| Literature DB >> 31823507 |
Guillaume Richer1, Yoni Baert1, Ellen Goossens1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The testicular organoid concept has recently been introduced in tissue engineering to refer to testicular cell organizations modeling testicular architecture and function. The testicular organoid approach gives control over which and how cells reaggregate, which is not possible in organotypic cultures, thereby extending the applicability of in-vitro spermatogenesis (IVS) systems. However, it remains unclear which culture method and medium allow reassociation of testicular cells into a functional testicular surrogate in-vitro.Entities:
Keywords: in-vitro spermatogenesis; spermatogonial stem cell niche; testicular organoid; testicular scaffold; tubulogenesis
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31823507 PMCID: PMC7496450 DOI: 10.1111/andr.12741
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Andrology ISSN: 2047-2919 Impact factor: 3.842
Figure 1Structural reorganization of all or combinations of testicular cell types in‐vitro in chronological order. Testicular tubulogenesis in‐vitro comprises distinct phases: gaining of cell confluence (A). Aggregation of Sertoli cells into multinodular mounds under influence of contractile peritubular myoid cells (B). Interconnection and merging of multinodular mounds to form cable‐like structures (C). Formation of hollow tubules (D). A shift from 2D (light gray table) toward 3D (dark gray table) culture models has been observed because of the latter's ability to improve the cell reorganization. Aside from the culture methodology, medium composition influences the different aspects of testicular tubulogenesis in‐vitro. Of the different media‐ingredients, KSR has been proven critical (bold). Upon reorganization of the testicular cells, differentiation of spermatogonia could be seen. The most advanced differentiation stage in each study was indicated between parentheses. ES, elongates spermatids; PaS, pachytene spermatocytes; RS, round spermatids; SG, spermatogonia; SpC, spermatocytes; SpT, spermatids