4.7 Article

Transcriptome comparisons of in vitro intestinal epithelia grown under static and microfluidic gut-on-chip conditions with in vivo human epithelia

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-82853-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Royal Thai government Scholarship
  2. Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality [KB-23-002-022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dynamic culture conditions in gut-on-chip devices can mimic the in vivo intestinal environment and impact the gene expression of Caco-2 cells. The study shows that under dynamic culture conditions, gene expression patterns similar to those of the intestines in vivo were observed.
Gut-on-chip devices enable exposure of cells to a continuous flow of culture medium, inducing shear stresses and could thus better recapitulate the in vivo human intestinal environment in an in vitro epithelial model compared to static culture methods. We aimed to study if dynamic culture conditions affect the gene expression of Caco-2 cells cultured statically or dynamically in a gut-on-chip device and how these gene expression patterns compared to that of intestinal segments in vivo. For this we applied whole genome transcriptomics. Dynamic culture conditions led to a total of 5927 differentially expressed genes (3280 upregulated and 2647 downregulated genes) compared to static culture conditions. Gene set enrichment analysis revealed upregulated pathways associated with the immune system, signal transduction and cell growth and death, and downregulated pathways associated with drug metabolism, compound digestion and absorption under dynamic culture conditions. Comparison of the in vitro gene expression data with transcriptome profiles of human in vivo duodenum, jejunum, ileum and colon tissue samples showed similarities in gene expression profiles with intestinal segments. It is concluded that both the static and the dynamic gut-on-chip model are suitable to study human intestinal epithelial responses as an alternative for animal models.

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

4.7
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