4.6 Article

Stem cells: cross-talk and developmental programs

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1474

关键词

degeneration; neural stem cells; regeneration; tissue engineering; inflammation; transplantation

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The thesis advanced in this essay is that stem cells-particularly those in the nervous system-are components in a series of inborn 'programs' that not only ensure normal development, but persist throughout life so as to maintain homeostasis in the face of perturbations-both small and great. These programs encode what has come to be called 'plasticity'. The stem cell is one of the repositories of this plasticity. This review examines the evidence that interaction between the neural stem cell (as a prototypical somatic stem cell) and the developing or injured brain is a dynamic, complex, ongoing reciprocal set of interactions where both entities are constantly in flux. We suggest that this interaction can be viewed almost from a,systems biology' vantage point. We further advance the notion that clones of exogenous stem cells in transplantation paradigms may not only be viewed for their therapeutic potential, but also as biological tools for 'interrogating' the normal or abnormal central nervous system environment, indicating what salient cues (among the many present) are actually guiding the expression of these 'programs'; in other words, using the stem cell as a 'reporter cell'. Based on this type of analysis, we suggest some of the relevant molecular pathways responsible for this 'cross-talk' which, in turn, lead to proliferation, migration, cell genesis, trophic support, protection, guidance, detoxification, rescue, etc. This type of developmental insight, we propose, is required for the development of therapeutic strategies for neuro degenerative disease and other nervous system afflictions in humans. Understanding the relevant molecular pathways of stem cell repair phenotype should be a priority, in our view, for the entire stem cell field.

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

4.6
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