It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Cultured epidermal cell sheets (CES) containing undifferentiated cells are useful for treating skin burns and have potential for regenerative treatment of other types of epithelial injuries. The undifferentiated phenotype is therefore important for success in both applications. This study aimed to optimize a method for one-week storage of CES for their widespread distribution and use in regenerative medicine. The effect of storage temperatures 4 °C, 8 °C, 12 °C, 16 °C, and 24 °C on CES was evaluated. Analyses included assessment of viability, mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS), membrane damage, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) integrity, morphology, phenotype and cytokine secretion into storage buffer. Lowest cell viability was seen at 4 °C. Compared to non-stored cells, ABCG2 expression increased between temperatures 8–16 °C. At 24 °C, reduced ABCG2 expression coincided with increased mitochondrial ROS, as well as increased differentiation, cell death and mtDNA damage. P63, C/EBPδ, CK10 and involucrin fluorescence combined with morphology observations supported retention of undifferentiated cell phenotype at 12 °C, transition to differentiation at 16 °C, and increased differentiation at 24 °C. Several cytokines relevant to healing were upregulated during storage. Importantly, cells stored at 12 °C showed similar viability and undifferentiated phenotype as the non-stored control suggesting that this temperature may be ideal for storage of CES.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Department of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
2 Department of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
3 Department of Ophthalmology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
4 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
5 Institute of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
6 Schepens Eye Research Institute, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
7 Maissonneuve-Rosemont Hospital Research Centre and Dept. of Ophthalmology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
8 Department of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Department of Ophthalmology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway