4.8 Article

Modeling neural tube development by differentiation of human embryonic stem cells in a microfluidic WNT gradient

期刊

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 38, 期 11, 页码 1265-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41587-020-0525-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF18OC0030286, NNF17CC0027852, NNF18CC0034900]
  2. Lundbeck Foundation [R190-2014-3904]
  3. Innovation Fund Denmark [BrainStem 4108-00008 A]
  4. Strong Research Environment at Lund University Multipark
  5. Swedish Research Council [70862601/Bagadilico, 521-2012-5624]
  6. Crafoord Foundation
  7. Segerfalk Foundation
  8. Tore Nilsson Foundation
  9. Sven-Olof Janson Foundation
  10. Swedish Fund for Research Without Animal Experiments
  11. New York Stem Cell Foundation
  12. European Research Council under the ERC Grant Agreement [30971]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patterning of the human neural tube is modeled in a microfluidic device. The study of brain development in humans is limited by the lack of tissue samples and suitable in vitro models. Here, we model early human neural tube development using human embryonic stem cells cultured in a microfluidic device. The approach, named microfluidic-controlled stem cell regionalization (MiSTR), exposes pluripotent stem cells to signaling gradients that mimic developmental patterning. Using a WNT-activating gradient, we generated a neural tissue exhibiting progressive caudalization from forebrain to midbrain to hindbrain, including formation of isthmic organizer characteristics. Single-cell transcriptomics revealed that rostro-caudal organization was already established at 24 h of differentiation, and that the first markers of a neural-specific transcription program emerged in the rostral cells at 48 h. The transcriptomic hallmarks of rostro-caudal organization recapitulated gene expression patterns of the early rostro-caudal neural plate in mouse embryos. Thus, MiSTR will facilitate research on the factors and processes underlying rostro-caudal neural tube patterning.

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