| Literature DB >> 32133360 |
Youssef Hibaoui1,2, Anis Feki2.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: cancer; embryonic implantation disease modeling; endometrial development; endometrial organoids; endometriosis; iPSCs; infertility; pregnancy disorders
Year: 2020 PMID: 32133360 PMCID: PMC7039834 DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2020.00084
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol ISSN: 2296-634X
Comparative advantages and drawbacks of the current in vitro endometrial models.
| Rate of initial establishment | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
| Derivation time | 2–4 months | ~1 month | 2–4 months (including differentiation) |
| Maintenance in culture | Easy | Not easy | Not easy |
| Required expertise | Low | High | High |
| Expansion | Very high | High (but limited) | Very high |
| Cost | Low | High | High |
| Endometrial development and disease modeling | No | Yes | Yes |
| Genetic manipulation | High | High | High |
| Possibility to generate isogenic controls | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Microenvironment of the | No | Yes | Possible using co-culture |
Figure 1Schematic representation of 3D-culture technology for generating endometrial organoids from patient biopsy, and for differentiating patient-derived iPSCs into endometrial stromal fibroblasts (EMSFs). These 3D-culture methods will lead to valuable clinical insights thanks to their potential applications in endometrial development, disease modeling and drug screening. Ultimately, these methods hold special promise for the development of personalized medicine approaches.