4.5 Review

Stem/progenitor cells in pituitary organ homeostasis and tumourigenesis

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 236, 期 1, 页码 R1-R13

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/JOE-17-0258

关键词

pituitary; stem cell; pituitary adenoma; homeostasis; adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma

资金

  1. Medical Research Council (MRC) [MR/M000125/1]
  2. Children with Cancer UK [164402]
  3. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children National Health Service Foundation Trust and University College London
  4. Wellcome Trust PhD Fellowship
  5. MRC [MR/M000125/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Children with Cancer UK [15-190] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Great Ormond Street Hospital Childrens Charity [W1055] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Medical Research Council [MR/M000125/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. The Brain Tumour Charity [GN-000382] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evidence for the presence of pituitary gland stem cells has been provided over the last decade using a combination of approaches including in vitro clonogenicity assays, flow cytometric side population analysis, immunohistochemical analysis and genetic approaches. These cells have been demonstrated to be able to self-renew and undergo multipotent differentiation to give rise to all hormonal lineages of the anterior pituitary. Furthermore, evidence exists for their contribution to regeneration of the organ and plastic responses to changing physiological demand. Recently, stem-like cells have been isolated from pituitary neoplasms raising the possibility that a cytological hierarchy exists, in keeping with the cancer stem cell paradigm. In this manuscript, we review the evidence for the existence of pituitary stem cells, their role in maintaining organ homeostasis and the regulation of their differentiation. Furthermore, we explore the emerging concept of stem cells in pituitary tumours and their potential roles in these diseases.

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

4.5
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