4.4 Article

Kruppel-like factor 5 controls villus formation and initiation of cytodifferentiation in the embryonic intestinal epithelium

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 375, 期 2, 页码 128-139

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2012.12.010

关键词

Elf3; FoxA1; Intestine development; Cell adhesion

资金

  1. NIH [R01:DK-092306, R01:HL-110964]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kruppel-like factor 5 (Klf5) is a transcription factor expressed by embryonic endodermal progenitors that form the lining of the gastrointestinal tract. A Klf5 foxed allele was efficiently deleted from the intestinal epithelium by a Cre transgene under control of the Shh promoter resulting in the inhibition of villus morphogenesis and epithelial differentiation. Although proliferation of the intestinal epithelium was maintained, the expression of Elf3, Ppar gamma, Atoh1, Ascl2, Neurog3, Hnf4 alpha, Cdx1, and other genes associated with epithelial cell differentiation was inhibited in the Klf5-deficient intestines. At E18.5, Klf5(Delta/Delta) A fetuses lacked the apical brush border characteristic of enterocytes, and a loss of goblet and enteroendocrine cells was observed. The failure to form villi was not attributable to the absence of HH or PDGF signaling, known mediators of this developmental process. Klf5-deletion blocked the decrease in FoxA1 and Sox9 expression that accompanies normal villus morphogenesis. KLF5 directly inhibited activity of the FoxA1 promoter, and in turn FOXA1 inhibited Elf3 gene expression in vitro, linking the observed loss of Elf3 with the persistent expression of FoxA1 observed in Klf5-deficient mice. Genetic network analysis identified KLF5 as a key transcription factor regulating intestinal cell differentiation and cell adhesion. These studies indicate a novel requirement for KLF5 to initiate morphogenesis of the early endoderm into a compartmentalized intestinal epithelium comprised of villi and terminally differentiated cells. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据