Cargando…

Comparative Study of Injury Models for Studying Muscle Regeneration in Mice

BACKGROUND: A longstanding goal in regenerative medicine is to reconstitute functional tissus or organs after injury or disease. Attention has focused on the identification and relative contribution of tissue specific stem cells to the regeneration process. Relatively little is known about how the p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hardy, David, Besnard, Aurore, Latil, Mathilde, Jouvion, Grégory, Briand, David, Thépenier, Cédric, Pascal, Quentin, Guguin, Aurélie, Gayraud-Morel, Barbara, Cavaillon, Jean-Marc, Tajbakhsh, Shahragim, Rocheteau, Pierre, Chrétien, Fabrice
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4726569/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26807982
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147198
_version_ 1782411847079559168
author Hardy, David
Besnard, Aurore
Latil, Mathilde
Jouvion, Grégory
Briand, David
Thépenier, Cédric
Pascal, Quentin
Guguin, Aurélie
Gayraud-Morel, Barbara
Cavaillon, Jean-Marc
Tajbakhsh, Shahragim
Rocheteau, Pierre
Chrétien, Fabrice
author_facet Hardy, David
Besnard, Aurore
Latil, Mathilde
Jouvion, Grégory
Briand, David
Thépenier, Cédric
Pascal, Quentin
Guguin, Aurélie
Gayraud-Morel, Barbara
Cavaillon, Jean-Marc
Tajbakhsh, Shahragim
Rocheteau, Pierre
Chrétien, Fabrice
author_sort Hardy, David
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A longstanding goal in regenerative medicine is to reconstitute functional tissus or organs after injury or disease. Attention has focused on the identification and relative contribution of tissue specific stem cells to the regeneration process. Relatively little is known about how the physiological process is regulated by other tissue constituents. Numerous injury models are used to investigate tissue regeneration, however, these models are often poorly understood. Specifically, for skeletal muscle regeneration several models are reported in the literature, yet the relative impact on muscle physiology and the distinct cells types have not been extensively characterised. METHODS: We have used transgenic Tg:Pax7nGFP and Flk1(GFP/+) mouse models to respectively count the number of muscle stem (satellite) cells (SC) and number/shape of vessels by confocal microscopy. We performed histological and immunostainings to assess the differences in the key regeneration steps. Infiltration of immune cells, chemokines and cytokines production was assessed in vivo by Luminex(®). RESULTS: We compared the 4 most commonly used injury models i.e. freeze injury (FI), barium chloride (BaCl(2)), notexin (NTX) and cardiotoxin (CTX). The FI was the most damaging. In this model, up to 96% of the SCs are destroyed with their surrounding environment (basal lamina and vasculature) leaving a “dead zone” devoid of viable cells. The regeneration process itself is fulfilled in all 4 models with virtually no fibrosis 28 days post-injury, except in the FI model. Inflammatory cells return to basal levels in the CTX, BaCl(2) but still significantly high 1-month post-injury in the FI and NTX models. Interestingly the number of SC returned to normal only in the FI, 1-month post-injury, with SCs that are still cycling up to 3-months after the induction of the injury in the other models. CONCLUSIONS: Our studies show that the nature of the injury model should be chosen carefully depending on the experimental design and desired outcome. Although in all models the muscle regenerates completely, the trajectories of the regenerative process vary considerably. Furthermore, we show that histological parameters are not wholly sufficient to declare that regeneration is complete as molecular alterations (e.g. cycling SCs, cytokines) could have a major persistent impact.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4726569
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47265692016-02-03 Comparative Study of Injury Models for Studying Muscle Regeneration in Mice Hardy, David Besnard, Aurore Latil, Mathilde Jouvion, Grégory Briand, David Thépenier, Cédric Pascal, Quentin Guguin, Aurélie Gayraud-Morel, Barbara Cavaillon, Jean-Marc Tajbakhsh, Shahragim Rocheteau, Pierre Chrétien, Fabrice PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: A longstanding goal in regenerative medicine is to reconstitute functional tissus or organs after injury or disease. Attention has focused on the identification and relative contribution of tissue specific stem cells to the regeneration process. Relatively little is known about how the physiological process is regulated by other tissue constituents. Numerous injury models are used to investigate tissue regeneration, however, these models are often poorly understood. Specifically, for skeletal muscle regeneration several models are reported in the literature, yet the relative impact on muscle physiology and the distinct cells types have not been extensively characterised. METHODS: We have used transgenic Tg:Pax7nGFP and Flk1(GFP/+) mouse models to respectively count the number of muscle stem (satellite) cells (SC) and number/shape of vessels by confocal microscopy. We performed histological and immunostainings to assess the differences in the key regeneration steps. Infiltration of immune cells, chemokines and cytokines production was assessed in vivo by Luminex(®). RESULTS: We compared the 4 most commonly used injury models i.e. freeze injury (FI), barium chloride (BaCl(2)), notexin (NTX) and cardiotoxin (CTX). The FI was the most damaging. In this model, up to 96% of the SCs are destroyed with their surrounding environment (basal lamina and vasculature) leaving a “dead zone” devoid of viable cells. The regeneration process itself is fulfilled in all 4 models with virtually no fibrosis 28 days post-injury, except in the FI model. Inflammatory cells return to basal levels in the CTX, BaCl(2) but still significantly high 1-month post-injury in the FI and NTX models. Interestingly the number of SC returned to normal only in the FI, 1-month post-injury, with SCs that are still cycling up to 3-months after the induction of the injury in the other models. CONCLUSIONS: Our studies show that the nature of the injury model should be chosen carefully depending on the experimental design and desired outcome. Although in all models the muscle regenerates completely, the trajectories of the regenerative process vary considerably. Furthermore, we show that histological parameters are not wholly sufficient to declare that regeneration is complete as molecular alterations (e.g. cycling SCs, cytokines) could have a major persistent impact. Public Library of Science 2016-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4726569/ /pubmed/26807982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147198 Text en © 2016 Hardy et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hardy, David
Besnard, Aurore
Latil, Mathilde
Jouvion, Grégory
Briand, David
Thépenier, Cédric
Pascal, Quentin
Guguin, Aurélie
Gayraud-Morel, Barbara
Cavaillon, Jean-Marc
Tajbakhsh, Shahragim
Rocheteau, Pierre
Chrétien, Fabrice
Comparative Study of Injury Models for Studying Muscle Regeneration in Mice
title Comparative Study of Injury Models for Studying Muscle Regeneration in Mice
title_full Comparative Study of Injury Models for Studying Muscle Regeneration in Mice
title_fullStr Comparative Study of Injury Models for Studying Muscle Regeneration in Mice
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Study of Injury Models for Studying Muscle Regeneration in Mice
title_short Comparative Study of Injury Models for Studying Muscle Regeneration in Mice
title_sort comparative study of injury models for studying muscle regeneration in mice
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4726569/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26807982
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147198
work_keys_str_mv AT hardydavid comparativestudyofinjurymodelsforstudyingmuscleregenerationinmice
AT besnardaurore comparativestudyofinjurymodelsforstudyingmuscleregenerationinmice
AT latilmathilde comparativestudyofinjurymodelsforstudyingmuscleregenerationinmice
AT jouviongregory comparativestudyofinjurymodelsforstudyingmuscleregenerationinmice
AT brianddavid comparativestudyofinjurymodelsforstudyingmuscleregenerationinmice
AT thepeniercedric comparativestudyofinjurymodelsforstudyingmuscleregenerationinmice
AT pascalquentin comparativestudyofinjurymodelsforstudyingmuscleregenerationinmice
AT guguinaurelie comparativestudyofinjurymodelsforstudyingmuscleregenerationinmice
AT gayraudmorelbarbara comparativestudyofinjurymodelsforstudyingmuscleregenerationinmice
AT cavaillonjeanmarc comparativestudyofinjurymodelsforstudyingmuscleregenerationinmice
AT tajbakhshshahragim comparativestudyofinjurymodelsforstudyingmuscleregenerationinmice
AT rocheteaupierre comparativestudyofinjurymodelsforstudyingmuscleregenerationinmice
AT chretienfabrice comparativestudyofinjurymodelsforstudyingmuscleregenerationinmice