Résumés
Résumé
La recherche sur les cellules souches laisse entrevoir d’extraordinaires possibilités de traitement des maladies dégénératives. En effet, la capacité de pouvoir dériver des cellules totipotentes à partir d’embryons humains donne la possibilité de développer une médecine régénérative, mais pose également le problème du statut de l’embryon qui, dans ce cas, est considéré comme matériel thérapeutique. Une alternative à l’utilisation des cellules souches embryonnaires humaines est l’utilisation de cellules souches prélevées chez l’adulte. Mais, dans un cas comme dans l’autre, nos connaissances sur les cellules totipotentes ou pluripotentes sont insuffisantes et de nombreuses questions doivent être résolues avant que l’on ne maîtrise la sélection et la différenciation de ces cellules dans un type cellulaire donné. Quelles sont les caractéristiques moléculaires d’une cellule souche adulte? Quels sont les mécanismes sous-jacents à la re-programmation d’une cellule? Quels sont les signaux qui contrôlent la multiplication et la différenciation des cellules souches? Un travail de recherche fondamentale est nécessaire pour éclaircir ces différents points. Dans ce contexte, la régénération des appendices chez les vertébrés offre un terrain d’investigation intéressant. Cet article se propose de faire le point sur nos connaissances concernant la régénération des pattes chez les tétrapodes et des nageoires chez les poissons.
Summary
The application of stem cell therapy to cure degenerative diseases offers immense possibilities, but the research in this field is the subject of ethical debates raised by the question of destructive research on early human embryos. Stem cells taken in the adult constitute an alternative to human embryonic stem cells, but our knowledge on totipotent or pluripotent cells is currently insufficient. Furthermore, many questions must be solved before selection and differentiation of these cells in a given cellular type can be controlled on a routine basis. What are the molecular characteristics of an adult stem cell? What are the mechanisms involved in cell reprogramming? Which signals control stem cell replication and differentiation? Basic research activities must be carried out in order to clarify all these points. In this context, the regeneration of vertebrate appendages provides a model for this type of research. The regeneration process is defined by both the morphological and functional reconstruction of a part of a living organism, which has previously been destroyed. But why are some vertebrates able to regenerate complex structures and others apparently not? Among most vertebrates, the capacity to regenerate is limited to some tissues. It is however possible to observe the regeneration of appendages (limb, tail, fin, jaw, etc.) among several amphibians and fish. This regeneration leads to re-forming of the amputated part with a complete restoration of its shape, segmentation and function. Why is the amputation of limbs not followed by regeneration in mammals and birds: absence of stem cells, absence of recruitment signals for these cells, or absence of signal receptivity? This review constitutes a report on the current understanding of the basis of on regeneration of legs in tetrapods and of fins in fish with an emphasis in the role of the nervous system in this process.
Parties annexes
Références
- 1. Brockes JP. Amphibian limb regeneration: rebuilding a complex structure. Science 1997; 276: 81-7.
- 2. Velloso CP, Kumar A, Tanaka EM, Brockes JP. Generation of mononucleate cells from post-mitotic myotubes proceeds in the absence of cell cycle progression. Differentiation 2000; 66: 239-46.
- 3. Dinsmore CE. Urodele limb and tail regeneration in early biological thought: an essay on scientific controversy and social change. Int J Dev Biol 1996; 40: 621-7.
- 4. Alvarado AS. Regeneration in the metazoans: why does it happen? BioEssays 2000; 22: 578-90.
- 5. Goss RJ. The evolution of regeneration: adaptative or inherent? J Theor Biol 1992; 159: 241-60.
- 6. Brockes JP, Kumar A, Velloso CP. Regeneration as an evolutionary variable. J Anat 2001; 199: 3-11.
- 7. Muneoka K, Holler-Dinsmore G, Bryant SV. Intrinsic control of regenerative loss in Xenopus laevis limbs. J Exp Zool 1986; 240: 47-54.
- 8. Wanek N, Muneoka K, Bryant SV. Evidence for regulation following amputation and tissue grafting In the developing mouse limb. J Exp Zool 1989; 249: 55-61.
- 9. Chan WY, Lee KK, Tam PP. Regenerative capacity of forelimb buds after amputation in mouse embryos at the early-organogenesis stage. J Exp Zool 1991; 260: 74-83.
- 10. Taylor GP, Anderson R, Reginelli AD, Muneoka K. FGF-2 Induces regeneration of the chick limb bud. Dev Biol 1994; 163: 282-4.
- 11. Kostakopoulou K, Vogel A, Brickell P, Tickle C. Regeneration of wing bud stumps of chick embryos and reactivation of Msx-1 and Shh expression in response to FGF-4 and ridge signals. Mech Dev 1996; 55: 119-31.
- 12. Borgens RB. Mice regrow the tips of their foretoes. Science 1982; 217: 747-50.
- 13. Reginelli AD, Wang Y, Sassoon D, Muneoka K. Digit tip regeneration correlates with regions of Msx1 (Hox 7) expression in fetal and newborn mice. Development 1995; 121: 1065-76.
- 14. Zhao W, Neufeld DA. Bone regrowth in mice stimulated by nail organ. J Exp Zool 1995; 172: 1-10.
- 15. Illingsworth CM. Trapped fingers and amputated fingers tips in children. J Pediatr Surg 1974; 9: 853-8.
- 16. Mohammad KS, Day FA, Neufeld DA. Bone growth is induced by nail transplantation in amputated proximal phalanges. Calcif Tissue Int 1999; 65: 408-10.
- 17. McGann CJ, Odelberg SJ, Keating MT. Mammalian myotube dedifferenciation induced by newt regeneration extract. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98: 13699-704.
- 18. Poss KD, Shen J, Nechiporuk A, et al. Roles for FGF signaling during zebrafish fin regeneration. Dev Biol 2000; 222: 347-58.
- 19. Géraudie J, Ferretti P. Cellular and molecular basis of regeneration. From invertebrates to humans. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1998 : 458 p.
- 20. Poelo G, Brown CW, Laforest L, Akimenko MA. Cell proliferation and movement during early fin regeneration in zebrafish. Dev Dyn 2001; 221: 380-90.
- 21. Santos-Ruiz L, Santamaria JA, Ruiz-Sanchez J, Becerra J. Cell proliferation during blastema formation in the regenerating teleost fin. Dev Dyn 2002; 223: 262-72.
- 22. Tawk M, Tuil D, Torrente Y, Vriz S, Paulin D. High-efficiency gene transfer into adult fish: a new tool to study fin regeneration. Genesis 2002; 32: 27-31.
- 23. Chalkey DT. A quantitative hystological analysis of forelimb regeneration in Triturus viridescens. J Morphol 1954; 94: 21-70.
- 24. Cameron JA, Hilgers AR, Hinterberger TJ. Evidence that reserve cells are a source of regenerated adult newt muscle in vitro. Nature 1986; 321: 607-10.
- 25. Stocum DL. Limb regeneration: re-entering the cell cycle. Curr Biol 1999; 9: R644-6.
- 26. Ferretti P, Brockes JP. Cell origin and identity in limb regeneration and development. Glia 1991; 4: 214-24.
- 27. Schotté OE, Wiber JF. Effects of adrenal transplants upon forelimb regeneration in normal and in hypophysectomized adult frogs. J Embriol Exp Morphol 1958; 6: 247-69.
- 28. Géraudie J, Ferretti P. Gene expression during amphibian limb regeneration. Int Rev Cytol 1998; 180: 1-50.
- 29. Gardiner DM, Bryant SV. Molecular mechanisms in the control of limb regeneration: the role of homeobox genes. Int J Dev Biol 1996; 40: 797-805.
- 30. Carlson MRJ, Komine Y, Bryant SV, Gardiner DM. Expression of Hoxb13 and Hoxc10 in developping and regenerating Axolotl limbs and tails. Dev Biol 2001; 229: 396-406.
- 31. Brockes JP. Mitogenic growth factors and nerve dependence of limb regeneration. Science 1984; 225: 1280- 7.
- 32. Brockes JP. The nerve dependance of amphibian limb regeneration. J Exp Biol 1987; 132: 79-91.
- 33. Singer M. Neurotrophic control of limb regeneration in the newt. Ann NY Acad Sci 1974; 228: 308-22.
- 34. Géraudie J, Singer M. Relation between nerve fiber number and pectoral fin regeneration in teleost. J Exp Zool 1977; 199: 1-8.
- 35. Brockes JP, Kintner CR. Glial growth factor and nerve-dependent proliferation in the regeneration blastema of Urodele amphibians. Cell 1986; 45: 301-6.
- 36. Wang, L, Marchionni MA, Tassava RA. Cloning and neuronal expression of a type III newt neuregulin and rescue of denervated, nerve-dependent newt limb blastemas by rhGGF2. J Neurobiol 2000; 43: 150-8.
- 37. Munaim SI, Mescher AL. Transferrin and the trophic effect of neural tissue on amphibian limb regeneration blastemas. Dev Biol 1986; 116: 138-42.
- 38. Guyénot E, Ponse A. Territoires de régénération et transplantation. Bull Biol Fr Belg 1930; 64: 251-87.
- 39. Simpson S. Induction of limb regeneration in the lizard, lygosoma laterale, by augmentation of the nerve supply. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1961; 107: 108-11.
- 40. Bryant SV, Wozny KJ. Stimulation of limb regeneration in the lizard Xantusia vigilis by means of ependymal implants. J Exp Zool 1974; 189: 339-52.
- 41. Singer M. Induction of regeneration of the forelimb of the post-metamorphosis frog by augmentation of the nerve supply. J Exp Zool 1954; 126: 419-71.
- 42. Mizell M. Limb regeneration: induction in the newborn opossum. Science 1968; 161: 283-6.
- 43. Yntema CL. Regeneration in sparsely innervated and aneurogenic forelimbs of Amblystoma larvae. J Exp Zool 1959; 140: 101-23; 1959; 142: 423-439.
- 44. Thornton CS, Thornton MT. Recuperation of regeneration in denervated limbs of Ambystoma larvae. J Exp Zool 1970; 173: 293-302.
- 45. Fishman M. Zebrafish: the canonical vertebrate. Science 2001; 294: 1290-1.
- 46. Nasevicius A, Ekker SC. Effective targeted gene knockdown in zebrafish. Nat Genet 2000; 26: 216-20.
- 47. Ando H, Furuta T, Tsien RY, Okamoto H. Photo-mediated gene activation using caged RNA/DNA in zebrafish embryos. Nat Genet 2001; 28: 317-25.