Organoid vs In Vivo Mouse Model: Which is Better Research Tool to Understand the Biologic Mechanisms of Intestinal Epithelium?
Organoid vs In Vivo Mouse Model: Which is Better Research Tool to Understand the Biologic Mechanisms of Intestinal Epithelium?
复制标题
DOI:
10.1016/j.jcmgh.2021.06.027
复制
发表时间:
2022
影响因子:
7.2
通讯作者:
Sato T
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Sugimoto S;Sato T
The mammalian intestinal epithelium consists of the glandular histologic unit, crypts. Crypts have a remarkable self-renewing capacity, and the entire unit is constantly regenerated within several days. The self-renewing capacity is instrumental for homeostasis and critical after intestinal injury, when new crypts must be formed from a landscape of denuded mucosa. Mouse models have provided an understanding of how crypts regenerate and which factors regulate the self-renewal of crypts. In the 1970s, Leblond, Cheng, and Bjerknes revealed the self-renewing dynamics of mouse intestinal crypts and proposed intestinal stem cells (ISCs) responsible for crypt self-renewal. 1, 2 However, ISCs were not formally identified until the emergence of a lineage tracing system using mouse genetic models, when Barker and Clevers demonstrated the long-term self-renewing potential and multidifferentiation capacity of Lgr5+ ISCs. 3 The Lgr5 expression indicated the critical role of Wnt signaling in the maintenance of ISCs. Moreover, this finding underscored that microenvironmental factors, referred to as niche factors, could be used to support ISCs. Using a combination of niche factors including EGF (growth factor), Noggin (Bmp inhibitor), and R-spondin (Wnt signaling activator), Sato and Clevers developed an organoid culture system for mouse small intestinal epithelium. 4 Ever since the establishment of the organoid culture system, mouse genetic models and organoids have been 2 major tools to study ISCs and crypt development. Here, we discuss the advantages of the organoid culture system over mouse genetic models (Table 1).
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子:
9.8
作者:
Langlands, Alistair J.;Almet, Axel A.;Nathke, Inke S.
通讯作者:
Nathke, Inke S.
影响因子:
29.4
作者:
Sato, Toshiro;Stange, Daniel E.;Clevers, Hans
通讯作者:
Clevers, Hans
影响因子:
23.9
作者:
Tallapragada NP;Cambra HM;Wald T;Keough Jalbert S;Abraham DM;Klein OD;Klein AM
通讯作者:
Klein AM
影响因子:
64.8
作者:
Barker, Nick;van Es, Johan H.;Clevers, Hans
通讯作者:
Clevers, Hans
影响因子:
64.8
作者:
Parikh, Kaushal;Antanaviciute, Agne;Simmons, Alison
通讯作者:
Simmons, Alison