
dc.titleEndothelial colony forming units: Are they a reliable marker of endothelial progenitor cell numbers?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailTse, HF:hftse@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityTse, HF=rp00428en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/07853890701329283en_US
dc.identifier.pmid17886173-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-34748848690en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-34748848690&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume39en_US
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.spage474en_US
dc.identifier.epage479en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000250304700007-
dc.publisher.placeSwedenen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridShantsila, E=14025045800en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWatson, T=7202562757en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTse, HF=7006070805en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLip, GYH=35351259800en_US
dc.identifier.issnl0785-3890-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats