4.6 Review

In vitro models of cranial neural crest development toward toxicity tests: frog, mouse, and human

Journal

ORAL DISEASES
Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages 559-565

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/odi.12523

Keywords

cranial neural crest development; ES; iPS cells; animal caps; directed differentiation; defined culture condition

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan
  2. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)
  3. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During craniofacial development, cranial neural crest (NC)-derived mesenchymal cells migrate to pharyngeal arches and contribute extensively to neurons, Schwann cells, smooth muscle cells, osteoblasts, chondrocytes, and odontoblasts, forming maxillofacial structures. In vitro models using model organism cells, such as African clawed frog (Xenopus Laevis) and mouse (Mus Musculus), were developed to understand cellular and molecular mechanisms of cranial NC development. Recent studies using human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) and human-induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) have enabled the generation of human NC cells (NCCs) invitro to provide insight into human NC development. Understanding molecular mechanisms underlying craniofacial development will contribute to develop novel embryotoxicity tests and to decrease the incidence of drug-induced congenital anomalies in the craniofacial region, such as cleft lip or cleft palate. Here, we review culture methods to derive NCCs invitro from Xenopus presumptive ectoderm (animal caps), mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs), and human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) and discuss how these invitro models can be used to help clarify the mechanisms underlying craniofacial development and for developing embryotoxicity tests predicting drug-induced congenital anomalies in the craniofacial region.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available