1991
DOI: 10.1016/0092-8674(91)90116-g
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Region-specific differentiation of the hippocampal stem cell line HiB5 upon implantation into the developing mammalian brain

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

14
246
0
1

Year Published

1993
1993
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 469 publications
(261 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
14
246
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous in vivo studies have shown that the immortalized HiB5 cell line survive grafting very well, remain stable for at least 6 months and become structurally integrated within an area surrounding the implantation site. [13][14][15] The in vivo expression stability of UbC and CMV constitutive promoters was compared by transplanting HiB5 cells stably expressing EGFP from the UbC promoter or the CMV promoter to the striatum. Expression of EGFP from both promoters was significantly down-regulated over 21 days ( Figure 2) and no difference in expression stability was seen between cells expressing EGFP under the CMV or UbC promoters, respectively (data from CMV-EGFP not shown).…”
Section: Influence Of Promoter On Expression Stability: Comparison Ofmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Previous in vivo studies have shown that the immortalized HiB5 cell line survive grafting very well, remain stable for at least 6 months and become structurally integrated within an area surrounding the implantation site. [13][14][15] The in vivo expression stability of UbC and CMV constitutive promoters was compared by transplanting HiB5 cells stably expressing EGFP from the UbC promoter or the CMV promoter to the striatum. Expression of EGFP from both promoters was significantly down-regulated over 21 days ( Figure 2) and no difference in expression stability was seen between cells expressing EGFP under the CMV or UbC promoters, respectively (data from CMV-EGFP not shown).…”
Section: Influence Of Promoter On Expression Stability: Comparison Ofmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…13 Cells were expanded at the permissive temperature for the immortalizing oncogene (+33°C, tsA58/U19 mutant allele of the SV40 large T-antigen) in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium with Glutamax (Gibco, Life Technologies, Denmark) supplemented with 10% heatinactivated fetal bovine serum and 5 g/ml gentamycin. Plasmid transfections in HiB5 cells or CHO cells were done using the Lipo Plus transfection system in accordance with the manufacturer's (Life Technologies) recommendations.…”
Section: Generation Of Cell Linesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The transplantation of immortalized neural Serotec, Oxford, UK), Glut-1 (Biogenesis, Bournemouth, UK), rat laminin (Sigma), GFAP (Dako, Glostrup, progenitor cells in the brain has also been studied recently. [2][3][4] Those articles described the absence of Denmark). The specificity of peroxidase and fluorescent immunolabelling was confirmed by the absence of staintumorigenicity of such cell lines and their integration and differentiation capacity in vivo.…”
Section: Figure 8 Quantification By Stereological Procedures Of P75 Lmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…17,18 When functional integration of neural progenitor cell lines into co-implanted in rat brains with different types of glioma host CNS. [2][3][4] These data, together with the observation cells, ␤-galactosidase expressing RBE4 cells (RBEZ cells) that vascular endothelial cells were efficiently used as were shown to survive for up to 5 weeks and to be gene carriers in peripheral organs, [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] prompted us to frequently associated with tumor-infiltrating vascular evaluate the brain endothelial cell as an alternative route profiles. 20 for gene transfer to the CNS.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cells immortalized with LT, either wild type or temperature sensitive variants, typically are not tumorigenic after transplantation into the brain (Giordano et al, 1996;Isono et al, 1992;Okoye et al, 1994Okoye et al, ,1995Renfranz et al, 1991), but are often phenotypically immature and genetically abnormal (Cepko, 1992); reviewed in Bryan and Reddel (1994).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%