1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Biochemistry
  4. Volume 87, 2018
  5. Article

Annual Review of Biochemistry

Volume 87, 2018

Defining Adult Stem Cells by Function, not by Phenotype

Abstract

Central to the classical hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) paradigm is the concept that the maintenance of blood cell numbers is exclusively executed by a discrete physical entity: the transplantable HSC. The HSC paradigm has served as a stereotypic template in stem cell biology, yet the search for rare, hardwired professional stem cells has remained futile in most other tissues. In a more open approach, the focus on the search for stem cells as a physical entity may need to be replaced by the search for stem cell function, operationally defined as the ability of an organ to replace lost cells. The nature of such a cell may be different under steady state conditions and during tissue repair. We discuss emerging examples including the renewal strategies of the skin, gut epithelium, liver, lung, and mammary gland in comparison with those of the hematopoietic system. While certain key housekeeping and developmental signaling pathways are shared between different stem cell systems, there may be no general, deeper principles underlying the renewal mechanisms of the various individual tissues.

Keyword(s): adult stem cell, asymmetric division, neutral competition, quiescence, self-renewal, tissue maintenance
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-biochem-062917-012341
2018-06-20
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/biochem/87/1/annurev-biochem-062917-012341.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-biochem-062917-012341&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.  Lorenz E, Uphoff D, Reid TR, Shelton E 1951. Modification of irradiation injury in mice and guinea pigs by bone marrow injections. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 12:197–201
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.  Thomas ED, Lochte HL Jr, Lu WC, Ferrebee JW 1957. Intravenous infusion of bone marrow in patients receiving radiation and chemotherapy. N. Engl. J. Med 257:491–96
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.  Till JE, McCulloch EA 1961. A direct measurement of the radiation sensitivity of normal mouse bone marrow cells. Radiat. Res. 14:213–22
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.  Eaves CJ. 2015. Hematopoietic stem cells: concepts, definitions, and the new reality. Blood 125:2605–13
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.  Weissman IL. 2014. Clonal origins of the hematopoietic system: the single most elegant experiment. J. Immunol. 192:4943–44
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.  Morrison SJ, Uchida N, Weissman IL 1995. The biology of hematopoietic stem cells. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 11:35–71
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.  Orkin SH, Zon LI 2008. Hematopoiesis: an evolving paradigm for stem cell biology. Cell 132:631–44
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.  Suda T, Suda J, Ogawa M 1984. Disparate differentiation in mouse hemopoietic colonies derived from paired progenitors. PNAS 81:2520–24
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.  Watt FM. 1999. Stem cell manifesto. Book review. Cell 96:470–73
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.  Visvader JE, Stingl J 2014. Mammary stem cells and the differentiation hierarchy: current status and perspectives. Genes Dev 28:1143–58
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.  Mackenzie IC, Bickenbach JR 1985. Label-retaining keratinocytes and Langerhans cells in mouse epithelia. Cell Tissue Res 242:3551–56
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.  Potten CS, Morris RJ 1988. Epithelial stem cells in vivo. J. Cell Sci. Suppl. 10:45–62
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.  Braun KM, Watt FM 2004. Epidermal label-retaining cells: background and recent applications. J. Investig. Dermatol. Symp. Proc. 9:196–201
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.  Brack AS, Rando TA 2012. Tissue-specific stem cells: lessons from the skeletal muscle satellite cell. Cell Stem Cell 10:504–14
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.  Cheshier SH, Morrison SJ, Liao X, Weissman IL 1999. In vivo proliferation and cell cycle kinetics of long-term self-renewing hematopoietic stem cells. PNAS 96:3120–25
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.  Wilson A, Laurenti E, Oser G, van der Wath RC, Blanco-Bose W et al. 2008. Hematopoietic stem cells reversibly switch from dormancy to self-renewal during homeostasis and repair. Cell 135:1118–29
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.  Cotsarelis G, Sun TT, Lavker RM 1990. Label-retaining cells reside in the bulge area of pilosebaceous unit: implications for follicular stem cells, hair cycle, and skin carcinogenesis. Cell 61:1329–37
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.  Clevers H. 2013. The intestinal crypt, a prototype stem cell compartment. Cell 154:274–84
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.  Barker N, van Es JH, Kuipers J, Kujala P, van den Born M et al. 2007. Identification of stem cells in small intestine and colon by marker gene Lgr5. Nature 449:1003–7
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.  Blokzijl F, de Ligt J, Jager M, Sasselli V, Roerink S et al. 2016. Tissue-specific mutation accumulation in human adult stem cells during life. Nature 538:260–64
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.  Buczacki SJ, Zecchini HI, Nicholson AM, Russell R, Vermeulen L et al. 2013. Intestinal label-retaining cells are secretory precursors expressing Lgr5. Nature 495:65–69
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.  van Es JH, Sato T, van de Wetering M, Lyubimova A, Gregorieff A et al. 2012. Dll1+ secretory progenitor cells revert to stem cells upon crypt damage. Nat. Cell Biol. 14:1099–104
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.  Jadhav U, Saxena M, O'Neill NK, Saadatpour A, Yuan GC et al. 2017. Dynamic reorganization of chromatin accessibility signatures during dedifferentiation of secretory precursors into Lgr5+ intestinal stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 21:65–77 e5
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.  Tetteh PW, Basak O, Farin HF, Wiebrands K, Kretzschmar K et al. 2016. Replacement of lost Lgr5-positive stem cells through plasticity of their enterocyte-lineage daughters. Cell Stem Cell 18:203–13
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.  Tata PR, Rajagopal J 2017. Plasticity in the lung: making and breaking cell identity. Development 144:755–66
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.  Pardo-Saganta A, Law BM, Tata PR, Villoria J, Saez B et al. 2015. Injury induces direct lineage segregation of functionally distinct airway basal stem/progenitor cell subpopulations. Cell Stem Cell 16:184–97
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.  Rawlins EL, Okubo T, Xue Y, Brass DM, Auten RL et al. 2009. The role of Scgb1a1+ Clara cells in the long-term maintenance and repair of lung airway, but not alveolar, epithelium. Cell Stem Cell 4:525–34
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.  Tata PR, Mou H, Pardo-Saganta A, Zhao R, Prabhu M et al. 2013. Dedifferentiation of committed epithelial cells into stem cells in vivo. Nature 503:218–23
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.  Barkauskas CE, Cronce MJ, Rackley CR, Bowie EJ, Keene DR et al. 2013. Type 2 alveolar cells are stem cells in adult lung. J. Clin. Investig. 123:3025–36
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.  Desai TJ, Brownfield DG, Krasnow MA 2014. Alveolar progenitor and stem cells in lung development, renewal and cancer. Nature 507:190–94
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.  Jain R, Barkauskas CE, Takeda N, Bowie EJ, Aghajanian H et al. 2015. Plasticity of Hopx+ type I alveolar cells to regenerate type II cells in the lung. Nat. Commun. 6:6727
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.  Stange DE, Koo BK, Huch M, Sibbel G, Basak O et al. 2013. Differentiated Troy+ chief cells act as reserve stem cells to generate all lineages of the stomach epithelium. Cell 155:357–68
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.  Leushacke M, Tan SH, Wong A, Swathi Y, Hajamohideen A et al. 2017. Lgr5-expressing chief cells drive epithelial regeneration and cancer in the oxyntic stomach. Nat. Cell Biol. 19:774–86
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.  Donati G, Rognoni E, Hiratsuka T, Liakath-Ali K, Hoste E et al. 2017. Wounding induces dedifferentiation of epidermal Gata6+ cells and acquisition of stem cell properties. Nat. Cell Biol. 19:603–13
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.  Rheinwald JG, Green H 1975. Formation of a keratinizing epithelium in culture by a cloned cell line derived from a teratoma. Cell 6:317–30
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.  O'Connor NE, Mulliken JB, Banks-Shlegel S, Kehinde O, Green H 1981. Grafting of burns with cultured epithelium prepared from autologous epidermal cells. Lancet 1:75–78
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.  Gallico GG 3rd, O'Connor NE, Compton CC, Kehinde O, Green H 1984. Permanent coverage of large burn wounds with autologous cultured human epithelium. N. Engl. J. Med. 311:448–51
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.  Barrandon Y, Green H 1987. Three clonal types of keratinocyte with different capacities for multiplication. PNAS 84:2302–6
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.  Jones PH, Watt FM 1993. Separation of human epidermal stem cells from transit amplifying cells on the basis of differences in integrin function and expression. Cell 73:713–24
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.  Braun KM, Niemann C, Jensen UB, Sundberg JP, Silva-Vargas V, Watt FM 2003. Manipulation of stem cell proliferation and lineage commitment: visualisation of label-retaining cells in wholemounts of mouse epidermis. Development 130:5241–55
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.  Morris RJ, Potten CS 1994. Slowly cycling (label-retaining) epidermal cells behave like clonogenic stem cells in vitro. Cell Prolif 27:279–89
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.  Clayton E, Doupe DP, Klein AM, Winton DJ, Simons BD, Jones PH 2007. A single type of progenitor cell maintains normal epidermis. Nature 446:185–89
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.  Doupe DP, Alcolea MP, Roshan A, Zhang G, Klein AM et al. 2012. A single progenitor population switches behavior to maintain and repair esophageal epithelium. Science 337:1091–93
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.  Snippert HJ, van der Flier LG, Sato T, van Es JH, van den Born M et al. 2010. Intestinal crypt homeostasis results from neutral competition between symmetrically dividing Lgr5 stem cells. Cell 143:134–44
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.  Lopez-Garcia C, Klein AM, Simons BD, Winton DJ 2010. Intestinal stem cell replacement follows a pattern of neutral drift. Science 330:822–25
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.  Leushacke M, Ng A, Galle J, Loeffler M, Barker N 2013. Lgr5+ gastric stem cells divide symmetrically to effect epithelial homeostasis in the pylorus. Cell Rep 5:349–56
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.  Klein AM, Nakagawa T, Ichikawa R, Yoshida S, Simons BD 2010. Mouse germ line stem cells undergo rapid and stochastic turnover. Cell Stem Cell 7:214–24
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.  Schofield R. 1978. The relationship between the spleen colony-forming cell and the haemopoietic stem cell. Blood Cells 4:7–25
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.  Stingl J, Eirew P, Ricketson I, Shackleton M, Vaillant F et al. 2006. Purification and unique properties of mammary epithelial stem cells. Nature 439:993–97
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.  Shackleton M, Vaillant F, Simpson KJ, Stingl J, Smyth GK et al. 2006. Generation of a functional mammary gland from a single stem cell. Nature 439:84–88
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.  Rios AC, Fu NY, Lindeman GJ, Visvader JE 2014. In situ identification of bipotent stem cells in the mammary gland. Nature 506:322–27
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.  Wang D, Cai C, Dong X, Yu QC, Zhang XO et al. 2015. Identification of multipotent mammary stem cells by protein C receptor expression. Nature 517:81–84
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.  Van Keymeulen A, Rocha AS, Ousset M, Beck B, Bouvencourt G et al. 2011. Distinct stem cells contribute to mammary gland development and maintenance. Nature 479:189–93
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.  Strand DW, Goldstein AS 2015. The many ways to make a luminal cell and a prostate cancer cell. Endocrinol. Relat. Cancer 22:T187–97
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.  Ito M, Liu Y, Yang Z, Nguyen J, Liang F et al. 2005. Stem cells in the hair follicle bulge contribute to wound repair but not to homeostasis of the epidermis. Nat. Med. 11:1351–54
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.  Watt FM, Jensen KB 2009. Epidermal stem cell diversity and quiescence. EMBO Mol. Med. 1:260–67
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.  Donati G, Watt FM 2015. Stem cell heterogeneity and plasticity in epithelia. Cell Stem Cell 16:465–76
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.  Mascre G, Dekoninck S, Drogat B, Youssef KK, Brohee S et al. 2012. Distinct contribution of stem and progenitor cells to epidermal maintenance. Nature 489:257–62
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.  Gomez C, Chua W, Miremadi A, Quist S, Headon DJ, Watt FM 2013. The interfollicular epidermis of adult mouse tail comprises two distinct cell lineages that are differentially regulated by Wnt, Edaradd, and Lrig1. Stem Cell Rep 1:19–27
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.  Sada A, Jacob F, Leung E, Wang S, White BS et al. 2016. Defining the cellular lineage hierarchy in the interfollicular epidermis of adult skin. Nat. Cell Biol. 18:619–31
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.  Joost S, Zeisel A, Jacob T, Sun X, La Manno G et al. 2016. Single-cell transcriptomics reveals that differentiation and spatial signatures shape epidermal and hair follicle heterogeneity. Cell Syst 3:221–37 e9
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.  Stanger BZ. 2015. Cellular homeostasis and repair in the mammalian liver. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 77:179–200
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.  Miyajima A, Tanaka M, Itoh T 2014. Stem/progenitor cells in liver development, homeostasis, regeneration, and reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 14:561–74
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.  Wang B, Zhao L, Fish M, Logan CY, Nusse R 2015. Self-renewing diploid Axin2+ cells fuel homeostatic renewal of the liver. Nature 524:180–85
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.  Evarts RP, Nagy P, Marsden E, Thorgeirsson SS 1987. A precursor–product relationship exists between oval cells and hepatocytes in rat liver. Carcinogenesis 8:1737–40
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.  Grompe M. 2014. Liver stem cells, where art thou?. Cell Stem Cell 15:257–58
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.  Yanger K, Knigin D, Zong Y, Maggs L, Gu G et al. 2014. Adult hepatocytes are generated by self-duplication rather than stem cell differentiation. Cell Stem Cell 15:340–49
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.  Schaub JR, Malato Y, Gormond C, Willenbring H 2014. Evidence against a stem cell origin of new hepatocytes in a common mouse model of chronic liver injury. Cell Rep 8:933–39
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.  Raven A, Lu WY, Man TY, Ferreira-Gonzalez S, O'Duibhir E et al. 2017. Cholangiocytes act as facultative liver stem cells during impaired hepatocyte regeneration. Nature 547:350–54
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.  Huch M, Gehart H, van Boxtel R, Hamer K, Blokzijl F et al. 2015. Long-term culture of genome-stable bipotent stem cells from adult human liver. Cell 160:299–312
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.  Li B, Dorrell C, Canaday PS, Pelz C, Haft A et al. 2017. Adult mouse liver contains two distinct populations of cholangiocytes. Stem Cell Rep 9:478–89
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.  Clevers H. 2015. Stem cells. What is an adult stem cell?. Science 350:1319–20
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.  Kretzschmar K, Watt FM 2014. Markers of epidermal stem cell subpopulations in adult mammalian skin. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med 4:a013631
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-biochem-062917-012341
Loading
Defining Adult Stem Cells by Function, not by Phenotype
Annual Review of Biochemistry 87, 1015 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-062917-012341
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-biochem-062917-012341
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-biochem-062917-012341
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error