May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Keratocyte Differentiation in vitro: It's About Matrix Interaction
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • M.L. Funderburgh
    UPMC Eye Center, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Dept of Ophthalmology,, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
  • M.M. Mann
    UPMC Eye Center, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Dept of Ophthalmology,, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
  • J.L. Funderburgh
    UPMC Eye Center, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Dept of Ophthalmology,, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  M.L. Funderburgh, None; M.M. Mann, None; J.L. Funderburgh, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grants EY09368, 30–EY08098, Research to Prevent Blindness, JLF is a Jules and Doris Stein Research to Prevent Blindness Professor
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 2708. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      M.L. Funderburgh, M.M. Mann, J.L. Funderburgh; Keratocyte Differentiation in vitro: It's About Matrix Interaction . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):2708.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : Keratocytes produce the unique extracellular matrix required for the strength and transparency of the corneal stroma. The phenotype of a differentiated keratocyte is not immutable: it changes, for example, in a healing wound to make long–lasting, non–transparent scar tissue. Similar changes are observed in cultured keratocytes. Our current study tests the hypothesis that interaction with substratum influences keratocyte matrix production.

Methods: : Primary keratocytes were isolated by collagenase digestion from fresh bovine corneas. The cells were maintained in serum–free media in conditions promoting either cell attachment to a substratum or aggregation into non–attached cell spheroids. Markers of keratocyte differentiation were assayed by Real–Time qPCR for mRNA levels and secreted matrix proteoglycans were analyzed by Western blotting and fluorophore–assisted carbohydrate electrophoresis (FACE). Cell viability was determined by calcein AM staining.

Results: : Virtually all primary keratocytes were able to form aggregates, or spheroids. Cells in these balls remained viable, but did not increase in cell numbers, even under conditions stimulating growth in attached cells. Spheroid cells secreted high levels of keratocyte matrix components keratan sulfate and keratocan compared to attached cells. Cells in spheroids differed from substrate–attached cells in their response to TGF beta: stimulation of smooth muscle actin and EDA–fibronectin was decreased in the spheroids, while collagen types I and III, biglycan and hyaluronan responses were similar in the two growth conditions.

Conclusions: : Keratocytes forming spheroids in culture remain viable even in the absence of attachment to substratum, and they are able to maintain much of their characteristic differentiated phenotype. On the other hand, attachment as a monolayer reduces expression of keratocytic markers and promotes the transition to myofibroblast. Cellular response to TGF beta is dependent on environment, but not all genes respond the same. These results imply that the transition from cell–cell interactions to cell–matrix interactions plays a role in the functional response of keratocytes in a wound–healing environment.

Keywords: cornea: stroma and keratocytes • wound healing • cell-cell communication 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×