4.8 Article

An organoid-based CRISPR-Cas9 screen for regulators of intestinal epithelial maturation and cell fate

期刊

SCIENCE ADVANCES
卷 9, 期 28, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adg4055

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By studying mouse fetal and adult small intestinal organoids, it was found that rare adult-like cells exist in fetal organoids, suggesting that fetal organoids have the potential to mature but are regulated by certain factors. Through a CRISPR-Cas9 screen, Smarca4 and Smarcc1 were identified as important factors for maintaining the immature progenitor state. This study demonstrates the usefulness of organoid models in identifying factors regulating cell fate and state transitions during tissue maturation and reveals the role of SMARCA4 and SMARCC1 in preventing precocious differentiation during intestinal development.
Generation of functionally mature organs requires exquisite control of transcriptional programs governing cell state transitions during development. Despite advances in understanding the behavior of adult intestinal stem cells and their progeny, the transcriptional regulators that control the emergence of the mature intestinal phenotype remain largely unknown. Using mouse fetal and adult small intestinal organoids, we uncover transcriptional differences between the fetal and adult state and identify rare adult-like cells present in fetal organoids. This suggests that fetal organoids have an inherent potential to mature, which is locked by a regulatory program. By implementing a CRISPR-Cas9 screen targeting transcriptional regulators expressed in fetal organoids, we establish Smarca4 and Smarcc1 as important factors safeguarding the immature progenitor state. Our approach demonstrates the utility of organoid models in the identification of factors regulating cell fate and state transitions during tissue maturation and reveals that SMARCA4 and SMARCC1 prevent precocious differentiation during intestinal development.

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