Article

Markers of murine embryonic and neural stem cells, neurons and astrocytes: reference points for developmental neurotoxicity testing.

University of Konstanz, Germany.
ALTEX 01/2010; 27(1):17-42.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) is a serious concern for environmental chemicals, as well as for food and drug constituents. Animal-based DNT models have relatively low sensitivity, and they are burdened by high work-load, cost and animal ethics. Murine embryonic stem cells (mESC) recapitulate several critical processes involved in the development of the nervous system if they are induced to differentiate into neural cells. They therefore represent an alternative toxicological model to predict human hazard. In this review, we discuss how mESC can be used for DNT assays. We have compiled a list of mRNA markers that define undifferentiated mESC (n = 42), neural stem cells (n = 73), astrocytes (n = 25) and the pattern of different neuronal and non-neuronal cell types generated (n = 57). We propose that transcriptional profiling can be used as a sensitive endpoint in toxicity assays to distinguish neural differentiation states during normal and disturbed development. Importantly, we believe that it can be scaled up to relatively high throughput whilst still providing rich information on disturbances affecting small cell subpopulations. Moreover, this approach can provide insight into underlying mechanisms and pathways of toxicity. We broadly discuss the methodological basis of marker lists and DNT assay design. The discussion is put in the context of a new generation of alternative assays (embryonic stem cell based DNT testing = ESDNT V2.0), that may later include human induced pluripotent stem cells, and that are not designed for 1:1 replacement of animal experiments, but are rather intended to improve human risk assessment by using independent scientific principles.

0 Followers
 · 
134 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Toxicological studies can be designed in very different ways, and the 2007 suggestion of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA has shown that the mode of working of a whole field of science can be reconsidered (Blaauboer et al. 2012; Leist et al. 2008, 2012, 2014). As study design often heavily influences or even drives the type of outcome, it may pay off well to invest some thought about how science is structured in most reports. Two extremes of a wide spectrum are considered here for simplification, the frog’s and the eagle’s perspective. The former one is the classical hypothesis-driven study that looks at the object of interest from very close by. In fact, the observer looks almost from below at her/his target, e.g. a favourite protein, and studies a specific feature, e.g. ubiquitination, with very high local resolution. During this type of research, most effort is invested in confirming a certain hypothesis that had been presented to granting bodies, in some cases years befo ...
    Archives of Toxicology 04/2015; 89(5). DOI:10.1007/s00204-015-1497-6 · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is great need to develop more predictive drug discovery tools to identify new therapies to treat diseases of the central nervous system (CNS). Current non pluripotent stem cell based models, often utilize non-CNS immortalized cell lines and do not enable the development of personalized models of disease. In this review, we discuss why in vitro models are necessary for translational research and outline the unique advantages of iPSC-based models, over those of current systems. We suggest that iPSC-based models can be patient specific and isogenic lines can be differentiated into many neural cell types for detailed comparisons. iPSC derived cells can be combined to form small organoids or large panels of lines can be developed that enable new forms of analysis. iPSC and ESC derived cells can be readily engineered to develop reporters for lineage studies or mechanism of action experiments further extending the utility of iPSC based systems. We conclude by describing novel technologies, that include strategies for the development of diversity panels, novel genomic engineering tools, new 3-D organoid systems, modified high content screens, that may bring toxicology into the 21st century. The strategic integration of these technologies with the advantages of iPSC derived cell technology, we believe, will be a paradigm shift for toxicology and drug discovery efforts.
    Stem cells and development 03/2015; DOI:10.1089/scd.2014.0531 · 4.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Postnatal murine spinal cord represents a good model system to study mammalian central nervous system myelination in vivo as a basis for further studies in demyelinating diseases. Transcriptional changes were analyzed in SJL/J mice on postnatal day 0, 14, 49 and 231 (P0, P14, P49, P231) employing Affymetrix GeneChip Mouse Genome 430 2.0 Arrays. Additionally, marker gene signatures for astrocyte and oligodendrocyte lineage-stages were defined to study their gene expression in more detail. In addition, immunohistochemistry was used to quantify the abundance of commonly used glial cell markers. 6092 differentially regulated genes (DEGs) were identified. The up-regulated DEGs at P14, P49 and P231 compared to P0 exhibited significantly enriched associations to gene ontology terms such as myelination and lipid metabolic transport and down-regulated DEGs to neurogenesis and axonogenesis. Expression values of marker gene signatures for neural stem cells, oligodendrocyte precursor cells, and developing astrocytes were constantly decreasing, whereas myelinating oligodendrocyte and mature astrocyte markers showed a steady increase. Molecular findings were substantiated by immunohistochemical observations. The transcriptional changes observed are an important reference for future analysis of degenerative and inflammatory conditions in the spinal cord. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience 02/2015; 42. DOI:10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2015.02.005 · 2.92 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
43 Downloads
Available from
Jun 3, 2014