| Literature DB >> 30872394 |
Ann-Marie Baker1, Calum Gabbutt1,2, Marc J Williams1, Biancastella Cereser1, Noor Jawad1, Manuel Rodriguez-Justo3, Marnix Jansen3, Chris P Barnes2, Benjamin D Simons4,5, Stuart Ac McDonald1, Trevor A Graham1, Nicholas A Wright1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The crypt population in the human intestine is dynamic: crypts can divide to produce two new daughter crypts through a process termed crypt fission, but whether this is balanced by a second process to remove crypts, as recently shown in mouse models, is uncertain. We examined whether crypt fusion (the process of two neighbouring crypts fusing into a single daughter crypt) occurs in the human colon.Entities:
Keywords: colon crypt; crypt fission; crypt fusion; evolutionary dynamics; lineage tracing; mathematical modelling
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30872394 PMCID: PMC6839731 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317540
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gut ISSN: 0017-5749 Impact factor: 23.059
Patient details and raw bifurcation counts
| Patient | Disease | Age | Total crypts | CCO+ crypts | CCO− crypts | CCO partial crypts | Total bifurcation events | Type I bifurcation events | Type II bifurcation events | Type III bifurcation events | Fission/fusion rate (per crypt per year) | Duration of fission/fusion (weeks) |
| 1 | None | 79 | 4919 | 4086 | 497 | 336 | 7 | 5 (71.4%) | 2 (28.6%) | 0 | 0.009 (0.007 to 0.011) | 3.9 (3.1 to 4.7) |
| 2 | None | 60 | 3547 | 3424 | 70 | 53 | 3 | 3 (100%) | 0 | 0 | 0.005 (0.001 to 0.009) | 4.1 (1.3 to 6.8) |
| 3 | None | 64 | 6958 | 6798 | 101 | 59 | 5 | 5 (100%) | 0 | 0 | 0.002 (0.001 to 0.003) | 9.1 (2.5 to 15.7) |
| 4 | FAP | 67 | 6417 | 5910 | 287 | 220 | 44 | 41 (93.2%) | 1 (2.3%) | 2 (4.5%) | 0.017 (0.013 to 0.021) | 10.7 (8.1 to 13.2) |
| 5 | FAP | 59 | 4095 | 3713 | 193 | 189 | 23 | 20 (87.0%) | 3 (13.0%) | 0 | 0.033 (0.024 to 0.042) | 4.4 (3.2 to 5.7) |
| 6 | FAP | 39 | 3085 | 3018 | 43 | 24 | 48 | 48 (100%) | 0 | 0 | 0.010 (0.002 to 0.019) | 40.7 (6.8 to 74.6) |
| 7a | AFAP | 64 | 5448 | 5213 | 148 | 87 | 54 | 50 (92.6%) | 3 (5.6%) | 1 (1.9%) | 0.012 (0.008 to 0.017) | 20.9 (13.3 to 28.6) |
| 7b | AFAP | 64 | 5065 | 4463 | 291 | 311 | 25 | 20 (80.0%) | 3 (12.0%) | 2 (8.0%) | 0.012 (0.008 to 0.015) | 11.0 (8.0 to 14.0) |
| 8 | AFAP | 65 | 11 755 | 11 351 | 213 | 191 | 25 | 18 (72.0%) | 0 | 7 (28.0%) | 0.014 (0.010 to 0.018) | 3.9 (2.8 to 5.1) |
| 9 | AFAP | 61 | 4174 | 3641 | 282 | 251 | 27 | 20 (74.1%) | 2 (7.4%) | 5 (18.5%) | 0.027 (0.021 to 0.034) | 6.2 (4.7 to 7.7) |
| 10 | AFAP | 60 | 2038 | 1962 | 52 | 24 | 16 | 14 (87.5%) | 1 (6.3%) | 1 (6.3%) | 0.011 (0.004 to 0.019) | 17.1 (6.3 to 28.0) |
| 11a | IBD | 66 | 272 | 256 | 15 | 1 | 3 | 3 (100%) | 0 | 0 | ND | ND |
| 11b | IBD | 66 | 402 | 378 | 21 | 3 | 1 | 1 (100%) | 0 | 0 | ND | ND |
| 12 | IBD | 72 | 301 | 238 | 58 | 5 | 3 | 1 (33.3%) | 0 | 2 (66.7%) | ND | ND |
| 13 | IBD | 65 | 1245 | 1057 | 102 | 86 | 25 | 22 (88.0%) | 2 (8.0%) | 1 (4.0%) | ND | ND |
| 14 | None | 42 | 2702 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.020 (0.006 to 0.034) | ND |
| 15 | None | 50 | 2878 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.009 (0.001 to 0.017) | ND |
| 16 | None | 50 | 2883 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.015 (0.006 to 0.024) | ND |
| 17 | None | 62 | 12 030 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.007 (0.004 to 0.010) | ND |
| 18 | None | 65 | 29 839 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.003 (0.002 to 0.004) | ND |
| 19 | None | 72 | 4101 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.005 (0.002 to 0.008) | ND |
| 20 | None | 74 | 8792 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.014 (0.011 to 0.017) | ND |
| 21 | None | 74 | 22 045 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.012 (0.010 to 0.014) | ND |
| 22 | None | 80 | 6249 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.014 (0.010 to 0.018) | ND |
| 23 | None | 82 | 10 341 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.016 (0.014 to 0.018) | ND |
| 24 | None | 84 | 11 821 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.024 (0.020 to 0.028) | ND |
Patients 1–13 had serial sections available and were used to score crypt bifurcation frequencies.
Patients 14–24 had only a single section available and were used to assess CCO− patch size.
AFAP, attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis; CCO, cytochrome c oxidase; FAP, familial adenomatous polyposis; ND, not detemined.
Figure 1Analysis of cytochrome c oxidase (CCO) activity in bifurcating crypts. (A) Schematic diagram showing the distribution of CCO activity in type I, II and III bifurcation events. (B) Representative images of type I, II and III bifurcating crypts, with the upper row corresponding to the most luminal section and the lower row corresponding to the crypt base. The type I and III examples are taken from patient 8 and the type II example is from patient 4. Scale bars represent 50 μm.
Figure 2Analysis of cytochrome c oxidase (CCO) patch size distribution. (A) Representative example of a CCO-deficient patch of three crypts in the colonic epithelium. Scale bar represents 100 μm. (B) Distribution of total CCO-deficient patches, and number of patches of size n for each patient. (C) Relationship between patient age and mean CCO-deficient patch size. Shown is the age and mean CCO-deficient patch size of each individual patient (blue dots represent the disease-free ‘normal’ colon, and red dots represent the attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis [AFAP]/familial adenomatous polyposis [FAP] colon). The black line represents the predicted mean patch size over time for a hypothetical patient with a fission and fusion rate equal to the mean fission and fusion rate of the patient cohort. (D) Estimated fission/fusion rate for each patient, arranged first by disease status, then by ascending age. Error bars represent 95% CIs.
Figure 3Analysis of cardiac-specific homeobox (CSX) methylation in a bifurcating crypt. Image of a bifurcating crypt, with the two buds (‘A’ and ‘B’) and the crypt stalk ‘S’ isolated and used for analysis of CSX methylation status. Each row represents the CSX methylation tag of an individual clone. Open circles represent an unmethylated CpG site and closed circles represent a methylated CpG site. The two buds share no methylation tags, and the stalk contains tags from both ‘A’ and ‘B’.