Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Nov 4;17(11):e0277134. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277134

Exploring the neurogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells

Arwa A Al-Maswary 1,*, Molly O’Reilly 2, Andrew P Holmes 2, A Damien Walmsley 1, Paul R Cooper 1,3, Ben A Scheven 1,*
Editor: Michal Hetman4
PMCID: PMC9635714  PMID: 36331951

Abstract

Human dental pulp stem cells (hDPSCs) have increasingly gained interest as a potential therapy for nerve regeneration in medicine and dentistry, however their neurogenic potential remains a matter of debate. This study aimed to characterize hDPSC neuronal differentiation in comparison with the human SH-SY5Y neuronal stem cell differentiation model. Both hDPSCs and SH-SY5Y could be differentiated to generate typical neuronal-like cells following sequential treatment with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), as evidenced by significant expression of neuronal proteins βIII-tubulin (TUBB3) and neurofilament medium (NF-M). Both cell types also expressed multiple neural gene markers including growth-associated protein 43 (GAP43), enolase 2/neuron-specific enolase (ENO2/NSE), synapsin I (SYN1), nestin (NES), and peripherin (PRPH), and exhibited measurable voltage-activated Na+ and K+ currents. In hDPSCs, upregulation of acetylcholinesterase (ACHE), choline O-acetyltransferase (CHAT), sodium channel alpha subunit 9 (SCN9A), POU class 4 homeobox 1 (POU4F1/BRN3A) along with a downregulation of motor neuron and pancreas homeobox 1 (MNX1) indicated that differentiation was more guided toward a cholinergic sensory neuronal lineage. Furthermore, the Extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2) inhibitor U0126 significantly impaired hDPSC neuronal differentiation and was associated with reduction of the ERK1/2 phosphorylation. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that extracellular signal-regulated kinase/Mitogen-activated protein kinase (ERK/MAPK) is necessary for sensory cholinergic neuronal differentiation of hDPSCs. hDPSC-derived cholinergic sensory neuronal-like cells represent a novel model and potential source for neuronal regeneration therapies.

Introduction

Over recent decades, stem cells have gained special attention for potential nerve regeneration to treat nerve injuries or defects [1,2]. Clinical evidence suggests that current therapies offer limited functional nerve recovery [3] and there are other drawbacks with graft procedures such as nerve sacrifice and nerve mismatch [1]. In dentistry, for example in regenerative endodontics, there is a need for nerve regeneration to achieve functional pulp regeneration [4,5] which regulates pulpal blood flow, defense, and reparative process [6,7].

Stem cells have the potential to differentiate into multiple cell types with neural stem cells giving rise to neuronal cells and their supporting cells “glial and Schwann cells” [8,9]. As a result, the stem cells have been promoted as neuronal cell replacements for nerve repair and regeneration [10,11]. These stem cells can be either transplanted alone [12] or as part of designed engineered tissue/conduit to replace the defective neuronal tissue [13,14]. Stem cell transplantations have demonstrated positive therapeutic nerve regeneration, functional recovery, and neuronal survival in several neurological traumas such as brain injury [15] and spinal cord injury/transection [16,17], optic nerve crush [18], and injured peripheral nerves [12]. However, the use of stem cells in transplantation therapies may be limited by the small populations differentiated into neuronal cells or undesired cell proliferation or differentiation [19,20]. Consequently, it has been proposed that the use of ready in vitro differentiated cells derived from stem cells is more promising for in vivo nerve regeneration [21,22]. For example, some studies demonstrated that transplantation of the pre-differentiated stem cells into a neuronal phenotype “neuronal cell models” results in greater restoration of neuronal loss [21], enhances nerve regeneration and functional recovery in brain [21,23], spinal cord [24], and peripheral nerve injuries [25,26]. Interestingly, it has also been reported that neuronally differentiated stem cells secrete greater amounts of neurotrophic factors [25,27]. Hence, these neuronal cell models are not only neuronal cell replacements for the neuronal injury or defect, but they may further boost the nerve regeneration via their neurotrophic secretions. Neuronal cell models derived from stem cells are also useful for in vitro studies in neuroscience [28,29]. For example, these neuronal cell models can be used to study neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease [30] and Alzheimer [31], pharmacological-related topics “drug discovery and toxicity testing” [32,33], and neurodevelopment and injury [28]. As these neuronal cell models are differentiated from primary stem cells, they are more appropriate for simulation of the physiological properties of in vivo neurons [34,35].

Dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) are primary ecto-mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) that have gained attention as a potential source for neuronal regenerative therapies. The neurogenic potential of DPSCs is closely related to their embryonic origin and various biological characteristics. DPSCs are derived from cranial neural crest cells during tooth development [36,37]. In this context, it has been demonstrated that DPSCs retain the properties of neural crest cells such as EphB/Ephrin-B molecules and Wnt1-marker in in vitro cell culture which possess the differentiation capacity into any neural crest-derived tissue, including neuron [38,39]. In addition to the stem cell markers, the expression of the neural markers in non-differentiated DPSCs, such as musashi12, nestin, MAP2ab, βIII-tubulin, N-tubulin, and neurogenin-2 underline their potential for neuronal differentiation [40,41]. Furthermore, DPSCs express neurotrophic factors such as NGF, GDNF, BDNF, and NT-3 which are demonstrated to have neurogenic and cell survival effects [42,43]. Moreover, DPSCs have been considered to be able to differentiate into specific neuronal cells of nervous system depending upon the induced environment [44,45] which make DPSCs an attractive cell source for specific neuronal-lineage regeneration therapies. Additionally, DPSCs exhibit other favorable non-neurogenic factors such as their unique immunomodulation properties which prevent the possibility of immune rejection/reactions [46,47] or tumor formation [48,49] which is reported in other stem cell transplantations [50,51]. Finally, DPSCs are easily obtainable from teeth extracted for various dental reasons without raising ethical concerns [52]. The neuro-regenerative potential of hDPSCs have been highlighted for dental pulp regeneration [53,54], retinal [55,56] and nerve injury [57,58]. Thus, DPSCs potentially offer a safe neurogenic-potential stem population suitable for multiple clinical neuronal therapeutic applications.

Different methods have been described to differentiate human DPSCs (hDPSCs) into neuronal-like cells. Most differentiating protocols for hDPSCs use complex mixture of supplements either in multiple stages [40,45,59,60] or/and long culture duration, “more than a month” [6166], which make the procedures relative expensive and time-consuming. On the other hand, one protocol reported that serum-free media without any supplementations can differentiate mice DPSCs into neuronal-like cells and expressed MAP2, nestin, and Tub3/βIII-tubulin neuronal markers [67]. However, these neuronal markers have been reported in non-differentiated DPSCs [41,68] which may not provide sufficient evidence for neuronal differentiation, particularly with no functional testing. Furthermore, this serum-free protocol has been recently used by Madanagopal et al., [69] as one of three protocols to differentiate hDPSCs into neuronal cell type. This study reported that the serum-free media alone did not result in neuronal differentiation of hDPSCs compared with what has been reported in mice DPSCs by Zainal et al., [67] and the authors interpreted that this may occur due to the genetic and physiological differences between mice and human [69,70]. In addition, the concept of neuronal differentiation in serum-free media without supplementations is previously discussed by Croft and Przyborski [71] who reported that culturing in serum-free media is an environmental culture stressor which results in pseudo-neuronal morphology and expression “artifacts”. Moreover, there is little convincing evidence for successful functional DPSC neurogenic differentiation [61,62]. Hence, there is a need for simple, and relatively rapid differentiating protocol underpinned with sufficient evidence for neuronal differentiation and functionality.

A straightforward 2-component method or sequential supplementation of all-trans retinoic acid: (ATRA) and then brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) was described by Encinas et al. [72] to differentiate human SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells into a mature neuronal cells. This method has been well-investigated and documented to produce mature, functional, cholinergic neuronal cell types of the human SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells [7375]. In this study, we adopted this method to differentiate hDPSCs for the first time in parallel with SH-SY5Y cells as control cells because they are successfully differentiated by the sequential supplementation. In addition, SH-SY5Y cells are widely used as human neural stem cells to produce models for neuroscience studies such as related Alzheimer and Parkinson’s diseases [76,77], energetic neuronal vulnerability [78], neurotoxicity [79,80], and testing of MSC paracrine effects for neuronal differentiation and matuation [81,82].

Although, there are many signaling pathways active in the nervous system, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and phosphatidylinositol-3-Kinase/protein kinase B (PI3K/Akt) are reportedly central and essential in the overall regulation of neural differentiation and survival [83,84]. Previous work has also demonstrated that the Extracellular signal-regulated kinase/Mitogen-activated protein kinase (ERK/MAPK) pathway induces neuronal differentiation whereas the PI3K/Akt pathway maintains cell survival of SH-SY5Y and bone marrow MSCs during the neuronal differentiation [75,85]. Furthermore, the involvement of ERK/MAPK pathway is reported in axonal outgrowth and peripheral nerve regeneration [86,87].

The aim of this study was to explore and characterise a novel neuronal model using hDPSCs based on the established SH-SY5Y neurogenesis model and to investigate whether the ERK/MAPK pathway is involved in the hDPSC neuronal differentiation process.

Materials and methods

Cell culture

Human DPSCs were obtained from two suppliers (#PT-5025, Lonza, Slough, UK and #ax3901, Axol, Cambridge, UK; suppliers’ information regarding the stem cell characterization is provided in S1 Table). Cells were cultured in alpha-modified minimum essential medium (α-MEM) (Biosera, UK) supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine, 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (Biosera, UK) and 1% penicillin/streptomycin (100 IU.ml−1). The SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells (ATCC® CRL-2266™, USA) were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium/Ham’s nutrient mixture F12 (DMEM/F12) (Sigma Aldrich, UK) supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine, 10% FBS and 1% penicillin/streptomycin (100 IU.ml−1) in parallel with hDPSC culture used as a positive control. Cultures were incubated in a humidified atmosphere at 37°C and 5% CO2 until reaching ~ 80% confluency before neurogenic differentiation induction. The medium was exchanged every 2–3 days. All experiments were conducted at passages of 2–4 using the hDPSCs and of 17–21 using the SH-SY5Y cells. Further details about cell culturing of both cell types are described in the S1 File.

Neurogenic differentiation of hDPSCs

Neurogenic induction was conducted as described by Encinas et al. [72] with minor modifications (i.e., 10% FBS instead of 15% FBS and DMEM/F12 media instead of DMEM). Firstly, cells were seeded on collagen-I coated surfaces of 6-well plate (Thermo Fisher Scientific, UK) or laminin/collagen-coated coverslips (Electron Microscopy Sciences, UK) for the microscopy studies. Whereas the cells were used for real-time PCR seeded on uncoated T25 flasks (Thermo Fisher Scientific, UK) for preserving the purity of RNA and getting higher amount of RNA. The seeding density was 5000 cells/cm2 (SH-SY5Y), and 625 cells/cm2 (hDPSCs) based on preliminary studies. The seeded cells were incubated overnight to allow cells to attach to the culturing surface before conducting the differentiation experiment. Subsequently, the differentiation and control media were freshly prepared for each experimental group as described in Table 1 (all supplements were defrosted and immediately used for the experiment to avoid the material degradation over the time). After that, the overnight media were replaced with ATRA-supplemented (R 2625, Sigma-Aldrich, UK) or with control media and then incubated in a humidified incubator at 37°C and 5% CO2. This media change step was performed in limited light in the laboratory room and the culture hood’s light was switched off due to the light-sensitive nature of ATRA. Then, the media were changed after 2–3 days with fresh media with or without ATRA as previously highlighted in Table 1 and then incubated in a humidified incubator for additional 2–3 days. After 5 days of treatment with ATRA, all experimental groups were washed twice with blank media without any supplementations to remove the FBS and ATRA remnants in the cell culture before the second “BDNF” stage for the ATRA→BDNF and ATRA→0% serum groups. Subsequently, the designed experimental ATRA→BDNF group received BDNF supplementation (78005, STEMCELL TECHNOLOGIES; SRP3014, Sigma-Aldrich, UK) in serum-free media whereas its control group (ATRA→0% serum) received only serum-free media. The ATRA→0% serum group (identical group to ATRA→BDNF but with absence of BDNF) was added to control the presence of BDNF in the ATRA→BDNF group and determine if the absence of BDNF would result in the same outcomes. The other two experimental groups (control and ATRA) were continued culturing in 10% FBS DMEM/F12 media with and without ATRA as previously described. All cell culture groups were incubated in a humidified incubator till the next media change. Finally, the subsequent media change was performed after 3–4 days prior to the end of the neurogenic induction period (12 days). For more details regarding preparation, diluting the differentiating supplements and culturing, see the S1 File.

Table 1. Experimental groups (differentiated and control groups).

Experimental groups Culturing medium and supplementations Incubation time (days) Total
(days)
Control (standard cell culture) 10% FBS DMEM/F12* supplemented with 10 μM DMSO$. 12 12
ATRA 10% FBS DMEM/F12* supplemented with 10 μM ATRA. 12 12
ATRA→BDNF 1st stage: 10% FBS DMEM/F12* supplemented with 10 μM ATRA. 5 12
2nd stage: Serum-free DMEM/F12* supplemented with 50 ng/ml BDNF. 7
ATRA→ 0 serum
(2nd control)
1st stage: 10% FBS DMEM/F12* supplemented with 10 μM ATRA. 5 12
2nd stage: Serum-free DMEM/F12* without any supplement. 7

* Supplemented with penicillin/streptomycin.

$ DMSO is added as it is the dissolvent used to prepare the ATRA, so the control group is identical to differentiating group but without the differentiating supplement “ATRA”.

Immunocytochemistry

The cells were fixed for 10 min with 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS (Alfa Aesar, UK) and then gently washed twice to remove the remaining fixative solution. The blocking step was then performed for 1h with blocking solution (10% goat serum, 3% bovine serum albumin BSA, and 0.1% Triton X-100 (Sigma, UK) were prepared in PBS). Subsequently, the blocking agent was removed, and the diluted primary antibody was applied and incubated overnight at -4°C. Cells were then washed with PBS (3x10min) and incubated with the secondary antibodies for 1h. Afterward, the cells were gently washed (3x10min) and mounted on microscopy slides using aqueous mounting media containing DAPI (Abcam, UK). The primary and secondary antibodies stains were prepared in a diluent buffer (3% BSA and 0.05% tween-20 in PBS). All information regarding the antibodies and dilutions are provided in S2 Table. The primary antibody application step was omitted in the negative control groups and cells were incubated with diluent buffer alone instead. Images were captured under 40x-oil lens magnification using confocal microscopy (Zeiss LSM 700 confocal microscope, Germany).

Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)

RNA was extracted using the Qiagen RNeasy Mini kit according to the manufacturer’s instructions. RNA purity and concentration were determined using a Spectrophotometer (BioPhotometer Plus, Eppendorf, Germany) at an absorbance of 260/280nm. RNA integrity was visualized using agarose gel electrophoresis. Subsequently, cDNA was synthesized from 1 μg RNA using the Tetro cDNA Synthesis Kit (Bioline, UK). The cDNA was amplified by qPCR using the LightCycler® 480 SYBR Green I Master kit (Roche, UK). The qPCR cycling protocol was run as described by Forster et al. [78] with minor modifications using the Roche LightCycler® 480 II machine PCR system. All samples were run in duplicate or triplicate wells with two negative controls “no cDNA-RNase free water” per each primer pair in every PCR which were run to control for genomic DNA contamination. The melting curve was also checked for each product and selected PCR products were further analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis to confirm size. The crossing point data (Cp) of the gene expression were computed by the LightCycler 480 software using the fit-points methods according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

The efficiencies of all primers were validated for Real-time PCR as previously described and recommended by Pfaffl [88]. The efficiency values were logarithmically calculated using LightCycler® 480 software by creating standard efficiency curves for the serial dilutions of each primer. The stability of the four housekeeping references (GAPDH, RPLA13, HPRT1, and B2M) was also investigated to select the most stable references for normalization of qPCR data as described by Pfaffl et al. [89] and Li et al. [90]. The selection of the most stable housekeeping reference gene was computed by a statistical algorithm analysis program “Normfinder” [91] which determined the HPRT1 as the most stable reference gene amongst the housekeeping references. The fold-change gene expression was calculated as described by the Pfaffl method [88] which includes the Cp data of the most stable reference gene (HPRT1) and efficiency values of both housekeeping and gene of interest primers. The primers, their related information, and efficiency values are provided in S3 Table.

Electrophysiological recordings of whole-cell sodium and potassium currents

For Na+ current recordings (INa), cells were superfused at 3ml/min-1, 22±0.5°C with a solution containing in mM: NaCl 145, KCl 4.5, HEPES 10, NiCl2 2, CaCl2 1.8, MgCl2 1.2 and glucose 10, pH 7.4 (CsOH) as described [92,93]. The internal pipette solution in mM was: CsCl 115, NaCl 5, HEPES 10, EGTA 10, MgATP 5, MgCl2 0.5 and TEA 20, pH 7.2 (CsOH). Whole-cell patch-clamp recordings were obtained in voltage-clamp mode using an Axopatch 200B amplifier. Tip resistance was 1.5-3MΩ and cells were stimulated at 1 Hz. Current-voltage relationships were examined using 100 ms step depolarizations to test potentials ranging from -40 mV to +60 mV from a holding potential of -100 mV.

For recordings of K+ currents (IKss), the same external solution was used but the internal solution contained in mM: KCl 135, NaCl 5, EGTA 10, HEPES 10, MgATP 3, Na3GTP 0.5 and glucose 5 (pH 7.2, KOH), as described [94,95]. K+ currents were evoked by step depolarizations (500 ms) to test potentials between -60 mV and +40 mV from a holding potential of -70 mV, at 1 Hz pacing. Both INa and IKss were normalized to cell capacitance.

Role of the ERK1/2 signaling in the neurogenic induction

The cells were initially differentiated with ATRA-supplemented media for 5 days. Cells were then washed twice with blank media and then cultured in serum-starved media for 5h. Subsequently, the cells were pre-treated with or without 10 μM of ERK/MEK inhibitor (U0126, Cell Signaling Technology, USA) for 1h prior to BDNF supplementation. The BDNF incubation was performed at either 5 min to quantify the ERK1/2 phosphorylation by ELISA or at 48h to assess the effect on differentiation by immunocytochemical expression of mature neuronal marker (Neurofilament medium: NF-M) in the presence or absence of the inhibitor.

Phospho-ERK/MAPK quantification by Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)

Cell lysis and ELISA procedures were performed following the manufacturer’s instructions (PathScan® Phospho-p44/42MAPK (Thr202/Tyr204), Cell signaling Technology, USA). The cells were lysed with lysis buffer (Cell Signaling Technology, USA), and the supernatants of the lysed cells were used for ELISA. The cell lysates of the samples were incubated in the phospho-p44/42MAPK (ERK1/2)-coated 96-well plate overnight at 4°C. Afterward, the sequential incubation with the detection antibody, the HRP-linked secondary antibody, and TMB substrate was for 1h, 30 min, and 10 min at 37°C, respectively. Generous washing (4 times) with wash buffer was performed after each step using an automated plate washer (Bio-Tek Instruments, USA). Finally, the assay reaction was terminated by adding stop solution and reading the absorbance at 450 nm using Spark microplate reader (Tecan Trading AG, Switzerland).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis of the data was performed using SPSS Statistics version 26 and 27 (IBM, USA). The significance level was set at P< 0.05. The groups were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test with a pairwise comparison unless otherwise stated. Significance values were adjusted by Bonferroni correction for multiple tests. The plotting data in the graphs were presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise stated. All experiments were repeated at least twice. Graphs were generated by the GraphPad Prism 9 software package (GraphPad, San Diego, CA, USA).

Results

hDPSCs acquired neuronal-like morphological features after neuronal induction

The hDPSCs and SH-SY5Y cells demonstrated comparable results in which the cells exhibited the highest morphological transition into neuronal-like cells after the sequential supplementation method (ATRA→BDNF) (Fig 1A–1L). SH-SY5Y cells exhibited fine neurite extensions after ATRA supplementation stage (Fig 1B). These neurite extensions became more extensive and branched after the BDNF supplementation stage which resulted in multipolar neuronal-like morphology with network communications (Fig 1D). The parallel control group in the absence of BDNF and FBS supplementation (ATRA→0% serum) exhibited loss of the cells, neurite phenotype and extensions previously produced by the ATRA supplementation (Fig 1C). Whereas hDPSCs began to change morphologically into neuronal-like features after ATRA supplementation stage by exhibiting a bipolar elongation appearance (Fig 1F, solid arrows) compared with the control group (Fig 1E). Subsequently, the hDPSCs acquired more marked and defined neuronal-like features reflected by defined cell bodies displaying bipolar “mainly” and multipolar neuronal-like morphology following the BDNF supplementation stage (Fig 1H–1L; solid arrows indicate bipolar, whereas dotted arrows indicate multipolar neuronal-like morphology). The typical bipolar neuronal-like morphology is presented in Fig 1K and the typical multipolar neuronal-like morphology is shown in Fig 1L. In contrast, the cells of the parallel control group “ATRA→0% serum” did not exhibit the neuronal-like changes when incubated in serum-free media without BDNF supplementation (Fig 1G). These results indicate that the greatest number of neuronal features were induced by the sequential supplementation method “ATRA→BDNF”. Subsequently, the experimental groups were tested for neuronal marker expression to reveal their neuro-immunopositivity and lineage identity.

Fig 1. Neural differentiation of SH-SY5Y and hDPSC experimental groups.

Fig 1

(A-D) Phase contrast images of SH-SY5Y groups; (A) control, (B) ATRA, (C) ATRA→0% serum, and (D) ATRA→BDNF. (E-L) Phase contrast images of hDPSC groups; (E) control, (F) ATRA, (G) ATRA→0% serum and (H-L) ATRA→BDNF. The phase contrast images were background corrected and converted to 8-bit images. Scale bars are shown. Solid arrows indicate bipolar elongation/morphology; dotted arrows indicate multipolar neuronal-like morphology.

Induced hDPSCs immunocytochemically expressed neuronal markers

SH-SY5Y cells and hDPSCs differentiated with ATRA alone or with BDNF supplementation expressed increased neuronal cytoskeleton marker (βIII-tubulin: TUBB3) [96] and the mature marker (Neurofilament medium: NF-M) [97,98] with the highest expression being in the ATRA→BDNF group (Fig 2A and 2B). Notably, the NF-M staining was only evident in the bipolar neuronal-like differentiated hDPSCs, whereas the multipolar neural-like cells did not present any NF-M expression (Fig 2B). Cultures were also stained for Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) to assay for the presence of astrocyte glial-like cells [99]. GFAP was weakly expressed in the control group of SH-SY5Y cells and was reduced in the differentiated groups (Fig 3A). Whereas none of the hDPSC groups expressed GFAP and this included the multipolar glial-like cells (Fig 3B). Subsequently, this neuronal marker profile was further supported by qPCR data which investigated a broader panel of neuronal gene markers.

Fig 2. Immunocytochemical analysis of neuronal markers (NF-M and TUBB3).

Fig 2

(A) SH-SY5Y and (B) hDPSCs. Scale bar is 50 μm in all images.

Fig 3. Immunocytochemical analysis of GFAP in comparison to TUBB3.

Fig 3

(A) SH-SY5Y and (B) hDPSCs. Scale bar is 50 μm in all images.

Neuronal gene markers were specifically upregulated in hDPSCs reflecting differentiation toward a sensory cholinergic neuronal lineage

A panel of specific neuronal gene markers were assessed by real-time qPCR to confirm the neuronal differentiation and characterize the neuronal lineage. The SH-SY5Y and hDPSC data showed that the sequential supplementation protocol (ATRA→BDNF) resulted in a greater number of neuronal gene markers expressed compared with ATRA alone supplementation (Fig 4). In SH-SY5Y cultures, both supplementation methods (ATRA alone and ATRA→BDNF) induced significant gene upregulation of several neuronal markers, including Enolase 2/neuron-specific enolase (ENO2/NSE), Nestin (NES), Peripherin (PRPH), Acetylcholinesterase (ACHE), Choline O-acetyltransferase (CHAT), and Sodium channel alpha subunit 9 SCN9A/Nav1.7 (Fig 4A–4D). The ATRA→BDNF method stimulated significant gene expressions of additional neuronal markers: Growth-associated protein 43 (GAP43), and Synapsin I (SYN1) (Fig 4A and 4B). In hDPSCs, ATRA alone and ATRA→BDNF methods triggered significant gene upregulations of ENO2/NSE, SYN1, CHAT, and SCN9A/Nav1.7 (Fig 4E–4H). Notably, GAP43, NES, PRPH, ACHE, POU class 4 homeobox 1 (POU4F1/BRN3A) markers were only significantly increased by the ATRA→BDNF supplementation protocol (Fig 4E–4H).

Fig 4. Quantitative gene expression of specific neuronal markers as determined by real-time qPCR.

Fig 4

(A-D), Experimental groups of SH-SY5Y. (E-H), Experimental groups of hDPSCs. Fold change was calculated using the Pfaffl method and normalized against the most stable housekeeping gene reference HPRT1 (SH-SY5: n = 9, except for ACHE, n = 6, CHAT, POU4F1, and MNX1, n = 3; DPSCs: n = 6, except for EN02, CHAT, SCN9A, and POU4F1, n = 9; Data plotted as mean ± SD; *P< 0.05, **P< 0.01, ***P< 0.001). Note: ▽ indicates not detected.

In contrast, both cell types demonstrated a significant reduction in the gene expression of the GFAP (Fig 4A and 4E). The gene levels of Dopamine beta-hydroxylase (DBH) and Motor neuron and pancreas homeobox 1 (MNX1) markers showed no change in the differentiated groups of the SH-SY5Y cells (Fig 4C and 4D). Whereas DBH was not detected in all experimental hDPSC groups and MNX1 was significantly reduced in hDPSC differentiated ATRA→BDNF group (Fig 4G and 4H). These significantly reduced levels or no change in gene expression of certain specific neuronal markers may confirm the specificity of the resultant neuronal-like cells. For example, significant reduction in astrocyte glial marker (GFAP) [99] with the concomitant upregulation of neuron-specific marker (ENO2/NSE) [100] indicated that the differentiation was induced toward neuronal cells rather than astrocyte glial cells (Fig 4A and 4E). No change or significant reduced levels in gene expression of motor marker (MNX1/HLXB9/HB9) [101] and simultaneously increased in gene expression of sensory voltage-gated sodium channel marker (SCN9A/Nav1.7) [102] with or without upregulation of another sensory marker: POU4F1/BRN3A [103] indicate the specialized sensory identity of these neuronal-like cells (Fig 4D and 4H). Finally, no change or absence of detection of the noradrenergic neurotransmitter marker (DBH) [104] with the concomitant upregulation of cholinergic neurotransmitter markers (CHAT and ACHE) [105,106] suggests the specialized cholinergic identity of the resultant neuronal-like cells (Fig 4C and 4G). The gene expression data support the superiority of the sequential supplementation method and suggest a guided differentiation toward sensory cholinergic neuronal lineage in both cell types.

Induced hDPSCs demonstrated a significant neuronal electrophysiological profile

To test for functional changes induced by the different treatment protocols, INa and IKss were measured in SH-SY5Y cells and hDPSCs. Treatment of SH-SY5Y cells with ATRA and BDNF but not ATRA alone led to a significant upregulation in INa and IKss compared with control (Fig 5A and 5B). The ATRA→BDNF treated SH-SY5Y cells also had a significantly larger cell capacitance (Fig 5C). In hDPSCs, control untreated cells did not display any measurable amount of either INa or IKss (Fig 5D and 5E). Although some cells treated with ATRA alone had measurable INa, this was highly variable and overall, not significantly different to control cells (Fig 5D). However, for ATRA→BDNF treated hDPSCs, peak INa was larger, more consistently measurable, and significantly elevated compared with control over a range of test potentials between -20 to +40mV (Fig 5D). Similarly, IKss was apparent in some cells treated with ATRA alone and was not significantly different from control cells (Fig 5E). However, hDPSCs treated with ATRA→BDNF displayed significant elevations compared with control over a range of test potentials between -10 and +40mV (Fig 5E). Measurements of cell capacitance also suggested a significant elevation in cell capacitance in the ATRA→BDNF hDPSCs compared with control (Fig 5F).

Fig 5. Patch-clamp electrophysiology analysis of neuronal differentiated SH-SY5Y and hDPSCs.

Fig 5

(A) Mean I-V relationship of INa in SH-SY5Y (control, n = 23; ATRA, n = 25; ATRA→BDNF, n = 21). (B) Mean I-V relationship for IKss in SH-SY5Y (control, n = 22; ATRA, n = 18; ATRA→BDNF, n = 23). (C) Mean cell capacitance in SH-SY5Y (control, n = 45; ATRA, n = 43; ATRA→BDNF, n = 44). (D) Mean I-V relationship of INa in hDPSCs (control, n = 6; ATRA, n = 10; ATRA→BDNF, n = 14). (E) Mean I-V relationship of IKss in hDPSCs (control, n = 7; ATRA, n = 6; ATRA→BDNF, n = 10). (F) Mean cell capacitance in hDPSCs (control, n = 8; ATRA, n = 6; ATRA→BDNF, n = 23). Data were analyzed by Friedman repeated measure ANOVA for comparison between measured membrane potentials of each group and Kruskal-Wallis test with a pairwise comparison for comparison between experimental groups; significance values were adjusted by Bonferroni correction. Data plotted as mean ± SEM; *, ** and *** denote P< 0.05, P< 0.01, and P< 0.001.

ERK1/2 inhibitor blocked neuronal differentiation and ERK1/2 phosphorylation

To determine whether neuronal differentiation using the ATRA→BDNF method depended on the ERK/MAPK signaling pathway, the neuronal differentiation inhibition was assessed by immunocytochemical expression of the mature neuronal marker (NF-M) with and without ERK/MEK inhibitor (U0126). In addition, ELISA was used to quantify the phospho-ERK1/2 levels of the experimental groups in the presence or absence of the ERK/MEK inhibitor (U0126).

The SH-SY5Y cells and hDPSCs presented comparable immunocytochemical expression with BDNF supplementation inducing the greatest levels of NF-M immunostaining among the experimental groups (Fig 6A and 6B). In contrast, the BDNF-induced NF-M immunostaining increases were markedly reduced in the presence of the U0126 inhibitor (BDNF plus U0126) which demonstrated similar immunocytochemical expression to those of the control group with and without the inhibitor (Fig 6A and 6B). These findings suggest the ERK/MEK inhibitor (U0126 inhibitor) completely ablated the differentiating effect of BDNF supplementation.

Fig 6. Immunolabelling analysis of the mature marker (NF-M) expression in the presence and absence of the ERK1/2 inhibitor (U0126).

Fig 6

(A) SH-SY5Y cells. (B) hDPSCs. All groups were initially differentiated with ATRA for 5 days as a preparatory stage, followed by immunostaining and confocal microscopy analysis after 48h-incubation with BDNF in the presence or absence of the ERK/MEK inhibitor. Scale bar is 50 μm in all images.

ELISA data demonstrated that there was a highly significant difference between the experimental groups (One-way ANOVA: P = 0.000, F ratio (df) = 159.196 (3,16), 119.045 (3,16) for SH-SY5Y and hDPSCs, respectively). The BDNF-supplemented groups in both cell types (SH-SY5Y cells and hDPSCs) showed noticeable upregulations of phospho-ERK1/2 levels compared with the control group, albeit the statistically significant increase was only detected in SH-SY5Y cell type (Fig 7, SH-SY5Y: P = 0.000 and hDPSCs: P = 0.209). The pre-treatment of the cells with the ERK/MEK inhibitor (U0126) significantly reduced the phospho-ERK1/2 levels induced by BDNF supplementation (BDNF+U0126) compared with BDNF group alone (Fig 7, SH-SY5Y: P = 0.000 and hDPSCs: P = 0.001). There was also a significant reduction in control groups with the inhibitor (control+U0126) compared with control groups (Fig 7, SH-SY5Y and hDPSCs: P = 0.000). Consequently, the increase of the phospho-ERK1/2 levels in the BDNF-supplemented group compared with those of control group and concomitant reduction of the phospho-ERK1/2 levels in the pre-treated groups with ERK/MEK inhibitor (control+U0126 and BDNF+U0126) suggest the involvement of ERK/MAPK pathway in control and supplemented groups, however BDNF supplementation induced further activation of this pathway. Overall, the concurrent increase of the differentiating effect assessed by immunocytochemical expression of the mature neuronal marker NF-M and phospho-ERK1/2 levels assessed by ELSIA in the BDNF-supplemented groups and their reduction in the presence of the ERK/MEK inhibitor indicate that the ERK/MAPK signaling is involved in regulating neuronal differentiation.

Fig 7. Analysis of p44/42 MAPK (ERK1/2) phosphorylation in neuronal differentiated SH-SY5Y and hDPSCs in the presence or absence of the ERK/MEK inhibitor (U0126).

Fig 7

These data were determined by quantitative sandwich ELISA and the absorbance values were read at 450nm. The data were analyzed by One-way ANOVA and Games-Howell Post-Hoc for pairwise comparison between the experimental groups. Data plotted as mean ± SD (n = 4; *P< 0.05, **P< 0.01, and ***P< 0.001).

Discussion

In the present study, hDPSCs were successfully differentiated into neuronal-like cells using the SH-SY5Y sequential neurogenesis supplementation method. This novel and simple approach for establishing a neuronal DPSC differentiation model is supported by microscopic, molecular, and functional evidence. Moreover, this study indicates the sensory cholinergic nature of the differentiated hDPSCs and involvement of ERK/MAPK signaling in the differentiation process.

The ATRA is commonly used to induce neurogenic differentiation of multiple cell lines and stem cells such as SH-SY5Y human neuroblastoma cells [107,108], P19 mouse embryonal carcinoma cell line [109,110], embryonic stem cells [111,112], and mesenchymal stem cells [113]. However, Takahashi et al. [114] and Goldie et al., [74] reported that ATRA alone results in immature neural differentiation of SH-SY5Y and neural stem cells and should be supplemented in combination with neurotrophin such as BDNF to establish full neural maturation. In this context, Encinas et al., [72] and Takahashi et al. [114] reported that sequential induction of ATRA and followed by neurotrophin treatment is critical as the ATRA pretreatment increases the cellular response to neurotrophin (s), including BDNF in SH-SY5Y cells and neural stem cells, respectively. Another study by Bi et al., [115] emphasized that the ATRA pre-induction “activating retinoid signaling” improved neural differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Hence, it was hypothesized that the successful neuronal differentiation by sequential supplementation of ATRA and then BDNF in SH-SY5Y cells would also result in mature neuronal differentiation of hDPSCs.

Indeed, the differentiated of hDPSCs by the sequential supplementations of ATRA and then BDNF treatment resulted in apparent neuronal morphological features such as phase-bright cell bodies and bipolar or multipolar neurite-like extensions as shown in Fig 1. This observation was consistent with the neuronal induction found in the SH-SY5Y cell model and is comparable with previous SH-SY5Y studies [72,74], underscoring the neurogenesis process induced in the hDPSC cultures. The mixed outcome of bipolar and multipolar neuronal-like morphology cells in the differentiated hDPSCs is also reported by Kiraly et al., [40] which indicates the presence of different neuronal phenotypes. Consequently, the mature neuronal marker (NF-M) [97,98] and astrocyte glial marker (GFAP) [99] were used to differentiate between both resultant neuronal-like cells. The bipolar differentiated cells only expressed NF-M and lacked GFAP expression in both neuronal phenotypes “bipolar and multipolar neuronal-like cells”. The multipolar differentiated hDPSCs acquired glial-like cell morphology which may represent glial cells, but not the astrocyte glial subtype due to lack of GFAP expression. These findings suggest a mixture of mature bipolar neuronal-like and multipolar glial-like cells but not the astrocyte glial-like cells. This interpretation is in agreement with that of Luzuriaga et al. [116] who reported that BDNF can reprogram hDPSCs into both neurogenic and gliogenic lineages. Hence, this explains the mixed outcome of bipolar and multipolar neuronal-like cells observed here. Indeed, the presence of bipolar and multipolar neuronal-like cells in the same culture supports the concept of heterogeneity of specific markers in hDPSC cultures which results in guiding of the cells toward specific lineages [117,118]. In other words, hDPSC cultures have differences in cellular markers that govern the differentiation ability toward a specific cell type. For example, the DPSCs expressing high nestin were reported to differentiate into neuronal and glial lineages compared with no differentiation of DPSCs with low nestin expression [117]. In this regard, we assume that there are additional specific makers/factors which may induce the individual cell populations in the same hDPSC cultures to differentiate into bipolar or multipolar morphology. Thus, further investigation is required to identify the reason(s) underlying the different outcomes of differentiated neuronal-like cells in the same cell culture induced by the same inducers.

While the ATRA→BDNF group exhibited typical neuronal-like phenotypes, these neuronal-like cells represented a small population among the larger population of elongated and other unchanged cells. Similarly, Kiraly et al. [40] reported functional typical neuronal-like cells differentiated from hDPSCs, however they are a small proportion compared with the entire cell culture and the authors interpreted that it may be because of the high proliferative capacity of the undifferentiated early hDPSC passages. This may be one explanation for the presence of small typical neuronal-like population in our study as we used early passage hDPSCs. Another explanation may be that there is a variation in the response of the hDPSCs to neurogenic induction due to the inherent heterogeneity of DPSCs [117]. While the highest TUBB3 expression was detected in the ATRA→BDNF group, this neuronal cytoskeleton marker [96] was also shown in control hDPSC cultures. TUBB3 is a cytoskeletal protein of neuronal cells and is required in neurodevelopment for guidance, differentiation, survival of neuronal cells [96,119] and axonal regeneration [120]. This marker has been considered as a specific marker for neuronal cells and widely used in neuronal differentiation studies. However, ours and other studies have detected TUBB3 expression in undifferentiated DPSCs [68,121]. TUBB3 has also been found in non-neuronal cells such as tumor cells and normal cells such as fibroblast, stroma cells, endocrine cells [122], and perivascular cells, including smooth muscle, and pericytes [123]. Thereby, the detection of the TUBB3 does not necessarily indicate neural differentiation, although its increase in expression most likely does. Consequently, use of multiple neuronal markers, particularly specific lineage ones, besides neuronal morphological change, and functional evidence are preferable to investigate and assess neuronal differentiation.

The ATRA→BDNF group demonstrated increased gene expression of neuronal markers compared with the ATRA alone exposure group. Furthermore, the gene expression of specific neuronal markers indicates that the differentiation was guided toward specialized neuronal lineage. For instance, the ATRA→BDNF group demonstrated gene upregulation of cholinergic neurotransmitter markers: choline acetyltransferase (CHAT) and acetylcholinesterase (ACHE) which are responsible for synthesis of neurotransmitter acetylcholine and modulation and termination of synaptic transmission function of neurotransmitter acetylcholine at postsynaptic cholinergic junction, respectively [124126]. Simultaneously, the ATRA→BDNF group showed no change or absence of detection of the noradrenergic marker (DBH) [104] which is responsible for production of the norepinephrine neurotransmitter for synaptic transmission function of noradrenergic neurons. This upregulation of cholinergic markers combined with no change or absence of noradrenergic marker suggest a specialized cholinergic identity of the resultant neuronal-like cells derived from hDPSCs and SH-SY5Y cells. Establishment of cholinergic neuronal cells derived from hDPSCs are previously reported in different methodology studies [127129]. It is also reported in other stem cell studies used ATRA and BDNF in combination with other inducers to differentiate stem cells into neuronal-like cells [130,131]. In addition, the cholinergic identity of the SH-SY5Y-derived neuronal-like cells induced by similar methodology was previously reported [73,74]. This consistency in the findings indicates that the ATRA and BDNF inducers are responsible for the cholinergic synaptic activity of the established neuronal-like cells.

Other specific markers were sensory neuronal marker (POU4F1/BRN3A) [103] and nociceptive voltage-gated sodium channel marker (SCN9A/Nav 1.7) [102] which were significantly expressed in the hDPSC ATRA→BDNF group. The POU4F1/BRN3A plays a neurodevelopmental role for sensory neurons [132] whereas SCN9A/Nav 1.7 is responsible for pain sensation detected by sensory neurons [133]. These expressions of the sensory neuronal markers in concomitant with significant reduced levels of motor neurodevelopmental marker (MNX1/HLXB9/HB9) [101] in the established hDPSC-derived neuronal-like cells indicate a specific guided differentiation toward the sensory neuronal lineage. Interestingly, these data are not entirely in agreement with previously mentioned studies [130,131] which used ATRA and BDNF with other combinations for stem-cell neuronal differentiation resulting in motor neuronal differentiation. The possible explanation for motor neuronal differentiation in these studies is the presence of the sonic hedgehog (SHH) supplementation in the differentiating media which is reported as an active inducer for guided differentiation into the motor neuronal lineage [134,135]. In addition, the use of very low concentrations of ATRA (1nM to 2μM) and BDNF (10–20 ng/ml) in these studies may not be sufficient to guide the differentiation toward a sensory neuronal lineage in comparison with the current study (10μM ATRA and 50 ng/ml BDNF). In this context, there are some studies reported that disruption or lack of the BDNF disturbs the sensory neural development but not motor neural development [136138] which indicate the BDNF supplementation in our study is the underlying inductive agent for the sensory identity of the established neuronal like cells. Therefore, the combinations and concentrations of multiple inducers should be carefully selected to guide the differentiation toward a specific neuronal lineage and avoid the possibility of non-specific or random neuronal differentiation.

It has previously been reported that the neuronal-like morphology and expression of certain neuronal markers in stem cells can result from chemical toxicity or stress in the differentiating media rather than being due to actual neuronal differentiation [139]. Hence, electrophysiology recordings were performed to investigate the functional electrical properties of the differentiated hDPSCs. The study data demonstrates that only the ATRA→BDNF group displayed significant INa and IKss, whereas the ATRA group did not. This was consistent with the SH-SY5Y cell data and with Goldie et al. [74] who reported that ATRA alone produces intermediate differentiation and that addition of BDNF significantly induces the synaptic and functional transcriptional networks of SH-SY5Y cells. Similar data is also reported in other stem-cell neuronal differentiation studies which used ATRA and BDNF in their inductive media [130,131]. Previous observations suggest that hDPSCs have a considerably larger cell capacitance compared to primary neurons and neuronal cell lines [117] and this was also apparent in the current study in which the measurements are similar to those reported previously [117]. As measurements were normalized to cell capacitance, this likely accounts for the smaller IKss in the hDPSCs compared with SH-SY5Y cells. The smaller IKss and INa may also be a consequence of the immature electrophysiological phenotype in the hDPSCs which is a known limitation of many different types of human stem cell derived cell types [117,140]. Importantly, the current study indicate that additional BDNF supplementation in both SH-SY5Y and hDPSCs leads to significant induction of INa and IKss, suggesting that this is an important factor for promoting ‘neuronal-like’ functional electrophysiological development.

In this study, the role of the ERK1/2 signaling in the neuronal differentiation of hDPSCs was investigated. The ERK/MEK inhibitor (U0126) significantly decreased the immunocytochemical expression of the NF-M marker and the EKR1/2 phosphorylation induced by BDNF supplementation. This outcome is consistent with findings of similar methodological study reported by Encinas et al. [75] who demonstrated that the BDNF induces the neuronal differentiation of ATRA-treated SH-SY5Y cells via ERK/MAPK signaling and ATRA pretreatment activates the Trk B receptor which subsequently increases BDNF binding and triggering of the ERK/MAPK signaling. In addition, the BDNF-mediated neurogenesis and neuritogenesis via ERK/MAPK signaling has been also reported in stem cells such as blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells [84], and immature progenitor neuronal cells [141143]. Taken together, this provides convincing evidence to support the notion that BDNF induces neurogenesis of stem cells, including, hDPSCs in this study via ERK/MAPK signaling.

There was also reduction in phospho-ERK1/2 levels of the control group with the inhibitor applied, however no change in the immunocytochemical expression of NF-M neuronal marker was observed compared with controls in both cell types. This reduction in phospho-ERK1/2 levels was expected as the ERK signaling is central to the MAPK pathway which underpins a variety of biological processes [144,145]. Moreover, the immunocytochemical results showed no change in the expression of the NF-M mature neuronal marker, and this indicates that the reduction in ERK-phosphorylation of the control group when the inhibitor applied is not related to differentiation process. The present study suggests the involvement of ERK/MAPK pathway in both control and supplemented groups, but BDNF supplementation increased the triggering of this pathway to induce neuronal differentiation.

In conclusion, this study provides original evidence for differentiation of human DPSCs into neuronal-like cells, particularly toward cholinergic sensory neuronal cells. The hDPSC-derived cholinergic sensory neuronal-like cells may provide a suitable in vitro model to study neural function and nerve regeneration and could be harnessed for tissue-engineering constructs and regenerative transplantation therapies in medicine and dentistry. In addition, the combination of ATRA and BDNF may be an attractive therapy for neural regeneration, particularly for sensory cholinergic nerves.

Supporting information

S1 Table. hDPSCs information and stem cells characterization.

(PDF)

S2 Table. The antibodies and dilutions used for immunocytochemical analysis.

(PDF)

S3 Table. The primer details used for real-time PCR.

(PDF)

S1 File. Neurogenic differentiation protocol for neuroblastoma cell line (SH-SY5Y) and human dental pulp stem cells (hDPSCs).

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank our lab technicians at School of Dentistry, University of Birmingham namely Gay Smith, Michelle Holder, and Helen Wright for technical help and guidance during the laboratory work of this project. Special thanks to Dr Huzaimi Haron from School of Pharmacy, University of Birmingham for providing SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cell line to be used in this project.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the article and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This project was funded by IDB Merit Scholarship (IDB No. 600031755) to A.A.A and University of Birmingham – School of Dentistry (grant No. GAM2271) to B.A.S, A.D.W, P.R.C. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Yi S, Zhang Y, Gu X, Huang L, Zhang K, Qian T. Application of stem cells in peripheral nerve regeneration. Burns Trauma. 2020;8:tkaa002. doi: 10.1093/burnst/tkaa002 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wang Y, Pan J, Wang D, Liu J. The Use of Stem Cells in Neural Regeneration: A Review of Current Opinion. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther. 2018;13(7):608–17. doi: 10.2174/1574888X13666180720100738 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Grinsell D, Keating CP. Peripheral nerve reconstruction after injury: a review of clinical and experimental therapies. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:698256. doi: 10.1155/2014/698256 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nakashima M, Iohara K. Regeneration of dental pulp by stem cells. Adv Dent Res. 2011;23(3):313–9. doi: 10.1177/0022034511405323 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yang J, Yuan G, Chen Z. Pulp Regeneration: Current Approaches and Future Challenges. Front Physiol. 2016;7:58. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2016.00058 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Olgart L. Neural control of pulpal blood flow. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1996;7(2):159–71. doi: 10.1177/10454411960070020401 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kerezoudis NP, Olgart L, Edwall L. Involvement of substance P but not nitric oxide or calcitonin gene-related peptide in neurogenic plasma extravasation in rat incisor pulp and lip. Arch Oral Biol. 1994;39(9):769–74. doi: 10.1016/0003-9969(94)90006-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Okolicsanyi RK, Camilleri ET, Oikari LE, Yu C, Cool SM, van Wijnen AJ, et al. Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells Retain Multilineage Differentiation Capacity Including Neural Marker Expression after Extended In Vitro Expansion. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0137255. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137255 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ziegler L, Grigoryan S, Yang IH, Thakor NV, Goldstein RS. Efficient generation of schwann cells from human embryonic stem cell-derived neurospheres. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2011;7(2):394–403. doi: 10.1007/s12015-010-9198-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jiang L, Jones S, Jia X. Stem Cell Transplantation for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: Current Options and Opportunities. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(1). doi: 10.3390/ijms18010094 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zawadzka M, Kwaśniewska A, Miazga K, Sławińska U. Perspectives in the Cell-Based Therapies of Various Aspects of the Spinal Cord Injury-Associated Pathologies: Lessons from the Animal Models. Cells. 2021;10(11). doi: 10.3390/cells10112995 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lee EJ, Xu L, Kim GH, Kang SK, Lee SW, Park SH, et al. Regeneration of peripheral nerves by transplanted sphere of human mesenchymal stem cells derived from embryonic stem cells. Biomaterials. 2012;33(29):7039–46. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.06.047 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hu Y, Wu Y, Gou Z, Tao J, Zhang J, Liu Q, et al. 3D-engineering of Cellularized Conduits for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration. Sci Rep. 2016;6:32184. doi: 10.1038/srep32184 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kappos EA, Engels PE, Tremp M, Meyer zu Schwabedissen M, di Summa P, Fischmann A, et al. Peripheral Nerve Repair: Multimodal Comparison of the Long-Term Regenerative Potential of Adipose Tissue-Derived Cells in a Biodegradable Conduit. Stem Cells Dev. 2015;24(18):2127–41. doi: 10.1089/scd.2014.0424 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Smith MJ, Paton MCB, Fahey MC, Jenkin G, Miller SL, Finch-Edmondson M, et al. Neural stem cell treatment for perinatal brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2021;10(12):1621–36. doi: 10.1002/sctm.21-0243 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kim C, Kim HJ, Lee H, Lee SJ, Lee ST, Yang SR, et al. Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation Promotes Functional Recovery through MMP2/STAT3 Related Astrogliosis after Spinal Cord Injury. Int J Stem Cells. 2019;12(2):331–9. doi: 10.15283/ijsc18133 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zhao XM, He XY, Liu J, Xu Y, Xu FF, Tan YX, et al. Neural Stem Cell Transplantation Improves Locomotor Function in Spinal Cord Transection Rats Associated with Nerve Regeneration and IGF-1 R Expression. Cell Transplant. 2019;28(9–10):1197–211. doi: 10.1177/0963689719860128 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mesentier-Louro LA, Teixeira-Pinheiro LC, Gubert F, Vasques JF, Silva-Junior AJ, Chimeli-Ormonde L, et al. Long-term neuronal survival, regeneration, and transient target reconnection after optic nerve crush and mesenchymal stem cell transplantation. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2019;10(1):121. doi: 10.1186/s13287-019-1226-9 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Heng BC, Lim LW, Wu W, Zhang C. An Overview of Protocols for the Neural Induction of Dental and Oral Stem Cells In Vitro. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2016;22(3):220–50. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2015.0488 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Riess P, Molcanyi M, Bentz K, Maegele M, Simanski C, Carlitscheck C, et al. Embryonic stem cell transplantation after experimental traumatic brain injury dramatically improves neurological outcome, but may cause tumors. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24(1):216–25. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.0141 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Abeysinghe HC, Bokhari L, Quigley A, Choolani M, Chan J, Dusting GJ, et al. Pre-differentiation of human neural stem cells into GABAergic neurons prior to transplant results in greater repopulation of the damaged brain and accelerates functional recovery after transient ischemic stroke. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2015;6:186. doi: 10.1186/s13287-015-0175-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hu F, Zhang X, Liu H, Xu P, Doulathunnisa, Teng G, et al. Neuronally differentiated adipose-derived stem cells and aligned PHBV nanofiber nerve scaffolds promote sciatic nerve regeneration. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2017;489(2):171–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2017.05.119 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yang H, Xie Z, Wei L, Yang H, Yang S, Zhu Z, et al. Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell-derived neuron-like cells rescue memory deficits and reduce amyloid-beta deposition in an AbetaPP/PS1 transgenic mouse model. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2013;4(4):76. doi: 10.1186/scrt227 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gao S, Guo X, Zhao S, Jin Y, Zhou F, Yuan P, et al. Differentiation of human adipose-derived stem cells into neuron/motoneuron-like cells for cell replacement therapy of spinal cord injury. Cell Death Dis. 2019;10(8):597. doi: 10.1038/s41419-019-1772-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dadon-Nachum M, Sadan O, Srugo I, Melamed E, Offen D. Differentiated mesenchymal stem cells for sciatic nerve injury. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2011;7(3):664–71. doi: 10.1007/s12015-010-9227-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ladak A, Olson J, Tredget EE, Gordon T. Differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells to support peripheral nerve regeneration in a rat model. Exp Neurol. 2011;228(2):242–52. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2011.01.013 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Reid AJ, Sun M, Wiberg M, Downes S, Terenghi G, Kingham PJ. Nerve repair with adipose-derived stem cells protects dorsal root ganglia neurons from apoptosis. Neuroscience. 2011;199:515–22. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.09.064 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Jones I, Yelhekar TD, Wiberg R, Kingham PJ, Johansson S, Wiberg M, et al. Development and validation of an in vitro model system to study peripheral sensory neuron development and injury. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):15961. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-34280-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yap MS, Nathan KR, Yeo Y, Lim LW, Poh CL, Richards M, et al. Neural Differentiation of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells for Nontherapeutic Applications: Toxicology, Pharmacology, and In Vitro Disease Modeling. Stem Cells Int. 2015;2015:105172. doi: 10.1155/2015/105172 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Oosterveen T, Garção P, Moles-Garcia E, Soleilhavoup C, Travaglio M, Sheraz S, et al. Pluripotent stem cell derived dopaminergic subpopulations model the selective neuron degeneration in Parkinson’s disease. Stem Cell Reports. 2021;16(11):2718–35. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2021.09.014 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Choi SH, Kim YH, Hebisch M, Sliwinski C, Lee S, D’Avanzo C, et al. A three-dimensional human neural cell culture model of Alzheimer’s disease. Nature. 2014;515(7526):274–8. doi: 10.1038/nature13800 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Peng J, Liu Q, Rao MS, Zeng X. Using human pluripotent stem cell-derived dopaminergic neurons to evaluate candidate Parkinson’s disease therapeutic agents in MPP+ and rotenone models. J Biomol Screen. 2013;18(5):522–33. doi: 10.1177/1087057112474468 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Deshmukh RS, Kovacs KA, Dinnyes A. Drug discovery models and toxicity testing using embryonic and induced pluripotent stem-cell-derived cardiac and neuronal cells. Stem Cells Int. 2012;2012:379569. doi: 10.1155/2012/379569 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Randall AD. Are stem cell-derived neural cells physiologically credible? J Physiol. 2016;594(22):6569–72. doi: 10.1113/JP273348 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sterneckert JL, Reinhardt P, Scholer HR. Investigating human disease using stem cell models. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;15(9):625–39. doi: 10.1038/nrg3764 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Peters H, Balling R. Teeth. Where and how to make them. Trends Genet. 1999;15(2):59–65. doi: 10.1016/s0168-9525(98)01662-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Thesleff I, Aberg T. Molecular regulation of tooth development. Bone. 1999;25(1):123–5. doi: 10.1016/s8756-3282(99)00119-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Stokowski A, Shi S, Sun T, Bartold PM, Koblar SA, Gronthos S. EphB/ephrin-B interaction mediates adult stem cell attachment, spreading, and migration: implications for dental tissue repair. Stem Cells. 2007;25(1):156–64. doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2006-0373 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Janebodin K, Horst OV, Ieronimakis N, Balasundaram G, Reesukumal K, Pratumvinit B, et al. Isolation and characterization of neural crest-derived stem cells from dental pulp of neonatal mice. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27526. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027526 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kiraly M, Porcsalmy B, Pataki A, Kadar K, Jelitai M, Molnar B, et al. Simultaneous PKC and cAMP activation induces differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells into functionally active neurons. Neurochem Int. 2009;55(5):323–32. doi: 10.1016/j.neuint.2009.03.017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kanafi M, Majumdar D, Bhonde R, Gupta P, Datta I. Midbrain cues dictate differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells towards functional dopaminergic neurons. J Cell Physiol. 2014;229(10):1369–77. doi: 10.1002/jcp.24570 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mead B, Logan A, Berry M, Leadbeater W, Scheven BA. Paracrine-mediated neuroprotection and neuritogenesis of axotomised retinal ganglion cells by human dental pulp stem cells: comparison with human bone marrow and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e109305. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109305 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Sultan N, Amin LE, Zaher AR, Grawish ME, Scheven BA. Dental pulp stem cells stimulate neuronal differentiation of PC12 cells. Neural Regen Res. 2021;16(9):1821–8. doi: 10.4103/1673-5374.306089 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Arthur A, Rychkov G, Shi S, Koblar SA, Gronthos S. Adult human dental pulp stem cells differentiate toward functionally active neurons under appropriate environmental cues. Stem Cells. 2008;26(7):1787–95. doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0979 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Chang CC, Chang KC, Tsai SJ, Chang HH, Lin CP. Neurogenic differentiation of dental pulp stem cells to neuron-like cells in dopaminergic and motor neuronal inductive media. J Formos Med Assoc. 2014;113(12):956–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2014.09.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gnanasegaran N, Govindasamy V, Mani V, Abu Kasim NH. Neuroimmunomodulatory properties of DPSCs in an in vitro model of Parkinson’s disease. IUBMB Life. 2017;69(9):689–99. doi: 10.1002/iub.1655 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Andrukhov O, Behm C, Blufstein A, Rausch-Fan X. Immunomodulatory properties of dental tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells: Implication in disease and tissue regeneration. World J Stem Cells. 2019;11(9):604–17. doi: 10.4252/wjsc.v11.i9.604 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wilson R, Urraca N, Skobowiat C, Hope KA, Miravalle L, Chamberlin R, et al. Assessment of the Tumorigenic Potential of Spontaneously Immortalized and hTERT-Immortalized Cultured Dental Pulp Stem Cells. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2015;4(8):905–12. doi: 10.5966/sctm.2014-0196 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Mortada I, Mortada R, Al Bazzal M. Dental pulp stem cells and the management of neurological diseases: An update. J Neurosci Res. 2018;96(2):265–72. doi: 10.1002/jnr.24122 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Deng J, Zhang Y, Xie Y, Zhang L, Tang P. Cell Transplantation for Spinal Cord Injury: Tumorigenicity of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Neural Stem/Progenitor Cells. Stem Cells Int. 2018;2018:5653787. doi: 10.1155/2018/5653787 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Chapelin F, Khurana A, Moneeb M, Gray Hazard FK, Chan CFR, Nejadnik H, et al. Tumor Formation of Adult Stem Cell Transplants in Rodent Arthritic Joints. Mol Imaging Biol. 2019;21(1):95–104. doi: 10.1007/s11307-018-1218-7 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Luo L, He Y, Wang X, Key B, Lee BH, Li H, et al. Potential Roles of Dental Pulp Stem Cells in Neural Regeneration and Repair. Stem Cells Int. 2018;2018:1731289. doi: 10.1155/2018/1731289 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lambrichts I, Driesen RB, Dillen Y, Gervois P, Ratajczak J, Vangansewinkel T, et al. Dental Pulp Stem Cells: Their Potential in Reinnervation and Angiogenesis by Using Scaffolds. J Endod. 2017;43(9S):S12–S6. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.06.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Diogenes A. Trigeminal Sensory Neurons and Pulp Regeneration. J Endod. 2020;46(9S):S71–S80. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2020.06.038 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Mead B, Logan A, Berry M, Leadbeater W, Scheven BA. Concise Review: Dental Pulp Stem Cells: A Novel Cell Therapy for Retinal and Central Nervous System Repair. Stem Cells. 2017;35(1):61–7. doi: 10.1002/stem.2398 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mead B, Logan A, Berry M, Leadbeater W, Scheven BA. Intravitreally transplanted dental pulp stem cells promote neuroprotection and axon regeneration of retinal ganglion cells after optic nerve injury. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(12):7544–56. doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-13045 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Yang C, Li X, Sun L, Guo W, Tian W. Potential of human dental stem cells in repairing the complete transection of rat spinal cord. J Neural Eng. 2017;14(2):026005. doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/aa596b . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Luo L, He Y, Jin L, Zhang Y, Guastaldi FP, Albashari AA, et al. Application of bioactive hydrogels combined with dental pulp stem cells for the repair of large gap peripheral nerve injuries. Bioact Mater. 2021;6(3):638–54. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.08.028 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kogo Y, Seto C, Totani Y, Mochizuki M, Nakahara T, Oka K, et al. Rapid differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells to neuron-like cells by high K. Biophys Physicobiol. 2020;17:132–9. doi: 10.2142/biophysico.BSJ-2020023 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Martens W, Sanen K, Georgiou M, Struys T, Bronckaers A, Ameloot M, et al. Human dental pulp stem cells can differentiate into Schwann cells and promote and guide neurite outgrowth in an aligned tissue-engineered collagen construct in vitro. FASEB J. 2014;28(4):1634–43. doi: 10.1096/fj.13-243980 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Gervois P, Struys T, Hilkens P, Bronckaers A, Ratajczak J, Politis C, et al. Neurogenic maturation of human dental pulp stem cells following neurosphere generation induces morphological and electrophysiological characteristics of functional neurons. Stem Cells Dev. 2015;24(3):296–311. doi: 10.1089/scd.2014.0117 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Li D, Zou XY, El-Ayachi I, Romero LO, Yu Z, Iglesias-Linares A, et al. Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells and Gingival Mesenchymal Stem Cells Display Action Potential Capacity In Vitro after Neuronogenic Differentiation. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2019;15(1):67–81. doi: 10.1007/s12015-018-9854-5 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Solis-Castro OO, Boissonade FM, Rivolta MN. Establishment and neural differentiation of neural crest-derived stem cells from human dental pulp in serum-free conditions. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2020;9(11):1462–76. doi: 10.1002/sctm.20-0037 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Laudani S, La Cognata V, Iemmolo R, Bonaventura G, Villaggio G, Saccone S, et al. Effect of a Bone Marrow-Derived Extracellular Matrix on Cell Adhesion and Neural Induction of Dental Pulp Stem Cells. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020;8:100. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2020.00100 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Goorha S, Reiter LT. Culturing and Neuronal Differentiation of Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells. Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2017;92:21 6 1–6 10. doi: 10.1002/cphg.28 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Chun SY, Soker S, Jang YJ, Kwon TG, Yoo ES. Differentiation of Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells into Dopaminergic Neuron-like Cells in Vitro. J Korean Med Sci. 2016;31(2):171–7. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.2.171 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Zainal Ariffin SH, Kermani S, Zainol Abidin IZ, Megat Abdul Wahab R, Yamamoto Z, Senafi S, et al. Differentiation of dental pulp stem cells into neuron-like cells in serum-free medium. Stem Cells Int. 2013;2013:250740. doi: 10.1155/2013/250740 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Foudah D, Monfrini M, Donzelli E, Niada S, Brini AT, Orciani M, et al. Expression of neural markers by undifferentiated mesenchymal-like stem cells from different sources. J Immunol Res. 2014;2014:987678. doi: 10.1155/2014/987678 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Madanagopal TT, Franco-Obregón A, Rosa V. Comparative study of xeno-free induction protocols for neural differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells in vitro. Arch Oral Biol. 2020;109:104572. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2019.104572 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Hodge RD, Bakken TE, Miller JA, Smith KA, Barkan ER, Graybuck LT, et al. Conserved cell types with divergent features in human versus mouse cortex. Nature. 2019;573(7772):61–8. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1506-7 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Croft AP, Przyborski SA. Formation of neurons by non-neural adult stem cells: potential mechanism implicates an artifact of growth in culture. Stem Cells. 2006;24(8):1841–51. doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2005-0609 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Encinas M, Iglesias M, Liu Y, Wang H, Muhaisen A, Cena V, et al. Sequential treatment of SH-SY5Y cells with retinoic acid and brain-derived neurotrophic factor gives rise to fully differentiated, neurotrophic factor-dependent, human neuron-like cells. J Neurochem. 2000;75(3):991–1003. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2000.0750991.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.de Medeiros LM, De Bastiani MA, Rico EP, Schonhofen P, Pfaffenseller B, Wollenhaupt-Aguiar B, et al. Cholinergic Differentiation of Human Neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y Cell Line and Its Potential Use as an In vitro Model for Alzheimer’s Disease Studies. Mol Neurobiol. 2019;56(11):7355–67. doi: 10.1007/s12035-019-1605-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Goldie BJ, Barnett MM, Cairns MJ. BDNF and the maturation of posttranscriptional regulatory networks in human SH-SY5Y neuroblast differentiation. Front Cell Neurosci. 2014;8:325. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2014.00325 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Encinas M, Iglesias M, Llecha N, Comella JX. Extracellular-regulated kinases and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase are involved in brain-derived neurotrophic factor-mediated survival and neuritogenesis of the neuroblastoma cell line SH-SY5Y. J Neurochem. 1999;73(4):1409–21. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.1999.0731409.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Gatta V, Drago D, Fincati K, Valenti MT, Dalle Carbonare L, Sensi SL, et al. Microarray analysis on human neuroblastoma cells exposed to aluminum, beta(1–42)-amyloid or the beta(1–42)-amyloid aluminum complex. PLoS One. 2011;6(1):e15965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015965 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Zhang Z, Hou L, Li X, Ju C, Zhang J, Li X, et al. Neuroprotection of inositol hexaphosphate and changes of mitochondrion mediated apoptotic pathway and alpha-synuclein aggregation in 6-OHDA induced parkinson’s disease cell model. Brain Res. 2016;1633:87–95. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.12.035 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Forster JI, Koglsberger S, Trefois C, Boyd O, Baumuratov AS, Buck L, et al. Characterization of Differentiated SH-SY5Y as Neuronal Screening Model Reveals Increased Oxidative Vulnerability. J Biomol Screen. 2016;21(5):496–509. doi: 10.1177/1087057115625190 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Ng YW, Say YH. Palmitic acid induces neurotoxicity and gliatoxicity in SH-SY5Y human neuroblastoma and T98G human glioblastoma cells. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4696. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4696 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Wang S, Xia B, Qiao Z, Duan L, Wang G, Meng W, et al. Tetramethylpyrazine attenuated bupivacaine-induced neurotoxicity in SH-SY5Y cells through regulating apoptosis, autophagy and oxidative damage. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2019;13:1187–96. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S196172 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Pires AO, Neves-Carvalho A, Sousa N, Salgado AJ. The Secretome of Bone Marrow and Wharton Jelly Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Induces Differentiation and Neurite Outgrowth in SH-SY5Y Cells. Stem Cells Int. 2014;2014:438352. doi: 10.1155/2014/438352 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Gervois P, Wolfs E, Dillen Y, Hilkens P, Ratajczak J, Driesen RB, et al. Paracrine Maturation and Migration of SH-SY5Y Cells by Dental Pulp Stem Cells. J Dent Res. 2017;96(6):654–62. doi: 10.1177/0022034517690491 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Frebel K, Wiese S. Signalling molecules essential for neuronal survival and differentiation. Biochem Soc Trans. 2006;34(Pt 6):1287–90. doi: 10.1042/BST0341287 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Lim JY, Park SI, Oh JH, Kim SM, Jeong CH, Jun JA, et al. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor stimulates the neural differentiation of human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells and survival of differentiated cells through MAPK/ERK and PI3K/Akt-dependent signaling pathways. J Neurosci Res. 2008;86(10):2168–78. doi: 10.1002/jnr.21669 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Tzeng HH, Hsu CH, Chung TH, Lee WC, Lin CH, Wang WC, et al. Cell Signaling and Differential Protein Expression in Neuronal Differentiation of Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells with Hypermethylated Salvador/Warts/Hippo (SWH) Pathway Genes. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0145542. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145542 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Tsuda Y, Kanje M, Dahlin LB. Axonal outgrowth is associated with increased ERK 1/2 activation but decreased caspase 3 linked cell death in Schwann cells after immediate nerve repair in rats. BMC Neurosci. 2011;12:12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-12-12 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Hausott B, Klimaschewski L. Promotion of Peripheral Nerve Regeneration by Stimulation of the Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase (ERK) Pathway. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2019;302(8):1261–7. doi: 10.1002/ar.24126 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Pfaffl MW. A new mathematical model for relative quantification in real-time RT-PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29(9):e45. doi: 10.1093/nar/29.9.e45 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Pfaffl MW, Tichopad A, Prgomet C, Neuvians TP. Determination of stable housekeeping genes, differentially regulated target genes and sample integrity: BestKeeper—Excel-based tool using pair-wise correlations. Biotechnol Lett. 2004;26(6):509–15. doi: 10.1023/b:bile.0000019559.84305.47 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Li J, Han J, Hu Y, Yang J. Selection of Reference Genes for Quantitative Real-Time PCR during Flower Development in Tree Peony (Paeonia suffruticosa Andr.). Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:516. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00516 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Andersen CL, Jensen JL, Orntoft TF. Normalization of real-time quantitative reverse transcription-PCR data: a model-based variance estimation approach to identify genes suited for normalization, applied to bladder and colon cancer data sets. Cancer Res. 2004;64(15):5245–50. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-0496 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Ackers-Johnson M, Li PY, Holmes AP, O’Brien SM, Pavlovic D, Foo RS. A Simplified, Langendorff-Free Method for Concomitant Isolation of Viable Cardiac Myocytes and Nonmyocytes From the Adult Mouse Heart. Circ Res. 2016;119(8):909–20. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.309202 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Holmes AP, Saxena P, Kabir SN, O’Shea C, Kuhlmann SM, Gupta S, et al. Atrial resting membrane potential confers sodium current sensitivity to propafenone, flecainide, and dronedarone. Heart Rhythm. 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.03.016 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Holmes AP, Yu TY, Tull S, Syeda F, Kuhlmann SM, O’Brien SM, et al. A Regional Reduction in Ito and IKACh in the Murine Posterior Left Atrial Myocardium Is Associated with Action Potential Prolongation and Increased Ectopic Activity. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154077. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154077 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Jeong M O ’Reilly M, Kirkwood, Al-Aama J, Lako M, Kros, et al. Generating inner ear organoids containing putative cochlear hair cells from human pluripotent stem cells. Cell Death Dis. 2018;9(9):922. doi: 10.1038/s41419-018-0967-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Katsetos CD, Legido A, Perentes E, Mork SJ. Class III beta-tubulin isotype: a key cytoskeletal protein at the crossroads of developmental neurobiology and tumor neuropathology. J Child Neurol. 2003;18(12):851–66; discussion 67. doi: 10.1177/088307380301801205 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Yuan A, Sershen H, Veeranna, Basavarajappa, Kumar A, Hashim A, et al. Neurofilament subunits are integral components of synapses and modulate neurotransmission and behavior in vivo. Mol Psychiatry. 2015;20(8):986–94. doi: 10.1038/mp.2015.45 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Trojanowski JQ, Walkenstein N, Lee VM. Expression of neurofilament subunits in neurons of the central and peripheral nervous system: an immunohistochemical study with monoclonal antibodies. J Neurosci. 1986;6(3):650–60. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.06-03-00650.1986 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Eng LF, Ghirnikar RS, Lee YL. Glial fibrillary acidic protein: GFAP-thirty-one years (1969–2000). Neurochem Res. 2000;25(9–10):1439–51. doi: 10.1023/a:1007677003387 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Marangos PJ, Schmechel DE, Parma AM, Goodwin FK. Developmental profile of neuron-specific (NSE) and non-neuronal (NNE) enolase. Brain Res. 1980;190(1):185–93. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(80)91168-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Arber S, Han B, Mendelsohn M, Smith M, Jessell TM, Sockanathan S. Requirement for the homeobox gene Hb9 in the consolidation of motor neuron identity. Neuron. 1999;23(4):659–74. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(01)80026-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Akin EJ, Higerd-Rusli GP, Mis MA, Tanaka BS, Adi T, Liu S, et al. Building sensory axons: Delivery and distribution of NaV1.7 channels and effects of inflammatory mediators. Sci Adv. 2019;5(10):eaax4755. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax4755 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Lanier J, Quina LA, Eng SR, Cox E, Turner EE. Brn3a target gene recognition in embryonic sensory neurons. Dev Biol. 2007;302(2):703–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.10.050 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Ernsberger U, Reissmann E, Mason I, Rohrer H. The expression of dopamine beta-hydroxylase, tyrosine hydroxylase, and Phox2 transcription factors in sympathetic neurons: evidence for common regulation during noradrenergic induction and diverging regulation later in development. Mech Dev. 2000;92(2):169–77. doi: 10.1016/s0925-4773(99)00336-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Eckenstein F, Sofroniew MV. Identification of central cholinergic neurons containing both choline acetyltransferase and acetylcholinesterase and of central neurons containing only acetylcholinesterase. J Neurosci. 1983;3(11):2286–91. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.03-11-02286.1983 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Ray B, Simon JR, Lahiri DK. Determination of high-affinity choline uptake (HACU) and choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) activity in the same population of cultured cells. Brain Res. 2009;1297:160–8. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.07.096 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Cheung YT, Lau WK, Yu MS, Lai CS, Yeung SC, So KF, et al. Effects of all-trans-retinoic acid on human SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma as in vitro model in neurotoxicity research. Neurotoxicology. 2009;30(1):127–35. doi: 10.1016/j.neuro.2008.11.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Kovalevich J, Langford D. Considerations for the use of SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells in neurobiology. Methods Mol Biol. 2013;1078:9–21. doi: 10.1007/978-1-62703-640-5_2 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Fu F, Li LS, Li R, Deng Q, Yu QX, Yang X, et al. All-trans-retinoid acid induces the differentiation of P19 cells into neurons involved in the PI3K/Akt/GSK3β signaling pathway. J Cell Biochem. 2020;121(11):4386–96. doi: 10.1002/jcb.29659 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Yu S, Levi L, Siegel R, Noy N. Retinoic acid induces neurogenesis by activating both retinoic acid receptors (RARs) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor β/δ (PPARβ/δ). J Biol Chem. 2012;287(50):42195–205. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M112.410381 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Addae C, Yi X, Gernapudi R, Cheng H, Musto A, Martinez-Ceballos E. All-trans-retinoid acid induces the differentiation of encapsulated mouse embryonic stem cells into GABAergic neurons. Differentiation. 2012;83(5):233–41. doi: 10.1016/j.diff.2012.03.001 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Lu J, Tan L, Li P, Gao H, Fang B, Ye S, et al. All-trans retinoic acid promotes neural lineage entry by pluripotent embryonic stem cells via multiple pathways. BMC Cell Biol. 2009;10:57. doi: 10.1186/1471-2121-10-57 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Koutsoumparis AE, Patsiarika A, Tsingotjidou A, Pappas I, Tsiftsoglou AS. Neural Differentiation of Human Dental Mesenchymal Stem Cells Induced by ATRA and UDP-4: A Comparative Study. Biomolecules. 2022;12(2). doi: 10.3390/biom12020218 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Takahashi J, Palmer TD, Gage FH. Retinoic acid and neurotrophins collaborate to regulate neurogenesis in adult-derived neural stem cell cultures. J Neurobiol. 1999;38(1):65–81. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Bi Y, Gong M, Zhang X, Jiang W, Zhang Y, Chen J, et al. Pre-activation of retinoid signaling facilitates neuronal differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Dev Growth Differ. 2010;52(5):419–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-169X.2010.01182.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Luzuriaga J, Pineda JR, Irastorza I, Uribe-Etxebarria V, García-Gallastegui P, Encinas JM, et al. BDNF and NT3 Reprogram Human Ectomesenchymal Dental Pulp Stem Cells to Neurogenic and Gliogenic Neural Crest Progenitors Cultured in Serum-Free Medium. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2019;52(6):1361–80. doi: 10.33594/000000096 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Young FI, Telezhkin V, Youde SJ, Langley MS, Stack M, Kemp PJ, et al. Clonal Heterogeneity in the Neuronal and Glial Differentiation of Dental Pulp Stem/Progenitor Cells. Stem Cells Int. 2016;2016:1290561. doi: 10.1155/2016/1290561 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Harrington J, Sloan AJ, Waddington RJ. Quantification of clonal heterogeneity of mesenchymal progenitor cells in dental pulp and bone marrow. Connect Tissue Res. 2014;55 Suppl 1:62–7. doi: 10.3109/03008207.2014.923859 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Tischfield MA, Engle EC. Distinct alpha- and beta-tubulin isotypes are required for the positioning, differentiation and survival of neurons: new support for the ’multi-tubulin’ hypothesis. Biosci Rep. 2010;30(5):319–30. doi: 10.1042/BSR20100025 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Latremoliere A, Cheng L, DeLisle M, Wu C, Chew S, Hutchinson EB, et al. Neuronal-Specific TUBB3 Is Not Required for Normal Neuronal Function but Is Essential for Timely Axon Regeneration. Cell Rep. 2018;24(7):1865–79.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.07.029 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Martens W, Wolfs E, Struys T, Politis C, Bronckaers A, Lambrichts I. Expression pattern of basal markers in human dental pulp stem cells and tissue. Cells Tissues Organs. 2012;196(6):490–500. doi: 10.1159/000338654 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Person F, Wilczak W, Hube-Magg C, Burdelski C, Möller-Koop C, Simon R, et al. Prevalence of βIII-tubulin (TUBB3) expression in human normal tissues and cancers. Tumour Biol. 2017;39(10):1010428317712166. doi: 10.1177/1010428317712166 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Stapor PC, Murfee WL. Identification of class III β-tubulin as a marker of angiogenic perivascular cells. Microvasc Res. 2012;83(2):257–62. doi: 10.1016/j.mvr.2011.09.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Shen XM, Crawford TO, Brengman J, Acsadi G, Iannaconne S, Karaca E, et al. Functional consequences and structural interpretation of mutations of human choline acetyltransferase. Hum Mutat. 2011;32(11):1259–67. doi: 10.1002/humu.21560 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Kratsios P, Pinan-Lucarré B, Kerk SY, Weinreb A, Bessereau JL, Hobert O. Transcriptional coordination of synaptogenesis and neurotransmitter signaling. Curr Biol. 2015;25(10):1282–95. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.03.028 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Zimmerman G, Soreq H. Termination and beyond: acetylcholinesterase as a modulator of synaptic transmission. Cell Tissue Res. 2006;326(2):655–69. doi: 10.1007/s00441-006-0239-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Darabi S, Tiraihi T, Nazm Bojnordi M, Ghasemi Hamidabadi H, Rezaei N, Zahiri M, et al. Trans-Differentiation of Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells Into Cholinergic-Like Neurons Via Nerve Growth Factor. Basic Clin Neurosci. 2019;10(6):609–17. doi: 10.32598/bcn.10.6.609 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Kang YH, Shivakumar SB, Son YB, Bharti D, Jang SJ, Heo KS, et al. Comparative analysis of three different protocols for cholinergic neuron differentiation in vitro using mesenchymal stem cells from human dental pulp. Anim Cells Syst (Seoul). 2019;23(4):275–87. doi: 10.1080/19768354.2019.1626280 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Jang S, Kang YH, Ullah I, Shivakumar SB, Rho GJ, Cho YC, et al. Cholinergic Nerve Differentiation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Derived from Long-Term Cryopreserved Human Dental Pulp In Vitro and Analysis of Their Motor Nerve Regeneration Potential In Vivo. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(8). doi: 10.3390/ijms19082434 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Lee H, Shamy GA, Elkabetz Y, Schofield CM, Harrsion NL, Panagiotakos G, et al. Directed differentiation and transplantation of human embryonic stem cell-derived motoneurons. Stem Cells. 2007;25(8):1931–9. doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0097 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Li XJ, Du ZW, Zarnowska ED, Pankratz M, Hansen LO, Pearce RA, et al. Specification of motoneurons from human embryonic stem cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23(2):215–21. doi: 10.1038/nbt1063 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Zou M, Li S, Klein WH, Xiang M. Brn3a/Pou4f1 regulates dorsal root ganglion sensory neuron specification and axonal projection into the spinal cord. Dev Biol. 2012;364(2):114–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2012.01.021 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.McDermott LA, Weir GA, Themistocleous AC, Segerdahl AR, Blesneac I, Baskozos G, et al. Defining the Functional Role of NaV1.7 in Human Nociception. Neuron. 2019;101(5):905–19 e8. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.047 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Li XJ, Hu BY, Jones SA, Zhang YS, Lavaute T, Du ZW, et al. Directed differentiation of ventral spinal progenitors and motor neurons from human embryonic stem cells by small molecules. Stem Cells. 2008;26(4):886–93. doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0620 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Wichterle H, Peljto M. Differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells to spinal motor neurons. Curr Protoc Stem Cell Biol. 2008;Chapter 1:Unit 1H..-H..9. doi: 10.1002/9780470151808.sc01h01s5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Jones KR, Fariñas I, Backus C, Reichardt LF. Targeted disruption of the BDNF gene perturbs brain and sensory neuron development but not motor neuron development. Cell. 1994;76(6):989–99. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(94)90377-8 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Liu X, Ernfors P, Wu H, Jaenisch R. Sensory but not motor neuron deficits in mice lacking NT4 and BDNF. Nature. 1995;375(6528):238–41. doi: 10.1038/375238a0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Conover JC, Erickson JT, Katz DM, Bianchi LM, Poueymirou WT, McClain J, et al. Neuronal deficits, not involving motor neurons, in mice lacking BDNF and/or NT4. Nature. 1995;375(6528):235–8. doi: 10.1038/375235a0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Lu P, Blesch A, Tuszynski MH. Induction of bone marrow stromal cells to neurons: differentiation, transdifferentiation, or artifact? J Neurosci Res. 2004;77(2):174–91. doi: 10.1002/jnr.20148 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Goversen B, van der Heyden MAG, van Veen TAB, de Boer TP. The immature electrophysiological phenotype of iPSC-CMs still hampers in vitro drug screening: Special focus on I. Pharmacol Ther. 2018;183:127–36. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2017.10.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Alonso M, Medina JH, Pozzo-Miller L. ERK1/2 activation is necessary for BDNF to increase dendritic spine density in hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons. Learn Mem. 2004;11(2):172–8. doi: 10.1101/lm.67804 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Ortega JA, Alcantara S. BDNF/MAPK/ERK-induced BMP7 expression in the developing cerebral cortex induces premature radial glia differentiation and impairs neuronal migration. Cereb Cortex. 2010;20(9):2132–44. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhp275 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Lee S, Yang M, Kim J, Son Y, Kim J, Kang S, et al. Involvement of BDNF/ERK signaling in spontaneous recovery from trimethyltin-induced hippocampal neurotoxicity in mice. Brain Res Bull. 2016;121:48–58. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2016.01.002 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Wortzel I, Seger R. The ERK Cascade: Distinct Functions within Various Subcellular Organelles. Genes Cancer. 2011;2(3):195–209. doi: 10.1177/1947601911407328 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Shaul YD, Seger R. The MEK/ERK cascade: from signaling specificity to diverse functions. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2007;1773(8):1213–26. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2006.10.005 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sujeong Jang

18 May 2022

PONE-D-22-06526Exploring the neurogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cellsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Al-Maswary,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 02 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sujeong Jang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this article, the authors cultured hDPSCs with a novel treatment with ATRA and BDNF sequentially. Compared to the SH-SY5Y neurogenic differentiation model, hDPSCs can be differentiated to a cholinergic sensory neuronal lineage with the above treatment. Based on this result, the authors connected the ERK1/2 phosphorylation with BDNF treatment during hPDSCs neurogenic differentiation. The experimental design is reasonable and systematic. The some major concerns should be addressed before accept to publication.

1.The result of immunocytochemistry is semi-quantitative, authors should provide the result of western blot of NF-M, TUBB3, and GFAP.

2.hDPSCs can secret levels of BDNF when cultured in vitro. Have you detected whether BDNF was secreted before you added BDNF? Did BDNF secreted by hDPSCs had an effect on their neurogenic differentiation?

3.Authors only detected the expression of NF-M and TUBB3 after using U0126, which suggested U0126 impeded neurogenic differentiation. The evidence for the conclusion that ERK/MAPK-mediated sensory cholinergic neuronal differentiation of hDPSCs is not enough.

4.Figure 6, what is the meaning of the comparison between Control+U0126 and BDNF, and between Control and BDNF+U0126? I prefer to show the result in the order of Control, BDNF, Control+U0126, and BDNF+U0126. And the result that relative phosphor-p44/42 MAPK in BDNF+U0126 group is lower than that in control+U0126 group is not reasonable. How to explain it?

5.The sentence “These results suggest the involvement of ERK/MAPK pathway in control and supplemented groups…” is ambiguous.

6.There is some researches about hDPSCs neurogenic differentiation with the treatment of BDNF synergistically (Goudarzi G, et al. 2020; Gonmanee T, et al. 2018). It is easy to predict that BDNF can promote hDPSCs neurogenic differentiation.

Reviewer #2: Intro

1. First statement is too generic. Please introduce WHY stem cells have received such “special attention”.

2. The authors need to introduce the indications/advantages of stem cell transplantation before mentioning the disadvantages. The reader is left alone to understand the reasons.

3. Discuss WHY reedy in vitro is promising. Again, the reader is left alone to understand such excitement

4. Neuronal cell models derived… Why they are useful? Which problem in the neuroscience field they can solve? So far, the introduction has too many “great applications” without any context.

5. DPSC introduction is too short and (again) only contains advantages. Please discuss the WHYs. Introduce why DPSC has potential in the lights of their origin, markers and intrinsic “neurogenic potential” in the lights of relevant papers such as (but not limited to)

- 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0979

- 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2019.104572

- 10.1186/scrt419

- 10.1155/2013/250740

6. Second para fails to establish the importance of the protocol used. The authors need to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the many protocols available. So far, the text reads like “there are many protocols, we selected one”. The authors need to discuss that some protocols take too long, are too expensive, too laborious. However, some published “straightforward” protocols have never been validated, lack functional assays, have never tested by more than a group. Since the authors are putting attention to a “relatively straightforward 2-component method”, the reader needs to be educated about the pros/cons of current protocols. Please improve your introduction discussing the findings from previous papers to allow the reader why have you selected such “straightforward 2-component method”. Suggested literature (many other papers have reported differentiation protocols for DPSC):

- 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0979

- 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2019.104572

- 10.1080/00207454.2019.1664518

- 10.1155/2013/250740

- 10.1186/scrt419

7. are reportedly the main pathways within the nervous systems: please check/rephrase this para. main pathways? What do the authors mean about it? The nervous system is very complex and include sensory, motorneurons… there are many “main” pathways depending on the type of neurons.

8. Methods: please describe the protocol used to promote the neurogenic differentiation in full. Unfortunately, the authors do not provide the methods used and Fig 1 does not provide clear instructions on how the differentiation was performed neither what are indeed the groups. It is very confusing. This is a major concern about this work since the authors claim that this was as “simple method” but in reality, it is not possible to understand how this work was done. The authors suggest that the reader search for the paper published by Encinas but in reality, the protocol use for this study should be available. It is not possible to understand the methods and Fig 1 fails to show how the study was done or how the groups were organized. Please describe the methods that are the base of your study in full.

9. Please remove “To the best of our knowledge” and rephrase that statement. At present, the reviewer cannot agree that this is a “relatively simple approach” since the methods are not well described. Also, please remove the word “relatively” from the manuscript. Relatively to what? Also, “relatively” may be denote a personal opinion. Summary: please keep the scientific tone and forego “to our knowledge, relatively, simplified….” Because the context of other protocols is not presented yet.

10. by the ATRA�BDNF protocol: one cannot understand what do the authors mean by the ATRA�BDNF protocol.

11. Please state in the methods/results/discussion the specific reasons for using ATRA and BDNF in this work. What are the reasons and expected outcomes? “Atra was used to induce a b and c as reported by xyz…”

12. Apparent neuronal morphological features: please describe the features.

13. Going back the results the reviewer is confronted by “BDNF and FBS supplementation (ATRA�0% serum)” but again, the methods and fig 1 do not show evidently how the work was performed. It becomes very difficult to review the work as it is up to the reviewer/reader to understands the arrangement and rationale for the controls, additional groups… The authors need to describe the work in full. Also, include description (in methods, results or discussion) for some of the choices. For instance “we added the group ATRA�0% serum to evaluate this and that” or “the group ATRA�0% serum was added to control the presence of something…” This seems to be a well executed work, but it is not possible to understand the procedures and rationale for many of the groups tested/information presented. It may make sense for the authors, but for those reading the work for the first time, it is nearly impossible to understand rationales/procedures.

14. heterogeneity of specific markers in hDPSC cultures which results in the guiding of the cells towards specific neuronal lineages: please explain. What do the authors mean about heterogeneity of specific markers and which are the “specific lineages”. Please note that it is up to the reader to read papers 53-54 to understand this statement.

15. relatively small population: remove the word “relatively” from the manuscript and use objective terms.

16. tested hDPSCs were characterized as stem cells, however, they had not been cell-sorted resulting in low percentage of stem cells in these DPSC cultures: this seems to be a too convenient explanation. If the authors used DPSC (although not all are DPSC), then blaming on cell sorting is very strange. Either the authors used DPSC or not. If cell isolation and characterization were enough to confirm these were dpsc (and the authors used them!)… it is not acceptable to read that, maybe, only a small percentage was dpsc. If this is the case, the basis of this work is compromised and this is not a work on neurogenic differentiion of DPSC. Please explain this contradiction.

17. The TUBB3 expression has previously been reported in undifferentiated stem cells, including DPSCs. Please explain the relevancy of such marker. Just mentioning that it has been previously observed does not add much value to the discussion.

18. Please explain the most relevant markers observed in your work. Do note that the reader may not understand fully the relevancy of markers such as Tub3, Chat and others. Hence, discuss your findings and the the roles of ACHE and CHAT on DPSC neurogenic differentiation/functions in the lights of

- 10.1016/j.jfma.2014.09.003

- 10.22203/eCM.v041a16

- 10.1002/jcp.24570

- 10.1002/jcp.25314

19. Please consider having easier names to your groups… what shall the reviewer understand about hDPSC ATRA�BDNF group. Is this the name of the group? Does it mean that hDPSC treated with ATRA and subsequently with BDNF? This goes back to the comments about the methods, it is so unclear that it becomes very difficult to even assess the findings. This is a major concern for this paper. Do not that so far very few comments are given to the results because it is nearly impossible to understand how this work was performed (hence the data and controls cannot be even assessed at this point).

20. The possible explanation for this is that the sonic hedgehog: this statement seems to be incomplete.

21. addition, their use: should be the use

22. into sensory cholinergic neuronal-like cells: this seems to be an overestimation of the results. Have the authors measured choline release? The reviewer understand that the markers are present, but this is a hallmark of choline production and release. Please rephrase or highlight the evidence that confirms that these are functional cholinergic neurons.

Overall, this paper has a lot of potential, but the writing needs to be much improved. The reader is left alone to understand the procedures and relevancy of the work. At this stage, it is not possible to discuss the data in depth because it is not clear how the work was done, which controls were employed (it is true that the authors mention, but the reader shall not make all the effort to understand how this work was done). Hence, the reviewer cannot analyze the data without knowing for sure how that work was done and which group served as a control for what… The authors are invited to submit a revised version that will allow the reviewer to be sure that everything is on place. It is a nice paper but needs to be more self-contained.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 4;17(11):e0277134. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277134.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Jul 2022

Point-by-point response to editor’s and reviewers’ comments

Reference: PONE-D-22-06526

Exploring the neurogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells

PLOS ONE

We would like to thank the editor “Prof. Sujeong Jang” and reviewers for their time and efforts to review our manuscript with reference: PONE-D-22-06526, title: Exploring the neurogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells. We found the comments constructive and have updated our manuscript accordingly.

We have responded to each point (see below: dark blue text).

Note: All page numbers and lines refer to the revised manuscript with track changes “the word file” as the text moved in the built pdf.

Thank you again for your thoughtful commentary!

Sincerely,

Authors: Arwa A. Al-Maswary, Molly O'Reilly, Andrew P. Holmes, A. Damien Walmsley,

Paul R. Cooper, and Ben A. Scheven.

5. Review Comments to the Authors

Reviewer #1: In this article, the authors cultured hDPSCs with a novel treatment with ATRA and BDNF sequentially. Compared to the SH-SY5Y neurogenic differentiation model, hDPSCs can be differentiated to a cholinergic sensory neuronal lineage with the above treatment. Based on this result, the authors connected the ERK1/2 phosphorylation with BDNF treatment during hPDSCs neurogenic differentiation. The experimental design is reasonable and systematic. The some major concerns should be addressed before accept to publication.

Comment 1: The result of immunocytochemistry is semi-quantitative, authors should provide the result of western blot of NF-M, TUBB3, and GFAP.

Response:

We agree with the reviewer that immunocytochemistry is not a quantitative assay, but the immunocytochemical staining is still a valid approach to show the differences, albeit qualitative, in the expression of the neuronal markers “NF-M, TUBB3, and GFAP” between the experimental groups as highlighted in the manuscript. To strengthen the immunocytochemical observations, our study used the quantitative “real-time RT-PCR” to quantify the changes in gene levels of the neuronal markers in the experimental groups.

Comment 2: hDPSCs can secret levels of BDNF when cultured in vitro. Have you detected whether BDNF was secreted before you added BDNF? Did BDNF secreted by hDPSCs had an effect on their neurogenic differentiation?

Response:

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. In this study, we have not analysed the secretion of BNDF by hDPSCs and whether this had an additional effect on cell differentiation. Although DPSCs have been shown to secrete BDNF in our previous work, we believe it is unlikely that this had any significant influence to induce neurogenic differentiation for the following reasons:

1. No neurogenic changes were observed in the 2nd parallel control group which is exposure to ATRA followed by serum-free media “ATRA→0 serum” compared with ATR→ABDNF group. This group is identical to successful differentiated group “ATRA→BDNF” but without BDNF supplementation. If there is an effect, it will be clear in this control culture. On the other hand, the significant changes were clearly detected when the culture was supplemented by BDNF.

2. The DPSCs secrete very low levels of BDNF as reported in the literature: 85.5 pg/ml produced from 70–80% cell confluency in the T75 flask incubated for 72 h (sultan et al., 2020 and 2021), 1600.6 ± 338 pg for 100,000 cell seeding incubated for 48 h (Mead et al., 2013), ~1000 ± 1000 pg/ml for 10,000 cell seeding incubated for 14 days whereas the stimulated DPSCs (were induced by growth factors for 14 days to increase the secretome output) produce 4000 ± 2000 pg/ml of the BDNF (Kolar et al., 2017). These reported amounts are much lower than our BDNF supplementation (50 ng/ml= 50,000 pg/ml) which was supplemented into the culture at least 2 times (100 ng/ml =100,000 pg/ml) during BDNF supplementation period (7 days).

References:

Sultan et al., 2020 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-76684-0

Sultan et al., 2021 DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.306089

Mead et al., 2013 DOI: 10.1167/iovs.13-13045

Kolar et al., 2017 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-12969-1

3. We indirectly discussed this point in the introduction section “in differentiating methods’ paragraph” as one study differentiated mice DPSCs into neuronal-like cells by culturing in only serum-free media and it is thought that the neurotrophic factors released from the cells are the inducers. Our discussion for this point is as following (highlighted with yellow background in the manuscript, page 5, line 8 to 22):

“On the other hand, one protocol reported that serum-free media without any supplementations can differentiate mice DPSCs into neuronal-like cells and expressed MAP2, nestin, and Tub3/βIII-tubulin neuronal markers [67]. However, these neuronal markers have been reported in non-differentiated DPSCs [41, 68] which may not provide sufficient evidence for neuronal differentiation, particularly with no functional testing. Furthermore, this serum-free protocol has been recently used by Madanagopal et al., [69] as one of three protocols to differentiate hDPSCs into neuronal cell type. This study reported that the serum-free media alone did not result in neuronal differentiation of hDPSCs compared with what has been reported in mice DPSCs by Zainal et al., [67] and the authors interpreted that this may occur due to the genetic and physiological differences between mice and human [69, 70]. In addition, the concept of neuronal differentiation in serum-free media without supplementations is previously discussed by Croft and Przyborski [71] who reported that culturing in serum-free media is an environmental culture stressor which results in pseudo-neuronal morphology and expression “artifacts”.”

Therefore, BDNF may be released from DPSCs during the neurogenic differentiation which might support the differentiation, however the concentration would not be sufficient to solely induce the neurogenic differentiation of DPSCs without the exogenous BDNF supplementation.

Comment 3: Authors only detected the expression of NF-M and TUBB3 after using U0126, which suggested U0126 impeded neurogenic differentiation. The evidence for the conclusion that ERK/MAPK-mediated sensory cholinergic neuronal differentiation of hDPSCs is not enough.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. However, we believe that our work using the immunostaining of a specific mature neuronal marker (NF-M) linked with quantification of phospho-ERK proteins provides a plausible indicator at the least for ERK/MAPK involvement in this neuronal differentiation. In addition, our results are supported by previously published “similar methodology” research in SH-SY5Y cells (Encinas et al., 1999) that also demonstrated the involvement of ERK/MAPK in neurogenic differentiation. Moreover, the BDNF-mediated neurogenesis and neuritogenesis via ERK/MAPK is reported in other cells such as blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells (Lim et al., 2008), and immature progenitor neuronal cells (Alonso et al., 2004; Ortega and Alcántara, 2009; Lee et al., 2016). Taken together, this provides convincing evidence to support the notion that BDNF induces neurogenesis of stem cells, including, hDPSCs via ERK/MAPK signaling. In the revised manuscript, we have now further discussed this point by adding these studies to the manuscript (highlighted with yellow background in the manuscript, page 25, line 23 to page 26, line 2).

“In addition, the BDNF-mediated neurogenesis and neuritogenesis via ERK/MAPK signaling has been also reported in stem cells such as blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells [84], and immature progenitor neuronal cells [141-143]. Taken together, this provides convincing evidence to support the notion that BDNF induces neurogenesis of stem cells, including, hDPSCs in this study via ERK/MAPK signaling.”

References:

Encinas et al., 1999 DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.1999.0731409.x

Lim et al., 2008 DOI: 10.1002/jnr.21669

Alonso et al., 2004 DOI: 10.1101/lm.67804

Ortega and Alcántara, 2009 DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhp275

Lee et al., 2016 DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2016.01.002

Comment 4: Figure 6, what is the meaning of the comparison between Control+U0126 and BDNF, and between Control and BDNF+U0126? I prefer to show the result in the order of Control, BDNF, Control+U0126, and BDNF+U0126. And the result that relative phosphor-p44/42 MAPK in BDNF+U0126 group is lower than that in control+U0126 group is not reasonable. How to explain it?

Response:

“Figure 6, what is the meaning of the comparison between Control+U0126 and BDNF, and between Control and BDNF+U0126?”

The U0126 inhibitor greatly reduced the phosphorylation of the experimental groups. This consequently made each inhibited group (Control+U0126 or BDNF+U0126) significantly statistically lower than the other “unpaired” non-inhibited group (BDNF and Control), particularly Control versus BDNF+U0126. However, these “secondary results” may confuse and distract the reader from the main findings. Thus, the only the important and significant aspects of the data are now highlighted in the graph and written results’ section (see figure 7: It is now figure 7 not figure 6 as we rearranged and modified the section “ERK1/2 inhibitor blocked neuronal differentiation and ERK1/2 phosphorylation” to clarify the results).

“I prefer to show the result in the order of Control, BDNF, Control+U0126, and BDNF+U0126”.

Thank you for this suggestion. The groups of the ELISA and immunocytochemistry results were reordered according to your suggestion “Control, BDNF, Control+U0126, and BDNF+U0126”. Now, they look much better and clearer results.

“And the result that relative phospho-p44/42 MAPK in BDNF+U0126 group is lower than that in control+U0126 group is not reasonable. How to explain it?”

Yes, we agree that is not logical and unexpected that the phosphorylation of control+U0126 group is higher than that of BDNF+U0126 group in hDPSCs. At this stage, we cannot give a sound explanation based on our data, and this might be due to an “as yet” unknown reason or process.

Comment 5: The sentence “These results suggest the involvement of ERK/MAPK pathway in control and supplemented groups…” is ambiguous.

Response:

Thank you for this comment. The sentence has been clarified as the following (yellow-highlighted in the manuscript, page 19, line 20 to 25):

“the increase of the phospho-ERK1/2 levels in the BDNF-supplemented group compared with those of control group and concomitant reduction of the phospho-ERK1/2 levels in the pre-treated groups with ERK/MEK inhibitor (control+U0126 and BDNF+U0126) suggest the involvement of ERK/MAPK pathway in control and supplemented groups, however BDNF supplementation induced further activation of this pathway.”

In addition, the whole section of “ERK1/2 inhibitor blocked neuronal differentiation and ERK1/2 phosphorylation” has been modified and rearranged to make it clearer as shown in the track changes, pages 18 to 20.

Comment 6: There is some researches about hDPSCs neurogenic differentiation with the treatment of BDNF synergistically (Goudarzi G, et al. 2020; Gonmanee T, et al. 2018). It is easy to predict that BDNF can promote hDPSCs neurogenic differentiation.

Response:

BDNF was one component of several supplementations in the differentiation protocols of both highlighted studies (Goudarzi G, et al. 2020; Gonmanee T, et al. 2018) that induced neuronal differentiation of the hDPSCs. However, it should be noted that these studies did not indicate BDNF as the principal supplementation for neurogenesis. It may be predicted that BDNF has neurogenic influence in those mixtures plus their physiological neuronal function as one of neurotrophins responsible for differentiation, survival, and maintenance of the nervous system in the human body (Huang and Reichardt, 2001; Ivanisevic and Saragovi, 2013). However, our study aimed to obtain evidence and found that BDNF uses as a sole supplement directly promoted neurogenic differentiation after pre-induction with ATRA supplementation and that in particular involved the specific neurogenic induction along the “cholinergic sensory lineage”.

Goldie et al., 2014 and Encinas et al., 2000 highlighted that ATRA supplementation for 5 days induces the primary neuronal differentiation and also activates the BDNF receptor (Trk-B receptor) on the cell membrane which maximize the BNDF binding and subsequently further potentiate the neuronal differentiation and maturation of SH-SY5Y cells. Thus, it was of interest whether this sequential treatment “ATRA→BDNF” would be effective on hDPSC neuronal differentiation and maturation, as was explored and addressed in this study.

References:

Goudarzi G, et al. 2020 DOI: 10.5115/acb.19.241

Gonmanee T, et al. 2018 DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.01.011

Huang and Reichardt, 2001 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.677

Ivanisevic and Saragovi, 2013 (https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385095-9.00224-4).

Goldie et al., 2014 DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2014.00325

Encinas et al., 2000 DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2000.0750991.x

Reviewer #2: Intro

Comment 1: First statement is too generic. Please introduce WHY stem cells have received such “special attention”.

Response:

Thank you for this comment. We have now added sentences to clarify why stem cells gained special attention for nerve regeneration as following (highlighted with a yellow background in the manuscript, see page 3, line 1-6):

“Over recent decades, stem cells have gained special attention for potential nerve regeneration to treat nerve injuries or defects [1, 2]. Clinical evidence suggests that current therapies offer limited functional nerve recovery [3] and there are other drawbacks with graft procedures such as nerve sacrifice and nerve mismatch [1]. In dentistry, for example in regenerative endodontics, there is a need for nerve regeneration to achieve functional pulp regeneration [4, 5] which regulates pulpal blood flow, defense, and reparative process [6, 7].”

Comment 2: The authors need to introduce the indications/advantages of stem cell transplantation before mentioning the disadvantages. The reader is left alone to understand the reasons.

Response:

We supported this part in the introduction by adding additional sentences at the beginning to connect this paragraph with the previous one and then highlighting positive therapeutic outcomes of stem cell transplantation/therapy as follows (highlighted with yellow background in the manuscript, see page 3, line 7 to 15):

“Stem cells have the potential to differentiate into multiple cell types with neural stem cells giving rise to neuronal cells and their supporting cells “glial and Schwann cells” [8, 9]. As a result, the stem cells have been promoted as neuronal cell replacements for nerve repair and regeneration [10, 11]. These stem cells can be either transplanted alone [12] or as part of designed engineered tissue/conduit to replace the defective neuronal tissue [13, 14]. Stem cell transplantations have demonstrated positive therapeutic nerve regeneration, functional recovery, and neuronal survival in several neurological traumas such as brain injury [15] and spinal cord injury/transection [16, 17], optic nerve crush [18], and injured peripheral nerves [12].”

Comment 3: Discuss WHY ready in vitro is promising. Again, the reader is left alone to understand such excitement.

Response:

We have added sentences to clarify why using ready in vitro differentiated cells derived from stem cells is promising as follows (highlighted with yellow background in the manuscript, see page 3, line 18 to page 4, line 1):

“For example, some studies demonstrated that transplantation of the predifferentiated stem cells into a neuronal phenotype “neuronal cell models” results in greater restoration of neuronal loss [21], enhances nerve regeneration and functional recovery in brain [21, 23], spinal cord [24], and peripheral nerve injuries [25, 26]. Interestingly, it has also been reported that neuronally differentiated stem cells secrete greater amounts of neurotrophic factors [25, 27]. Hence, these neuronal cell models are not only neuronal cell replacements for the neuronal injury or defect, but they may further boost the nerve regeneration via their neurotrophic secretions.”

Comment 4: Neuronal cell models derived… Why they are useful? Which problem in the neuroscience field they can solve? So far, the introduction has too many “great applications” without any context.

Response:

We have added sentences to clarify why using “neuronal cell models derived from stem cells are also useful for in vitro studies in neuroscience” as following (highlighted with yellow background in the manuscript, see page 4, line 3 to 7):

“For example, these neuronal cell models can be used to study neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease [30] and Alzheimer [31], pharmacological-related topics “drug discovery and toxicity testing” [32, 33], and neurodevelopment and injury [28]. As these neuronal cell models are differentiated from primary stem cells, they are more appropriate for simulation of the physiological properties of in vivo neurons [34, 35].”

Comment 5: DPSC introduction is too short and (again) only contains advantages. Please discuss the WHYs. Introduce why DPSC has potential in the lights of their origin, markers and intrinsic “neurogenic potential” in the lights of relevant papers such as (but not limited to)
- 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0979
- 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2019.104572
- 10.1186/scrt419
- 10.1155/2013/250740

Response:

Thank you for this comment and the quoted articles. We have modified the paper accordingly with a separate paragraph covering DPSCs regarding their potential, origin, markers and intrinsic factors in the light of relevant papers…” as follows (highlighted with yellow background in the manuscript, see page 4, line 8 to page 5, line 4):

“Dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) are primary ecto-mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) that have gained attention as a potential source for neuronal regenerative therapies. The neurogenic potential of DPSCs is closely related to their embryonic origin and various biological characteristics. DPSCs are derived from cranial neural crest cells during tooth development [36, 37]. In this context, it has been demonstrated that DPSCs retain the properties of neural crest cells such as EphB/Ephrin-B molecules and Wnt1-marker in in vitro cell culture which possess the differentiation capacity into any neural crest-derived tissue, including neuron [38, 39]. In addition to the stem cell markers, the expression of the neural markers in non-differentiated DPSCs, such as musashi12, nestin, MAP2ab, βIII-tubulin, N-tubulin, and neurogenin-2 underline their potential for neuronal differentiation [40, 41]. Furthermore, DPSCs express neurotrophic factors such as NGF, GDNF, BDNF, and NT-3 which are demonstrated to have neurogenic and cell survival effects [42, 43]. Moreover, DPSCs have been considered to be able to differentiate into specific neuronal cells of nervous system depending upon the induced environment [44, 45] which make DPSCs an attractive cell source for specific neuronal-lineage regeneration therapies. Additionally, DPSCs exhibit other favorable non-neurogenic factors such as their unique immunomodulation properties which prevent the possibility of immune rejection/reactions [46, 47] or tumor formation [48, 49] which is reported in other stem cell transplantations [50, 51]. Finally, DPSCs are easily obtainable from teeth extracted for various dental reasons without raising ethical concerns [52]. The neuro-regenerative potential of hDPSCs have been highlighted for dental pulp regeneration [53, 54], retinal [55, 56] and nerve injury [57, 58]. Thus, DPSCs potentially offer a safe neurogenic-potential stem population suitable for multiple clinical neuronal therapeutic applications.”

Comment 6: Second para fails to establish the importance of the protocol used. The authors need to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the many protocols available. So far, the text reads like “there are many protocols, we selected one”. The authors need to discuss that some protocols take too long, are too expensive, too laborious. However, some published “straightforward” protocols have never been validated, lack functional assays, have never tested by more than a group. Since the authors are putting attention to a “relatively straightforward 2-component method”, the reader needs to be educated about the pros/cons of current protocols. Please improve your introduction discussing the findings from previous papers to allow the reader why have you selected such “straightforward 2-component method”. Suggested literature (many other papers have reported differentiation protocols for DPSC):
- 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0979
- 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2019.104572
- 10.1080/00207454.2019.1664518
- 10.1155/2013/250740
- 10.1186/scrt419

Response:

Thank you for this point, the ideas, and references. The differentiation protocol paragraph has now been rewritten to discuss the other differentiating protocols and highlight why we chose the 2-component method in light of your suggested ideas, and reports…” as follows (highlighted with yellow background, see page 5, line 6 to 25):

“Most differentiating protocols for hDPSCs use complex mixture of supplements either in multiple stages [40, 45, 59, 60] or/and long culture duration “more than a month” [61-66] which make the procedures relative expensive and time-consuming. On the other hand, one protocol reported that serum-free media without any supplementations can differentiate mice DPSCs into neuronal-like cells and expressed MAP2, nestin, and Tub3/βIII-tubulin neuronal markers [67]. However, these neuronal markers have been reported in non-differentiated DPSCs [41, 68] which may not provide sufficient evidence for neuronal differentiation, particularly with no functional testing. Furthermore, this serum-free protocol has been recently used by Madanagopal et al., [69] as one of three protocols to differentiate hDPSCs into neuronal cell type. This study reported that the serum-free media alone did not result in neuronal differentiation of hDPSCs compared with what has been reported in mice DPSCs by Zainal et al., [67] and the authors interpreted that this may occur due to the genetic and physiological differences between mice and human [69, 70]. In addition, the concept of neuronal differentiation in serum-free media without supplementations is previously discussed by Croft and Przyborski [71] who reported that culturing in serum-free media is an environmental culture stressor which results in pseudo-neuronal morphology and expression “artifacts”. Moreover, there is little convincing evidence for successful functional DPSC neurogenic differentiation [61, 62]. Hence, there is a need for simple, and relatively rapid differentiating protocol underpinned with sufficient evidence for neuronal differentiation and functionality.”

Comment 7: are reportedly the main pathways within the nervous systems: please check/rephrase this para. main pathways? What do the authors mean about it? The nervous system is very complex and include sensory, motorneurons… there are many “main” pathways depending on the type of neurons.

Response:

Thank you for this comment. What we intended to highlight was that these pathways have been reported in regulating the neuronal differentiation and survival. Consequently, this sentence is now rephrased as below (highlighted with yellow background in the manuscript, see page 6, line 12 to 15):

“Although, there are many signaling pathways active in the nervous system, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and phosphatidylinositol-3-Kinase/protein kinase B (PI3K/Akt) are reportedly central and essential in the overall regulation of neural differentiation and survival [83, 84].”

Comment 8: Methods: please describe the protocol used to promote the neurogenic differentiation in full. Unfortunately, the authors do not provide the methods used and Fig 1 does not provide clear instructions on how the differentiation was performed neither what are indeed the groups. It is very confusing. This is a major concern about this work since the authors claim that this was as “simple method” but in reality, it is not possible to understand how this work was done. The authors suggest that the reader search for the paper published by Encinas but in reality, the protocol use for this study should be available. It is not possible to understand the methods and Fig 1 fails to show how the study was done or how the groups were organized. Please describe the methods that are the base of your study in full.

Response:

We apologise that the protocol that we described was considered not in adequate detail. We have now provided further details and explained the steps of neurogenic differentiation of hDPSCs as follows (see below paragraph and table; highlighted with yellow background in the manuscript, pages 8 and 9). In addition, we explained in full the culturing, supplements’ preparation and differentiating steps in the supplementary S2 file (additional file).

“The seeded cells were incubated overnight to allow cells to attach to the culturing surface before conducting the differentiation experiment. Subsequently, the differentiation and control media were freshly prepared for each experimental group as described in Table 1 (all supplements were defrosted and immediately used for the experiment to avoid the material degradation over the time). After that, the overnight media were replaced with ATRA-supplemented (R 2625, Sigma-Aldrich, UK) or with control media and then incubated in a humidified incubator at 37 °C and 5% CO2. This media change step was performed in limited light in the laboratory room and the culture hood’s light was switched off due to the light-sensitive nature of ATRA. Then, the media were changed after 2-3 days with fresh media with or without ATRA as previously highlighted in Table 1 and then incubated in a humidified incubator for additional 2-3 days. After 5 days of treatment with ATRA, all experimental groups were washed twice with blank media without any supplementations to remove the FBS and ATRA remnants in the cell culture before the second “BDNF stage” for the ATRA→BDNF and ATRA→0% serum groups. Subsequently, the designed experimental ATRA→BDNF group received BDNF supplementation (78005, STEMCELL TECHNOLOGIES; SRP3014, Sigma-Aldrich, UK) in serum-free media whereas its control group (ATRA→0% serum) received only serum-free media. The ATRA→0% serum group (identical group to ATRA→BDNF but with absence of BDNF) was added to control the presence of BDNF in the ATRA→BDNF group and determine if the absence of BDNF would result in the same outcomes. The other two experimental groups (control and ATRA) were continued culturing in 10% FBS DMEM/F12 media with and without ATRA as previously described. All cell culture groups were incubated in a humidified incubator till the next media change. Finally, the subsequent media change was performed after 3-4 days prior to the end of the neurogenic induction period (12 days). For more details regarding preparation, diluting the differentiating supplements and culturing, see the supplementary S2 file.”

Table 1: Experimental groups (differentiated and control groups)

*Supplemented with penicillin/streptomycin

$DMSO is added as it is the dissolvent used to prepare the ATRA, so the control group is identical to differentiating group but without the differentiating supplement “ATRA”.

Comment 9: Please remove “To the best of our knowledge” and rephrase that statement. At present, the reviewer cannot agree that this is a “relatively simple approach” since the methods are not well described. Also, please remove the word “relatively” from the manuscript. Relatively to what? Also, “relatively” may be denote a personal opinion. Summary: please keep the scientific tone and forego “to our knowledge, relatively, simplified….” Because the context of other protocols is not presented yet.

Response:

We removed “To the best of our knowledge” and the term “relatively” and modified the statement into the following statement (highlighted in the manuscript, see page 20, 1st paragraph of the discussion section, line 12 to 14).

“This novel and simple approach for establishing a neuronal DPSC differentiation model is supported by microscopic, molecular, and functional evidence."

Comment 10: by the ATRA→BDNF protocol: one cannot understand what do the authors mean by the ATRA→BDNF protocol.

Response:

We clarified this point as follows (highlighted in page 21, line 4-6):

“Indeed, the differentiated of hDPSCs by the sequential supplementations of ATRA and then BDNF treatment resulted in apparent neuronal morphological features such as phase-bright cell bodies and bipolar or multipolar neurite-like extensions as shown in Fig 1.”

Comment 11: Please state in the methods/results/discussion the specific reasons for using ATRA and BDNF in this work. What are the reasons and expected outcomes? “Atra was used to induce a b and c as reported by xyz…”

Response:

Thank you for this comment. We added the following paragraph to the discussion section (highlighted with yellow background, see page 20, line 16 to page 21, line 3):

“The ATRA is commonly used to induce neurogenic differentiation of multiple cell lines and stem cells such as SH-SY5Y human neuroblastoma cells [107, 108], P19 mouse embryonal carcinoma cell line [109, 110], embryonic stem cells [111, 112], and mesenchymal stem cells [113]. However, Takahashi et al. [114] and Goldie et al., [74] reported that ATRA alone results in immature neural differentiation of SH-SY5Y and neural stem cells and should be supplemented in combination with neurotrophin such as BDNF to establish full neural maturation. In this context, Encinas et al., [72] and Takahashi et al. [114] reported that sequential induction of ATRA and followed by neurotrophin treatment is critical as the ATRA pretreatment increases the cellular response to neurotrophin (s), including BDNF in SH-SY5Y cells and neural stem cells, respectively. Another study by Bi et al., [115] emphasized that the ATRA pre-induction “activating retinoid signaling” improved neural differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Hence, it was hypothesized that the successful neuronal differentiation by sequential supplementation of ATRA and then BDNF in SH-SY5Y cells would also result in mature neuronal differentiation of hDPSCs.”

Comment 12: Apparent neuronal morphological features: please describe the features.

Response:

Thank you for the comment. The apparent neuronal morphological features observed in the differentiated hDPSCs have now been further described (highlighted with yellow background in the manuscript, page 21, line 5 to 6):

“Indeed, the differentiated of hDPSCs by the sequential supplementations of ATRA and then BDNF treatment resulted in apparent neuronal morphological features such as phase-bright cell bodies and bipolar or multipolar neurite-like extensions as shown in Fig 1.”

Comment 13: Going back the results the reviewer is confronted by “BDNF and FBS supplementation (ATRA→0% serum)” but again, the methods and fig 1 do not show evidently how the work was performed. It becomes very difficult to review the work as it is up to the reviewer/reader to understands the arrangement and rationale for the controls, additional groups… The authors need to describe the work in full. Also, include description (in methods, results, or discussion) for some of the choices. For instance “we added the group ATRA→0% serum to evaluate this and that” or “the group ATRA→0% serum was added to control the presence of something…” This seems to be a well executed work, but it is not possible to understand the procedures and rationale for many of the groups tested/information presented. It may make sense for the authors, but for those reading the work for the first time, it is nearly impossible to understand rationales/procedures.

Response:

We have now added details regarding the groups in the methods’ section “Neurogenic differentiation of hDPSCs” and also in the supplementary S2 file to describe the work in full. Regarding the addition ATRA→0% serum group was clarified as the following (highlighted in page 8, line 15 to 21)

“Subsequently, the designed experimental ATRA→BDNF group received BDNF supplementation (78005, STEMCELL TECHNOLOGIES; SRP3014, Sigma-Aldrich, UK) in serum-free media whereas its control group (ATRA→0% serum) received only serum-free media. The ATRA→0% serum group (identical group to ATRA→BDNF but with absence of BDNF) was added to control the presence of BDNF in the ATRA→BDNF group and determine if the absence of BDNF would result in the same outcomes.”

Comment 14: heterogeneity of specific markers in hDPSC cultures which results in the guiding of the cells towards specific neuronal lineages: please explain. What do the authors mean about heterogeneity of specific markers and which are the “specific lineages”. Please note that it is up to the reader to read papers 53-54 to understand this statement.

Response:

This statement is further explained as follows (highlighted in the manuscript, page 21, line 23 to page 22, line 6):

“In other words, hDPSC cultures have differences in cellular markers that govern the differentiation ability toward a specific cell type. For example, the DPSCs expressing high nestin were reported to differentiate into neuronal and glial lineages compared with no differentiation of DPSCs with low nestin expression [117]. In this regard, we assume that there are additional specific makers/factors which may induce the individual cell populations in the same hDPSC cultures to differentiate into bipolar or multipolar morphology. Thus, further investigation is required to identify the reason(s) underlying the different outcomes of differentiated neuronal-like cells in the same cell culture induced by the same inducers.”

Comment 15: relatively small population: remove the word “relatively” from the manuscript and use objective terms.

Response:

We have removed this word completely from the manuscript.

Comment 16: low percentage were characterized as stem cells, however, they had not been cell-sorted resulting in low percentage of stem cells in these DPSC cultures: this seems to be a too convenient explanation. If the authors used DPSC (although not all are DPSC), then blaming on cell sorting is very strange. Either the authors used DPSC or not. If cell isolation and characterization were enough to confirm these were dpsc (and the authors used them!)… it is not acceptable to read that, maybe, only a small percentage was dpsc. If this is the case, the basis of this work is compromised and this is not a work on neurogenic differentiion of DPSC. Please explain this contradiction.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. We agree that our previous explanation regarding cell sorting is not appropriate. We have now modified this text as follows (highlighted in the manuscript, page 22, line 9 to 15):

“Similarly, Kiraly et al. [40] reported functional typical neuronal-like cells differentiated from hDPSCs, however they are a small proportion compared with the entire cell culture and the authors interpreted that it may be because of the high proliferative capacity of the undifferentiated early hDPSC passages. This may be one explanation for the presence of small typical neuronal-like population in our study as we used early passage hDPSCs. Another explanation may be that there is a variation in the response of the hDPSCs to neurogenic induction due to the inherent heterogeneity of DPSCs [117].”

Comment 17: The TUBB3 expression has previously been reported in undifferentiated stem cells, including DPSCs. Please explain the relevancy of such marker. Just mentioning that it has been previously observed does not add much value to the discussion.

Response:

We have now added an explanation for the relevance of the TUBB3 marker as follows (highlighted in the manuscript, page 22, line 17 to 24):

“TUBB3 is a cytoskeletal protein of neuronal cells and is required in neurodevelopment for guidance, differentiation, survival of neuronal cells [96, 119] and axonal regeneration [120]. This marker has been considered as a specific marker for neuronal cells and widely used in neuronal differentiation studies. However, ours and other studies have detected TUBB3 expression in undifferentiated DPSCs [68, 121]. TUBB3 has also been found in non-neuronal cells such as tumor cells and normal cells such as fibroblast, stroma cells, endocrine cells [122], and perivascular cells, including smooth muscle, and pericytes [123].”

Comment 18: Please explain the most relevant markers observed in your work. Do note that the reader may not understand fully the relevancy of markers such as Tub3, Chat and others. Hence, discuss your findings and the roles of ACHE and CHAT on DPSC neurogenic differentiation/functions in the lights of
- 10.1016/j.jfma.2014.09.003
- 10.22203/eCM.v041a16
- 10.1002/jcp.24570
- 10.1002/jcp.25314

Response:

Thank you for providing the additional references. The relevancy of markers has now been described and explained as follows:

Cholinergic markers (highlighted in the manuscript, page 23, line 6 to 15):

“For instance, the ATRA→BDNF group demonstrated gene upregulation of cholinergic neurotransmitter markers: choline acetyltransferase (CHAT) and acetylcholinesterase (ACHE) which are responsible for synthesis of neurotransmitter acetylcholine and modulation and termination of synaptic transmission function of neurotransmitter acetylcholine at postsynaptic cholinergic junction, respectively [124-126]. Simultaneously, the ATRA→BDNF group showed no change or absence of detection of the noradrenergic marker (DBH) [104] which is responsible for production of the norepinephrine neurotransmitter for synaptic transmission function of noradrenergic neurons. This upregulation of cholinergic markers combined with no change or absence of noradrenergic marker suggest a specialized cholinergic identity of the resultant neuronal-like cells derived from hDPSCs and SH-SY5Y cells.”

Sensory markers (highlighted in the manuscript, page 23, line 25 to page 24, line 2):

“The POU4F1/BRN3A plays a neurodevelopmental role for sensory neurons [132] whereas SCN9A/Nav 1.7 is responsible for pain sensation detected by sensory neurons [133].”

Note: The provided “10.1016/j.jfma.2014.09.003” paper used the cholinergic marker “ChAT” as marker for motor neuron and this is not scientifically sound as ChAT is not restricted to motor neurons. The Acetyl choline is the most common neurotransmitter in the nervous system and has been found in motor and sensory neurons (see below papers). Also, they are different classifications of neurons according to neurotransmitter type “cholinergic, adrenergic, dopaminergic…” and according to function “motor or sensory” which cannot be connected.

10.3390/ijms22115499

10.1016/j.lfs.2012.08.026

10.1038/s41598-021-96696-8

Comment 19: Please consider having easier names to your groups… what shall the reviewer understand about hDPSC ATRA→BDNF group. Is this the name of the group? Does it mean that hDPSC treated with ATRA and subsequently with BDNF? This goes back to the comments about the methods, it is so unclear that it becomes very difficult to even assess the findings. This is a major concern for this paper. Do not that so far very few comments are given to the results because it is nearly impossible to understand how this work was performed (hence the data and controls cannot be even assessed at this point).

Response:

We apologise for any confusion caused. The ATRA→BDNF group is the name of the group wherein “hDPSCs were treated with ATRA and subsequently with BDNF”. Each group name and their descriptions: the media, supplements, one or two stages, and duration time (days) are now clarified in Table 1, page 9. In addition, detailed description is found in the supplementary S2 file.

Comment 20: The possible explanation for this is that the sonic hedgehog: this statement seems to be incomplete.

Response:

Apologies for this, the statement is now modified as following (highlighted in the manuscript, page 24, line 8 to 11).

“The possible explanation for motor neuronal differentiation in these studies is the presence of the sonic hedgehog (SHH) supplementation in the differentiating media which is reported as an active inducer for guided differentiation into the motor neuronal lineage [134, 135].”

Comment 21: addition, their use: should be the use

Response:

We have modified this accordingly (highlighted in the manuscript, page 24, line 11 to 14):

“In addition, the use of very low concentrations of ATRA (1nM to 2μM) and BDNF (10-20 ng/ml) in these studies may not be sufficient to guide the differentiation toward a sensory neuronal lineage in comparison with the current study (10μM ATRA and 50 ng/ml BDNF).”

Comment 22: into sensory cholinergic neuronal-like cells: this seems to be an overestimation of the results. Have the authors measured choline release? The reviewer understand that the markers are present, but this is a hallmark of choline production and release. Please rephrase or highlight the evidence that confirms that these are functional cholinergic neurons.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We believe that a combination of electrophysiological recordings (which reflect the functionality), and the expression of specific sets of neurogenic lineage gene markers would be a strong basis for our conclusion. We have now rephrased the text as follows: (highlighted with yellow background in the manuscript, page 26, line 13 to 14):

“In conclusion, this study provides original evidence for differentiation of human DPSCs into neuronal-like cells, particularly toward sensory cholinergic neuronal cells.”

Overall, this paper has a lot of potential, but the writing needs to be much improved. The reader is left alone to understand the procedures and relevancy of the work. At this stage, it is not possible to discuss the data in depth because it is not clear how the work was done, which controls were employed (it is true that the authors mention, but the reader shall not make all the effort to understand how this work was done). Hence, the reviewer cannot analyze the data without knowing for sure how that work was done and which group served as a control for what… The authors are invited to submit a revised version that will allow the reviewer to be sure that everything is on place. It is a nice paper but needs to be more self-contained.

Response:

Thank you for the opportunity to modify and strengthen our manuscript. As described above we have provided multiple amendments which we feel now significantly enhance the presentation of the study.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Michal Hetman

21 Oct 2022

Exploring the neurogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells

PONE-D-22-06526R1

Dear Dr. Al-Maswary,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michal Hetman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All my concerns have been addressed. Reviewer have no more question. It could be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Zhi Chen

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Michal Hetman

28 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-06526R1

Exploring the neurogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells

Dear Dr. Al-Maswary:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Michal Hetman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. hDPSCs information and stem cells characterization.

    (PDF)

    S2 Table. The antibodies and dilutions used for immunocytochemical analysis.

    (PDF)

    S3 Table. The primer details used for real-time PCR.

    (PDF)

    S1 File. Neurogenic differentiation protocol for neuroblastoma cell line (SH-SY5Y) and human dental pulp stem cells (hDPSCs).

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the article and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES