4.6 Review

Renal progenitors: an evolutionary conserved strategy for kidney regeneration

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS NEPHROLOGY
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 137-146

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nrneph.2012.290

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) [FP7/2007-2013, 205027]
  2. European Community [FP7/2012-2016, 305436]
  3. Tuscany Ministry of Health (Bando Salute)
  4. Italian Ministry of Health and by the Associazione ltaliana per la Ricerca sul Cancro
  5. RESET [ERC-2010-7-AdG-268632]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Following kidney injury, repair can result in functional tissue becoming a patch of cells and disorganized extracellular matrix a scar or it can recapitulate the original tissue architecture through the process of regeneration. Regeneration can potentially occur in all animal species and humans. Indeed, the repair of portions of the existing nephron after tubular damage, a response that has been designated classically as cellular regeneration, is conserved in all animal species from the ancestral phases of evolution. By contrast, another type of regenerative response nephron neogenesis has been described in lower branches of the animal kingdom, but does not occur in adult mammals. Converging evidence suggests that a renal progenitor system is present in the adult kidney across different stages of evolution, with renal progenitors having been identified as the main drivers of kidney regenerative responses in fish, insects, rodents and humans. In this Review, we describe similarities and differences between the renal progenitor systems through evolution, and propose explanations for how progressive kidney adaptation to environmental changes both required and permitted neonephrogenesis to be given up and for cellular regeneration to be retained as the main regenerative strategy. Understanding the mechanisms that drive renal progenitor growth and differentiation represent the key step for modulating this potential for therapeutic purposes.

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

4.6
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