4.0 Review

Using human induced pluripotent stem cells to model cerebellar disease: Hope and hype

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROGENETICS
Volume 29, Issue 2-3, Pages 95-102

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/01677063.2015.1053478

Keywords

Cerebellum; directed differentiation; disease modelling; iPSC-technology; reprogramming

Funding

  1. BRT studentship (Brain Research Trust)
  2. MRC [G1001253, G0802760, G108/638, MR/J004758/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G1001253, G0802760, MR/J004758/1, G108/638] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The cerebellum forms a highly ordered and indispensible component of motor function within the adult neuraxis, consisting of several distinct cellular subtypes. Cerebellar disease, through a variety of genetic and acquired causes, results in the loss of function of defined subclasses of neurons, and remains a significant and untreatable health care burden. The scarcity of therapies in this arena can partially be explained by unresolved disease mechanisms due to inaccessibility of human cerebellar neurons in a relevant experimental context where initiating disease mechanisms could be functionally elucidated, or drug screens conducted. In this review we discuss the potential promise of human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) for regenerative neurology, with a particular emphasis on in vitro modelling of cerebellar degeneration. We discuss progress made thus far using hiPSC-based models of neurodegeneration, noting the relatively slower pace of discovery made in modelling cerebellar dysfunction. We conclude by speculating how strategies attempting cerebellar differentiation from hiPSCs can be refined to allow the generation of accurate disease models. This in turn will permit a greater understanding of cerebellar pathophysiology to inform mechanistically rationalised therapies, which are desperately needed in this field.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available