Opinion Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 7, 2019; 25(25): 3116-3122
Published online Jul 7, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i25.3116
Table 1 Mouse injury models used for plasticity studies
StudyPlastic cell identifiedInjury model used
Tian et al[18]Bmi1+ cellDTR Lgr5+ ablation
Roth et al[19]Paneth cell12Gy radiation
van Es et al[16]Dll1+ cell6Gy radiation
Buczacki et al[17]Label-retaining cell6Gy radiation, doxorubicin or hydroxyurea
Asfaha et al[20]Upper crypt progenitor12Gy radiation +/- 5-Fluorouracil
Tetteh et al[27]Alpi1+ enterocyteDTR Lgr5+ ablation
Jadhav et al[9]Goblet cell progenitorsDTR Lgr5+ ablation
Yan et al[21]Enteroendocrine cell12Gy radiation
Ishibashi et al[22]Atoh1+ cellDSS (1.75%) for 5 d
Nusse et al[23]Lgr5- crypt cellParasite infection
Schmitt et al[24]Paneth cellDSS (3%) for 1 wk
Tomic et al[26]Atoh1+ cell6Gy radiation, AOM or 2% DSS
Yu et al[25]Lyz1+ Paneth cell12Gy radiation
Castillo et al[28]Atoh1+ cellDSS (2.5%-3%) for 5 d
Table 2 Concepts leading to difficulties in ascribing behaviour to cell types in the intestine
CreER and TamoxifenToxicity
Off-target effects
Incongruity between reporter expression and protein expressionRegional differences
Chronicity of reporter stability
Reporter and mRNA expression differences
Inconsistent injury modelsIntestinal specific effects including incomplete cell type eradication e.g., diphtheria toxin mediated cell death
Off-target whole body effects e.g., irradiation
Representative of “homeostatic regeneration”
Different cell-type responses to different injuries
Laboratory differencesMicrobiota
Area of intestine examined
Strain differences between laboratories due to inbreeding