4.8 Article

Single-molecule transcript counting of stem-cell markers in the mouse intestine

期刊

NATURE CELL BIOLOGY
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 106-U193

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ncb2384

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Cancer Institute Physical Sciences Oncology Centerat MIT [U54CA143874]
  2. NIH [1DP1OD003936, P30-CA14051]
  3. European Molecular Biology Organization
  4. International Human Frontiers Science Program Organization
  5. Machiah Foundation
  6. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  7. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [U54CA143874, DP1CA174420, P30CA014051] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH [DP1OD003936] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Determining the molecular identities of adult stem cells requires technologies for sensitive transcript detection in tissues. In mouse intestinal crypts, lineage-tracing studies indicated that different genes uniquely mark spatially distinct stem-cell populations, residing either at crypt bases or at position +4, but adetailed analysis of their spatial co-expression has not been feasible. Here we apply three-colour single-molecule fluorescence in situhy bridization to study a comprehensive panel of intestinal stem-cell markers during homeostasis, ageing and regeneration.We find that the expression of all markers overlaps at crypt-base cells. This co-expression includes Lgr5, Bmi1 and mTert, genes previously suggested to mark distinct stem cells. Strikingly, Dcamkl1 tuft cells, distributed through out the cryptaxis, co-express Lgr5 and other stem-cell markers that are otherwise confined to crypt bases. We also detect significant changes in the expression of some of the markers following irradiation, indicating their potentialrole in the regeneration process. Our approach can enable the sensitive detection of putative stem cells in other tissues and intumours, guiding complementary function alstudies to evaluate their stem-cell properties.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据