4.7 Article

A comprehensive transcriptomic comparison of hepatocyte model systems improves selection of models for experimental use

期刊

COMMUNICATIONS BIOLOGY
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s42003-022-04046-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. ZonMW TAS ('Regenerating Intestinal Tissue with Stem cells' project)
  2. Metakids ('Minilevertjes' project)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A systematic comparison of transcriptomes across different hepatocyte models allows selection of hepatocyte-like cells for specific research questions and can guide improvements in culturing conditions.
A systematic comparison of transcriptomes across different hepatocyte models provides a valuable resource to determine the most suitable model for a particular application or research question. The myriad of available hepatocyte in vitro models provides researchers the possibility to select hepatocyte-like cells (HLCs) for specific research goals. However, direct comparison of hepatocyte models is currently challenging. We systematically searched the literature and compared different HLCs, but reported functions were limited to a small subset of hepatic functions. To enable a more comprehensive comparison, we developed an algorithm to compare transcriptomic data across studies that tested HLCs derived from hepatocytes, biliary cells, fibroblasts, and pluripotent stem cells, alongside primary human hepatocytes (PHHs). This revealed that no HLC covered the complete hepatic transcriptome, highlighting the importance of HLC selection. HLCs derived from hepatocytes had the highest transcriptional resemblance to PHHs regardless of the protocol, whereas the quality of fibroblasts and PSC derived HLCs varied depending on the protocol used. Finally, we developed and validated a web application (HLCompR) enabling comparison for specific pathways and addition of new HLCs. In conclusion, our comprehensive transcriptomic comparison of HLCs allows selection of HLCs for specific research questions and can guide improvements in culturing conditions.

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