A direct comparison of mouse and human intestinal development using epithelial gene expression patterns

Amy H. Stanford, Huiyu Gong, Mackenzie Noonan, Angela N. Lewis, Qingqing Gong, Wyatt E. Lanik, Jonathan J. Hsieh, Shiloh R. Lueschow, Mark R. Frey, Misty Good, Steven J. McElroy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Preterm infants are susceptible to unique pathology due to their immaturity. Mouse models are commonly used to study immature intestinal disease, including necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). Current NEC models are performed at a variety of ages, but data directly comparing intestinal developmental stage equivalency between mice and humans are lacking. Methods: Small intestines were harvested from C57BL/6 mice at 3–4 days intervals from birth to P28 (n = 8 at each age). Preterm human small intestine samples representing 17–23 weeks of completed gestation were obtained from the University of Pittsburgh Health Sciences Tissue Bank, and at term gestation during reanastamoses after resection for NEC (n = 4–7 at each age). Quantification of intestinal epithelial cell types and messenger RNA for marker genes were evaluated on both species. Results: Overall, murine and human developmental trends over time are markedly similar. Murine intestine prior to P10 is most similar to human fetal intestine prior to viability. Murine intestine at P14 is most similar to human intestine at 22–23 weeks completed gestation, and P28 murine intestine is most similar to human term intestine. Conclusion: Use of C57BL/6J mice to model the human immature intestine is reasonable, but the age of mouse chosen is a critical factor in model development.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)66-76
Number of pages11
JournalPediatric research
Volume88
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2020

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A direct comparison of mouse and human intestinal development using epithelial gene expression patterns'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this