Title |
A simplified but robust method for the isolation of avian and mammalian muscle satellite cells
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Molecular and Cell Biology, June 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2121-13-16 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Belinda Baquero-Perez, Suresh V Kuchipudi, Rahul K Nelli, Kin-Chow Chang |
Abstract |
Current methods of isolation of muscle satellite cells from different animal species are highly variable making inter-species comparisons problematic. This variation mainly stems from the use of different proteolytic enzymes to release the satellite cells from the muscle tissue (sometimes a single enzyme is used but often a combination of enzymes is preferred) and the different extracellular matrix proteins used to coat culture ware. In addition, isolation of satellite cells is frequently laborious and sometimes may require pre-plating of the cell preparation on uncoated flasks or Percoll centrifugation to remove contaminating fibroblasts. The methodology employed to isolate and culture satellite cells in vitro can critically determine the fusion of myoblasts into multi-nucleated myotubes. These terminally differentiated myotubes resemble mature myofibres in the muscle tissue in vivo, therefore optimal fusion is a keystone of in vitro muscle culture. Hence, a simple method of muscle satellite cell isolation and culture of different vertebrate species that can result in a high fusion rate is highly desirable. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Norway | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 129 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 28 | 22% |
Student > Master | 21 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
Other | 20 | 16% |
Unknown | 22 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 41 | 32% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 25 | 19% |
Engineering | 10 | 8% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 8% |
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 3% |
Other | 12 | 9% |
Unknown | 27 | 21% |