Human FGF-16 ELISA Kit

Objective. To investigate and compare the cellular expression of non-secreted Fgf11-14 and secreted Fgf15-18 and -20 mRNAs during tooth formation. Materials and methods. mRNA expression was analyzed from the morphological initiation of the mouse mandibular first molar development to the onset of crown calcification using sectional in situ hybridization. Results. This study found distinct, differentially regulated expression patterns for the Fgf11-13, -15-17 and -20, in particular in the epithelial-mesenchymal interface, whereas Fgf14 and 18 mRNAs were not detected. Fgf11, -15, -16, -17 and -20 were seen in the epithelium, whereas Fgf12 and -13 signals were restricted to the mesenchymal tissue component of the tooth. Fgf11 was observed in the putative epithelial signaling areas, the tertiary enamel knots and enamel free areas of the calcifying crown. Fgf15, Fgf17 and -20 were transiently colocalized in the thickened dental epithelium at E11.5. Later Fgf15 and -20 were exclusively expressed in the epithelial enamel knot signaling centers. In contrast, Fgf13 was present in the dental mesenchyme including odontoblasts cell lineage, whereas Fgf12 appeared transiently in the preodontoblasts. Conclusions. The expression of the Fgf11-13, -15, -17 and -20 in the epithelial signaling centers and/or epithelial-mesenchymal interfaces at key stages of the tooth formation suggest important functions in odontogenesis. Future analyses of the transgenic mice will help elucidate in vivo functions of the studied Fgfs during odontogenesis and whether any of the functions of the tooth expressed epithelial and mesenchymal Fgfs of different sub-families are redundant.

Background: Hair follicle (HF) formation and growth are sustained by epithelial-mesenchymal interaction via growth factors and cytokines. Pivotal roles of FGFs on HF regeneration and neogenesis have been reported mainly in rodent models. FGF expression is regulated by upstream pathways, represented by canonical WNT signaling; however, how FGFs influence on human folliculogenesis remains elusive. The aim of this study is to assess if human scalp-derived fibroblasts (sFBs) are able to modulate their FGF expression profile in response to WNT activation and to evaluate the influence of WNT-activated or suppressed FGFs on folliculogenesis. Methods: Dermal papilla cells (DPCs), dermal sheath cells (DSCs), and sFBs were isolated from the human scalp and cultured independently. The gene expression profile of FGFs in DPCs, DSCs, and sFBs and the influence of WNT activator, CHIR99021, on FGF expression pattern in sFBs were evaluated by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, which were confirmed at protein level by western blotting analysis. The changes in the expression of DPC or keratinocyte (KC) biomarkers under the presence of FGF7 or 9 were examined in both single and co-culture assay of DPCs and/or KCs. The influence of FGF 7 and FGF 9 on hair morphogenesis and growth was analyzed in vivo using mouse chamber assay. Results: In single culture, sFBs were distinguished from DPCs and DSCs by relatively high expression of FGF5 and FGF18, potential inducers of hair cycle retardation or catagen phase. In WNT-activated state, sFBs downregulated FGF7 while upregulating FGF9, a positive regulator of HF morphogenesis, FGF16 and FGF20 belonging to the same FGF subfamily. In addition, CHIR99021, a WNT activator, dose-dependently modulated FGF7 and 9 expression to be folliculogenic. Altered expressions of FGF7 and FGF9 by CHIR99021 were confirmed at protein level. Supplementation of FGF9 to cultured DPCs resulted in upregulation of representative DP biomarkers and this tendency was sustained, when DPCs were co-cultured with KCs. In mouse chamber assay, FGF9 increased both the number and the diameter of newly formed HFs, while FGF7 decreased HF diameter. Conclusion: The results implied that sFBs support HF formation by modulating regional FGF expression profile responding to WNT activation.