4.6 Article

Cell Lineages and the Logic of Proliferative Control

期刊

PLOS BIOLOGY
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 84-100

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000015

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [P50GM076516, R01GM067247, R01-GM075309, R01-DC03583]
  2. MSTP [GM08620]
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA062203] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [T32GM008620, R01GM067247, P50GM076516, R01GM075309] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS [R01DC003583] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is widely accepted that the growth and regeneration of tissues and organs is tightly controlled. Although experimental studies are beginning to reveal molecular mechanisms underlying such control, there is still very little known about the control strategies themselves. Here, we consider how secreted negative feedback factors (chalones) may be used to control the output of multistage cell lineages, as exemplified by the actions of GDF11 and activin in a self-renewing neural tissue, the mammalian olfactory epithelium (OE). We begin by specifying performance objectives-what, precisely, is being controlled, and to what degree-and go on to calculate how well different types of feedback configurations, feedback sensitivities, and tissue architectures achieve control. Ultimately, we show that many features of the OE-the number of feedback loops, the cellular processes targeted by feedback, even the location of progenitor cells within the tissue-fit with expectations for the best possible control. In so doing, we also show that certain distinctions that are commonly drawn among cells and molecules-such as whether a cell is a stem cell or transit-amplifying cell, or whether a molecule is a growth inhibitor or stimulator-may be the consequences of control, and not a reflection of intrinsic differences in cellular or molecular character.

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