Regeneration: From cells to tissues to organisms.
Regeneration: From cells to tissues to organisms.
复制标题
再生：从细胞到组织再到生物体。
DOI：
10.1016/j.ydbio.2017.12.005
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Zayas,RicardoM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Echeverri,Karen;Zayas,RicardoM
一些动物在受伤后更换身体部位的非凡能力已经激发了人类数千年的想象力，并吸引了科学家几个世纪来探索再生现象（Dinsmore，1991；Goss，1969）。技术和跨学科方法已将再生科学转变为一项强大的协作努力，旨在了解如何使用基于细胞的策略来恢复受损或患病的组织和器官（Stocum，2001）。关于再生的特刊的想法是在马萨诸塞州波士顿发育生物学学会第 75 届年会上举行的卫星研讨会上构思的，题为“再生能力的进化：发育的重演还是新颖的机制？”这次研讨会汇集了再生生物学领域的著名资深科学家和新研究人员，他们强调了新转基因技术的广泛应用和比较基因组学的可及性如何利用经典和新兴模型开辟干细胞和再生生物学研究的前沿（Chen 和 Poss，2017；Sánchez Alvarado 和 Tsonis，2006）。许多讨论集中在再生研究的核心如何与理解有机体发育的基本原理（例如细胞分化、形态发生和组织模式）的目标具有基本相似之处（Brockes 和 Kumar，2008；King 和 Newmark，2012；Tanaka 和 Reddien，2011）。然而，阐明赋予后胚胎生物再生能力的分子差异，例如无疤痕伤口、体内成体干细胞调节以及再生胚基的形成，继续吸引着再生界的集体努力。本期的评论和研究文章讨论了再生能力的进化和分歧的主题。例如，Erickson 和 Echeverri 讨论了无疤伤口愈合分子逻辑的经验教训，这种能力是再生有机体的关键一步（Erickson 和 Echeverri，2018）。此外，Seifert 和 Muneoka 还评估了蝾螈等经典再生生物体中芽基形成与实验室小鼠指尖和非洲刺鼠耳朵再生模型等最新哺乳动物模型之间的相似之处（Seifert 和 Muneoka，2018）。与脊椎动物相比，无脊椎动物可以表现出惊人的整体动物再生能力，即使在同一门的成员之间也存在很大差异，例如环节动物或涡虫。 Lai 和 Aboobaker 的综述讨论了无脊椎动物干细胞再生进化的新兴概念。当然，再生研究的一个主要驱动力是了解为什么人类的再生能力如此有限（Tanaka，2003）。在
The remarkable ability of some animals to replace body parts following injury has captured the imagination of humans for millennia, and has attracted scientists to explore regeneration phenomena for centuries (Dinsmore, 1991; Goss, 1969). Technological and interdisciplinary approaches have morphed regeneration science into a formidable collaborative effort aimed at understanding how cell-based strategies can be used to restore damaged or diseased tissues and organs (Stocum, 2001). The idea for a Special Issue on regeneration was conceived following a satellite symposium held at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Society for Developmental Biology in Boston, MA, titled:“Evolution of regenerative abilities: recapitulation of development or novel mechanisms?” The symposium brought together prominent senior scientists and new investigators in the field of regenerative biology, who highlighted how broad application of new transgenic technologies and the accessibility of comparative genomics are opening frontiers in stem cell and regenerative biology research using classic and emerging models (Chen and Poss, 2017; Sánchez Alvarado and Tsonis, 2006). Much of the discussion centered on how the study of regeneration, at its core, shares fundamental similarities with the goal of understanding the basic principles underlying organismal development (eg, cell differentiation, morphogenesis, and tissue patterning)(Brockes and Kumar, 2008; King and Newmark, 2012; Tanaka and Reddien, 2011). However, unraveling the molecular differences that confer regenerative abilities in postembryonic organisms, such as scarless wounding, adult stem cell regulation in vivo, and the formation of the regeneration blastema, continues to attract the collective efforts of the regeneration community.The reviews and research articles in this issue tackle topics on the evolution and divergence of regenerative abilities. For example, Erickson and Echeverri discuss lessons learned on the molecular logic underlying scarless wound healing, an ability that is a crucial step in regenerative organisms (Erickson and Echeverri, 2018). Moreover, Seifert and Muneoka assess the parallels between the formation of a blastema in classical regeneration organisms like the axolotl versus recent mammalian models like the lab mouse digit tip and the African Spiny mouse ear regeneration model (Seifert and Muneoka, 2018). In contrast to vertebrates, invertebrates can display a prodigious capacity for whole-animal regeneration that is highly variable even amongst members of the same phylum, such as annelids or planarians; the review by Lai and Aboobaker discusses emergent concepts on the evolution of stem cellbased regeneration within invertebrates. Of course, a major driver of regeneration research is understanding why humans have such a limited regenerative capacity (Tanaka, 2003). In