The epithelial lining of the intestine is constantly exposed to a hostile environment containing a mixture of gastric acids, consumed harmful substances and microbes. It is widely accepted that the intestine has multiple mechanisms to protect itself against tissue damage. Here, we review three cellular protection mechanisms that protect intestinal tissue against accumulation of somatic mutations: the conveyer belt-like structure, stem cell competition and crypt fusion. We highlight the events that can perturb these cellular protection mechanisms, and their impact on accumulation of new (oncogenic) mutations. Lastly, we review the potential of in-vitro and intravital microscopy techniques to study the dynamics of these protection processes. These studies may identify new targets that can be used to manipulate cellular protection mechanisms in such a way that accumulation of new mutations can be reduced. Importantly, reducing mutation accumulation has the potential to delay aging, and the initiation and progression of diseases such as colorectal cancer.
Keywords : colorectal cancer, aging, mutations, cellular protection mechanism, stem cells, dedifferentiation, stem cell competition, crypt fission, crypt fusion, regeneration, intravital microscopy
The lumen of the intestine is a hostile environment and the intestinal epithelium is constantly challenged by intrinsic and extrinsic factors, such as gastric acids, consumed harmful substances and pathogenic microbes. These challenges can result in damage, such as disruption of the epithelial lining and loss of stem cells. Under homeostatic conditions the intestine has an impressive capacity to protect itself against tissue damage. The very dynamic nature of the intestinal epithelium enables a fast regenerative response that can maintain epithelial integrity. Here we review how this dynamic nature of the intestinal epithelium also results in three cellular protection mechanisms that minimise the accumulation of new mutations in the intestine, thereby protecting against aging and development of colorectal cancer. In addition, we focus on challenges that can perturb these protection mechanisms.
Cellular protection mechanism no. 1: conveyer belt-like organisation
The vast majority of intestinal epithelial cells are short-lived
One way the intestine protects itself against the accumulation of mutations is by imposing a short lifetime on the vast majority of intestinal cells. This is a result of the morphology of the intestinal epithelium, which is a repetitive sheet of crypt-villus units (fig. 1) . Intestinal stem cells that reside at the bottom of so-called crypts of Lieberkühn – little invaginations into the intestinal epithelium – fuel the fast turnover of the intestinal epithelium . These stem cells give rise to progenitor cells in the transit amplifying compartment, located a bit higher up the crypt-villus-axis, that subsequently differentiate into all specialised lineages while traveling upwards along the villus in a conveyer belt-like fashion (fig. 1) . The differentiated cells in the villus fulfil the physiological functions of the intestine, including nutrient uptake by enterocytes, hormone production by enteroendocrine cells and mucus production for protection and lubrication by goblet cells. Upon arrival at the tip of the villus, ~5 days after birth of the cells, differentiated cells are shed into the lumen . Only these short-lived differentiated villus cells are exposed to the hazardous environment of the intestinal lumen . Since they get shed into the lumen within a week, any genomic damage that occurs in these cells cannot manifest or be propagated. Of note, the colonic epithelium does not contain villi, but does function as a conveyer belt as differentiated cells are shed at the surface of the colonic epithelium.
Long-lived intestinal stem cells can accumulate new mutations
The small pool of long-lived stem cells that maintain the epithelium are positioned in the intestinal crypts, away from the lumen, which minimises possible harm to these cells (fig. 1) . The fact that these multipotent stem cells can accommodate the fast turnover of the intestinal epithelium has been known for decades . However, their exact identity remained uncertain for a long time. Already in the early 1970s, Cheng and Leblond identified the proliferative crypt base columnar (CBC) cells residing at the bottom of the crypt interspersed between Paneth cells . However, their functional role as stem cells was only confirmed relatively recently, after leucine-rich repeat-containing G protein-coupled receptor 5 (LGR5) was found to mark these CBC stem cells . Lineage tracing experiments in which these cells are labelled with markers that are inherited by daughter cells showed that LGR5+ CBC cells give rise to all differentiated cell types present in the intestine and that they can do so over prolonged periods of time . Moreover, when single LGR5+ cells are isolated and placed in defined culture conditions, they can form mini-guts (organoids) that contain crypt-villus units and harbour all intestinal cell types . Together, these findings show that LGR5+ CBC cells are multipotent and have the capacity to self-renew, indicating that these cells are bona fide stem cells in the intestine.
Since the LGR5+ stem cells are long-lived, whereas the differentiated cells in the intestine only have a short lifetime, the LGR5+ stem cells are vulnerable to accumulation of mutations in, for example, cancer driver genes. In 2009, Barker et al. showed that LGR5+ stem cells can indeed function as cells-of-origin for intestinal adenoma [7, 8]. Mice developed intestinal adenomas only when an Apc mutation was introduced into the long-lived LGR5+ stem cells, but not when the same mutation was introduced into the short-lived differentiated cells. Thus, the fast turnover of the intestine and its conveyer belt-like structure can protect against the accumulation of mutations in the vast majority of intestinal epithelial cells that are exposed to the hazardous environment of the lumen. Only a small pool of long-lived stem cells located at the bottom of shielded crypts can accumulate damage and mutations, and therefore have the potential to act as cells-of-origin for intestinal cancer.
The stem cell pool can be replenished upon tissue damage
Under homeostatic conditions, the chance to accumulate mutations depends on the lifetime of a cell, and this therefore happens, as discussed above, predominately in LGR5+ stem cells. However, a large body of work suggests the existence of a pool of “reserve” stem cells that are in a relative quiescent state and characterised by DNA label-retention  and the expression of Lrig1, Bmi1, mTert, Hopx and Mex3a [10–15]. Since many of these proposed markers are enriched at the border of the stem cell niche, four cell diameters from the crypt bottom (+4 position), these cells are often referred to as +4 cells (fig. 1). However, the identity and even the very existence of quiescent “reserve” stem cells have been controversial and heavily debated . It has been suggested that, instead of being dedicated reserve stem cells, +4 cells are progenitors that can repopulate the LGR5+ stem cell pool through dedifferentiation (for a review see ). This notion is supported by lineage tracing experiments that showed that damage can induce the reversion of committed progenitors to LGR5+ stem cells, including secretory progenitors [18, 19], enterocyte precursors , Paneth cells  and a population of goblet cells [22, 23]. This dedifferentiation is, at least in part, mediated by chromatin remodelling, which can make genomic regions important for stemness more accessible . The thought that there is no dedicated “reserve” stem cell pool is further strengthened by two independent studies that showed that a key marker of the reserve stem cell pool (Bmi1) actually marks mature enteroendocrine cells and that these cells can be recalled into the stem cell compartment upon damage [22, 23]. Other studies showed that the +4 markers do not mark a specific population of cells, but are expressed in cells throughout the crypt, including in LGR5+ stem cells [11, 13, 16, 24, 25]. These data indicate that, similar to mammary tissue , the identity, behaviour and fate of cells cannot always be linked to a single molecular profile or specific marker. Since cells are highly plastic and can gain or lose stem cell traits, it may be better to define a stem cell by its function than through markers.
Tissue damage drives progenitor dedifferentiation and affects accumulation of mutations
Regardless of the identity or state of stem cells, the current literature agrees on the existence of a pool of cells that has the potential to replenish LGR5+ stem cells upon tissue damage. Consequently, mutations that are acquired in cells just above the stem cell zone can persist when these cells revert back to a stem cell state, which prevents cells from being transported to and lost at the tip of the villus. The activation of NFκB signalling seems to be required for this dedifferentiation [27, 28]. An activating mutation in the proto-oncogene β-catenin in non-stem cells leads to adenoma formation only when NFκB signalling is simultaneously enhanced . In addition, Apc mutations in Dclk1+ tuft cells do not induce tumourigenesis under homeostatic conditions . However, when NFκB signalling is enhanced by dextran sulphate sodium-induced colitis, APC loss in tuft cells does lead to intestinal tumours . Thus, enhanced NFκB signalling may result in dedifferentiation of committed progenitors, thereby unmasking oncogenic events that can potentially lead to tumour initiation.
The route of cancer initiation via NFκB-induced dedifferentiation of committed progenitors may not be surprising. In colorectal cancers, and also pancreatic and gastric carcinomas, this pathway is often activated by inflammation or through mutations. NFkB signalling can, for instance, be enhanced by activating mutations in Kras, which occur in ~40% of all human colorectal cancers . In mice, simultaneous induction of β-catenin and Kras mutations within differentiated villus cells induces the re-expression of stem cell markers, and leads to dedifferentiation and stem cell potential . Moreover, in these mice lesions are often formed at the villus regions, suggesting that WNT and KRAS-mediated dedifferentiation enables cells to function as cells-of-origin . This phenomenon may explain the so-called “top-down” adenomas that are observed in the clinic, where adenomas on the surface of the colorectal lumen form on top of “normal” looking crypts . However, it should be noted that these studies are predominantly performed in mouse models, in which whole populations of cells are transformed by oncogenic mutations. Future studies are required to indicate whether the route of dedifferentiation also occurs in human colorectal cancers, where adenomas arise from an oncogenic event in a single cell.
Taken together, the short life-time of the vast majority of cells is a strong cellular protection mechanism in intestinal tissue, since it results in loss of most newly acquired mutations. Therefore, mutations can only manifest in long-lived stem cells or in more differentiated cells that dedifferentiate into cells with stem cell characteristics that live long enough to induce a tumour.
Cellular protection mechanism no. 2: stem cell competition
Most stem cells are lost over time as a result of stem cell competition
Although the geometry of the crypt-villus unit protects long-lived stem cells better than short-lived differentiated cells against harmful substances present in the intestine , new mutations can be introduced in the stem cells upon proliferation. Fortunately, not all mutations that arise in stem cells are propagated as a result of a second protection mechanism present in the crypt: stem cell competition [32, 33]. The crypt contains ~14–16 LGR5+ stem cells interspersed with Paneth cells, which, together with the stroma, function as a niche for stem cell maintenance . On average, LGR5+ stem cells proliferate symmetrically every 21.5 hours , and as soon as stem cells lose touch with a Paneth cell, they are primed for differentiation and move up along the crypt-villus axis (fig. 1). This process was illustrated by lineage-tracing experiments in LGR5-multicolour “confetti-mice” . In these mice, injection of tamoxifen resulted in recombination of a confetti-construct, which stochastically induced expression of one of four confetti colours specifically in LGR5+ stem cells, and this colour was inherited by all daughter cells . Despite induction of different confetti colours in different individual LGR5+ stem cells within the same crypt, most crypts contain stem cells of a single confetti colour after 1 to 6 months (fig. 1). These data led to the neutral drift stem cell competition model: upon each stem cell division, the number of stem cells exceeds the available positions within the niche, which is counter-balanced by loss of a stem cell from the niche. This constant stem cell division and stem cell loss leads to the expansion or extinction of stem cell clones and ultimately to clonality of all stem cells in the niche (fig. 1). By use of multi-day intravital microscopy, we directly visualised this process and showed that stem cells can be passively displaced from the stem cell niche after the division of proximate cells, implying that stem cell fate can be uncoupled from division . Moreover, our experiments showed that all LGR5+ stem cells (~14–16) are able to contribute to the stem cell competition. However, cells at the border are more susceptible to passive displacement from the niche than those located at the centre . Since cells constantly gain or lose favourable positions by changing position, they function as a single stem cell pool with a combined output equal to ~5–7 equipotent functional stem cells, as was predicted by mathematical modelling [32, 36, 37]. Importantly, similar data have been obtained in human intestinal tissue .
Stem cell competition can eradicate mutant cells
The model of stem cell competition predicts that a mutation can remain in a crypt long term only when it is present in the one stem cell that wins the competition; mutations in the other stem cells will get lost. To test this, two independent studies were done using sporadic induction of oncogenic mutations often found in colorectal cancer (Apc, Kras or TP53) in combination with lineage tracing; they demonstrated that oncogenic clones can indeed get lost from the stem cell niche [39, 40]. However, the stem cell competition is not always completely neutral. For example, instead of having a 50% chance of displacing a neighbouring stem cell in neutral competition, Apchet and KrasG12D mutations lead to a 62% and 78% chance, respectively, to outcompete a neighbour [39, 40]. Interestingly, a TP53 mutation does not affect stem cell competition under homeostatic conditions, but it gives a competitive advantage (58%) when colitis is induced . Mutations can potentially also give a disadvantage in the competition. With use of time-lapse microscopy of organoids, it has recently been shown that RasV12-transformed cells have an altered metabolism that promotes active extrusion of these cells from nontransformed epithelial tissues . Obviously, if this also holds true for RasV12-transformed intestinal stem cells, this mechanism decreases the strength of these cells in stem cell competition and therefore the ability of the RasV12 mutation to be maintained in intestinal epithelial tissues.
Even in a non-neutral competition, a stem cell that acquires a mutation is likely to be outcompeted by one of the ~15 wild-type stem cells and, as a consequence, this mutant cell will be expelled from the niche, and transported to and lost at the villus tip [39, 40]. Thus, acquisition of an oncogenic mutation may influence the fitness of a cell in the stem competition, but is not deterministic, and can be eradicated owing to stem cell competition.
Perturbation of niche factors alters the stem cell niche and stem cell competition
Stem cell competition can be quite accurately described by a relatively simple one-dimensional stochastic model based on only two parameters: the number of stem cells per crypt and the rate at which they are replaced by a neighbour and get lost [32, 33, 36, 37] (for review see Vermeulen and Snippert ). The number of stem cells determines the chance of an individual stem cell to win the competition, whereas both parameters determine the speed of the competition. These parameters are tightly controlled by the stem cell niche. The niche provides cues in order to accurately balance stem cell proliferation and differentiation, controlling the number of stem cells and therefore also the protection potential of stem cell competition . The niche factors that control stem cell numbers are produced by Paneth and mesenchymal cells, and include Wnt ligands (e.g., Wnt3a), Notch ligands (Dll1, Dll4), bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) antagonists (e.g., Noggin and Gremlin) and epidermal growth factor (EGF) [34, 43–48]. Importantly, the stem cell zone, and therefore stem cell competition, is altered when these signals are perturbed. For example, blocking Delta-Notch signalling between stem and Paneth cells results in quick differentiation of stem and progenitor cells into postmitotic goblet cells [44, 49]. Moreover, inhibition of BMP signalling by Gremlin or Noggin leads to hyperproliferative crypts and the formation of ectopic crypts at the villus compartment [50, 51]. In addition, when Wnt signalling is reduced by manipulating Wnt proteins directly or by manipulating a regulator of Wnt signalling R-spondin, the number of stem cells is decreased . As predicted by the one-dimensional stochastic model for stem cell competition described above, lineage tracing experiments showed that reducing the number of LGR5+ stem cells results in faster stem cell competition, observed as accelerated drift of stem cells toward monoclonality . Together these studies show that niche factors tightly control the number of stem cells and the composition of the crypt, thereby controlling stem cell competition and its ability to minimise the accumulation of new mutations.
Cellular protection mechanism no. 3: crypt fusion
Crypt fission and fusion can influence stem cell dynamics
As a result of stem cell competition, stem cells within crypts become monoclonal over time. However, this is not a static situation: crypts can undergo fission and fusion (fig. 1). During crypt fission one crypt divides into two crypts , and this process mostly takes place during postnatal intestinal elongation and during regenerative responses [54–57]. In adulthood, crypt fission still occurs during homeostasis, although at lower levels [58–60]. Using intravital microscopy, we recently uncovered crypt fusion, which seems to be an almost exact reverse phenomenon of crypt fission where two crypts fuse into one daughter crypt  (fig. 1). Under homeostatic conditions, crypt fission and fusion occur at near similar frequencies and on average a crypt should at least undergo a fission or fusion event every 3 months [58, 61].
Crypt fission has the potential to spread monoclonal mutant crypts over the epithelium, and has been shown to be a mechanism through which mutant cells can expand beyond crypt borders . This spread creates fields of genetically altered crypts that can predispose a tissue for cancer development (field cancerisation) [63, 64]. In the human intestine, fields of KRAS-mutated crypts have been observed surrounding colorectal cancers, indicating that this can be an initiating event in cancer development [65, 66]. In addition, fields of APC-deficient crypts have been found, which may play an important role in adenoma formation and expansion [67–69]. Thus, crypt fission can induce the spread of mutated cells over the epithelium, which may enhance tumour initiation.
In contrast to the spread of mutations via crypt fission, crypt fusion has the potential to eradicate mutations from the epithelium, since it enables stem cell competition to eradicate mutant cells even in the situation where all stem cells in a crypt contain a particular mutation. When a crypt containing mutant stem cells fuses with a wild-type crypt, the stem cell competition “restarts” and the mutant cells can be outcompeted by the wild-type cells (fig. 1). Therefore, crypt fusion may be a third important cellular protection mechanism against accumulation of mutations, and has the potential to counteract the spread of mutations by crypt fission. Since crypt fission and fusion significantly influence stem cell competition, it will be important to investigate the stem cell dynamics during crypt fission and fusion. Moreover, both processes should be incorporated into models describing stem cell competition in the intestine.
Tissue damage alters crypt dynamics
As mentioned before, crypt fission and fusion can influence stem cell competition. Because of its recent discovery, the molecular mechanisms underlying crypt fusion are yet unknown, whereas more is known about crypt fission. For example, it has been found that crypt fission occurs more frequently in response to damage, including intestinal resection, irradiation and chemotherapy treatment [54, 55, 70, 71]. This response may (partly) function through the transforming growth factor-beta (TGFβ) signalling pathway, since loss of the receptor TGFβR2 significantly reduces crypt fission events . Interestingly, increased crypt fission is also observed in diseased colonic epithelia from patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis , which both induce an inflammatory response and lead to an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Thus, damage and inflammation induce crypt fission, which may be linked to tumour initiation. In addition to damage and inflammation, crypt fission may also be induced by genetic mutations. For example, in the mouse small intestine, the number of crypts monoclonal for the KRASG12D mutation can expand by crypt fission with an increased rate compared to wild type crypts (>30-fold), and this creates fields of KRASG12D mutated crypts . As mentioned before, activating KRAS mutations can enhance NFκB signalling, which is associated with inflammation, again suggesting a link between inflammation and colorectal tumour initiation.
In this review we have given an overview of the current knowledge about the cellular mechanisms present in the intestinal epithelium that minimise accumulation of new mutations, including the conveyer belt-like structure, stem cell competition and crypt fusion. Future research is required to reveal the exact dynamics of these processes and how each of them contributes to the protection against the accumulation of mutations. Interestingly, once we understand these processes in more detail, one could think about manipulating them to optimise their protective capacity. For example, inhibition of crypt fission might lead to decreased spread of new mutations over the epithelium. On the other hand, induction of crypt fusion might result in the depletion of mutant crypts and a reduced spread of oncogenic mutations. In addition, expanding the number of stem cells per crypt might increase the chance that a mutant stem cell will be expelled from the niche and be depleted from the tissue.
Live imaging of the intestinal epithelium, such as organoid imaging and intravital microscopy, will greatly help in understanding the cellular protection mechanisms and in finding ways to manipulate them. In contrast to techniques that draw a static picture of the dynamic nature of intestinal tissues, live microscopy can be used to visualise intestinal tissues, cells and processes over time. Organoid imaging  will be instrumental in monitoring intestinal dynamics at subcellular resolution (e.g., [41, 74, 75].). However, it is important to realise that organoids – as any other 3D culture model – lack the in-vivo microenvironment, such as the surrounding stroma and immune cells. Recent advantages in high resolution intravital microscopy, and the development of a variety of imaging windows , enable the visualisation of the fate and behaviour of cells and lineages in living mice for several days [77–79]. We recently developed the abdominal imaging window [80, 81], which was used to study intestinal tissue homeostasis [36, 61] and intestinal tumour progression . In addition, it enabled us to uncover new aspects of the intestinal cellular protection mechanisms, such as crypt fusion, which on static images cannot be discriminated from crypt fission . In the future, live imaging technologies will be instrumental in understanding whether and how manipulating cellular protection mechanism affects tissue homeostasis and how this affects the fate of cells that have acquired mutations in for example cancer driver genes. We believe that manipulation of the cellular protection mechanism gives us the ability to reduce the accumulation of new mutations, which provides great potential to influence aging and the induction and progression of diseases such as cancer. With new microscopy techniques, we expect to make big steps in this direction in the near future.
2 Kaiko GE, Ryu SH, Koues OI, Collins PL, Solnica-Krezel L, Pearce EJ, et al.The Colonic Crypt Protects Stem Cells from Microbiota-Derived Metabolites. Cell. 2016;165(7):1708–20. doi:. Correction in: Cell. 2016;167(4):1137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.05.018 PubMed
3 Wright NA. Epithelial stem cell repertoire in the gut: clues to the origin of cell lineages, proliferative units and cancer. Int J Exp Pathol. 2000;81(2):117–43. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2613.2000.00146.x PubMed
4 Cheng H, Leblond CP. Origin, differentiation and renewal of the four main epithelial cell types in the mouse small intestine. V. Unitarian Theory of the origin of the four epithelial cell types. Am J Anat. 1974;141(4):537–61. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aja.1001410407 PubMed
5 Barker N, van Es JH, Kuipers J, Kujala P, van den Born M, Cozijnsen M, et al.Identification of stem cells in small intestine and colon by marker gene Lgr5. Nature. 2007;449(7165):1003–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06196 PubMed
6 Sato T, Vries RG, Snippert HJ, van de Wetering M, Barker N, Stange DE, et al.Single Lgr5 stem cells build crypt-villus structures in vitro without a mesenchymal niche. Nature. 2009;459(7244):262–5. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07935 PubMed
7 Barker N, Ridgway RA, van Es JH, van de Wetering M, Begthel H, van den Born M, et al.Crypt stem cells as the cells-of-origin of intestinal cancer. Nature. 2009;457(7229):608–11. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07602 PubMed
8 Zhu L, Gibson P, Currle DS, Tong Y, Richardson RJ, Bayazitov IT, et al.Prominin 1 marks intestinal stem cells that are susceptible to neoplastic transformation. Nature. 2009;457(7229):603–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07589 PubMed
9 Potten CS, Kovacs L, Hamilton E. Continuous labelling studies on mouse skin and intestine. Cell Tissue Kinet. 1974;7(3):271–83. PubMed
10 Breault DT, Min IM, Carlone DL, Farilla LG, Ambruzs DM, Henderson DE, et al.Generation of mTert-GFP mice as a model to identify and study tissue progenitor cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105(30):10420–5. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804800105 PubMed
11 Powell AE, Wang Y, Li Y, Poulin EJ, Means AL, Washington MK, et al.The pan-ErbB negative regulator Lrig1 is an intestinal stem cell marker that functions as a tumor suppressor. Cell. 2012;149(1):146–58. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.042 PubMed
13 Montgomery RK, Carlone DL, Richmond CA, Farilla L, Kranendonk ME, Henderson DE, et al.Mouse telomerase reverse transcriptase (mTert) expression marks slowly cycling intestinal stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(1):179–84. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1013004108 PubMed
14 Takeda N, Jain R, LeBoeuf MR, Wang Q, Lu MM, Epstein JA. Interconversion between intestinal stem cell populations in distinct niches. Science. 2011;334(6061):1420–4. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1213214 PubMed
15 Barriga FM, Montagni E, Mana M, Mendez-Lago M, Hernando-Momblona X, Sevillano M, et al.Mex3a Marks a Slowly Dividing Subpopulation of Lgr5+ Intestinal Stem Cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2017;20(6):801–816.e7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2017.02.007 PubMed
16 Muñoz J, Stange DE, Schepers AG, van de Wetering M, Koo B-K, Itzkovitz S, et al.The Lgr5 intestinal stem cell signature: robust expression of proposed quiescent '+4′ cell markers. EMBO J. 2012;31(14):3079–91. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2012.166 PubMed
18 van Es JH, Sato T, van de Wetering M, Lyubimova A, Yee Nee AN, Gregorieff A, et al.Dll1+ secretory progenitor cells revert to stem cells upon crypt damage. Nat Cell Biol. 2012;14(10):1099–104. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncb2581 PubMed
19 Buczacki SJA, Zecchini HI, Nicholson AM, Russell R, Vermeulen L, Kemp R, et al.Intestinal label-retaining cells are secretory precursors expressing Lgr5. Nature. 2013;495(7439):65–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11965 PubMed
20 Tetteh PW, Basak O, Farin HF, Wiebrands K, Kretzschmar K, Begthel H, et al.Replacement of Lost Lgr5-Positive Stem Cells through Plasticity of Their Enterocyte-Lineage Daughters. Cell Stem Cell. 2016;18(2):203–13. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2016.01.001 PubMed
21 Roth S, Franken P, Sacchetti A, Kremer A, Anderson K, Sansom O, et al.Paneth cells in intestinal homeostasis and tissue injury. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e38965. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038965 PubMed
22 Jadhav U, Saxena M, O’Neill NK, Saadatpour A, Yuan G-C, Herbert Z, et al.Dynamic Reorganization of Chromatin Accessibility Signatures during Dedifferentiation of Secretory Precursors into Lgr5+ Intestinal Stem Cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2017;21(1):65–77.e5. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2017.05.001 PubMed
23 Yan KS, Gevaert O, Zheng GXY, Anchang B, Probert CS, Larkin KA, et al.Intestinal Enteroendocrine Lineage Cells Possess Homeostatic and Injury-Inducible Stem Cell Activity. Cell Stem Cell. 2017;21(1):78–90.e6. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2017.06.014 PubMed
24 Li N, Yousefi M, Nakauka-Ddamba A, Jain R, Tobias J, Epstein JA, et al.Single-cell analysis of proxy reporter allele-marked epithelial cells establishes intestinal stem cell hierarchy. Stem Cell Reports. 2014;3(5):876–91. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.09.011 PubMed
25 Grün D, Lyubimova A, Kester L, Wiebrands K, Basak O, Sasaki N, et al.Single-cell messenger RNA sequencing reveals rare intestinal cell types. Nature. 2015;525(7568):251–5. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14966 PubMed
26 Scheele CLGJ, Hannezo E, Muraro MJ, Zomer A, Langedijk NSM, van Oudenaarden A, et al.Identity and dynamics of mammary stem cells during branching morphogenesis. Nature. 2017;542(7641):313–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature21046 PubMed
27 Schwitalla S, Fingerle AA, Cammareri P, Nebelsiek T, Göktuna SI, Ziegler PK, et al.Intestinal tumorigenesis initiated by dedifferentiation and acquisition of stem-cell-like properties. Cell. 2013;152(1-2):25–38. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.12.012 PubMed
28 Westphalen CB, Asfaha S, Hayakawa Y, Takemoto Y, Lukin DJ, Nuber AH, et al.Long-lived intestinal tuft cells serve as colon cancer-initiating cells. J Clin Invest. 2014;124(3):1283–95. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1172/JCI73434 PubMed
29 Nakanishi Y, Seno H, Fukuoka A, Ueo T, Yamaga Y, Maruno T, et al.Dclk1 distinguishes between tumor and normal stem cells in the intestine. Nat Genet. 2013;45(1):98–103. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ng.2481 PubMed
30 Muzny DM, Bainbridge MN, Chang K, Dinh HH, Drummond JA, Fowler G, et al.; Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature. 2012;487(7407):330–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11252 PubMed
31 Shih IM, Wang TL, Traverso G, Romans K, Hamilton SR, Ben-Sasson S, et al.Top-down morphogenesis of colorectal tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98(5):2640–5. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.051629398 PubMed
32 Snippert HJ, van der Flier LG, Sato T, van Es JH, van den Born M, Kroon-Veenboer C, et al.Intestinal crypt homeostasis results from neutral competition between symmetrically dividing Lgr5 stem cells. Cell. 2010;143(1):134–44. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.09.016 PubMed
33 Lopez-Garcia C, Klein AM, Simons BD, Winton DJ. Intestinal stem cell replacement follows a pattern of neutral drift. Science. 2010;330(6005):822–5. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1196236 PubMed
34 Sato T, van Es JH, Snippert HJ, Stange DE, Vries RG, van den Born M, et al.Paneth cells constitute the niche for Lgr5 stem cells in intestinal crypts. Nature. 2011;469(7330):415–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09637 PubMed
35 Schepers AG, Vries R, van den Born M, van de Wetering M, Clevers H. Lgr5 intestinal stem cells have high telomerase activity and randomly segregate their chromosomes. EMBO J. 2011;30(6):1104–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2011.26 PubMed
36 Ritsma L, Ellenbroek SIJ, Zomer A, Snippert HJ, de Sauvage FJ, Simons BD, et al.Intestinal crypt homeostasis revealed at single-stem-cell level by in vivo live imaging. Nature. 2014;507(7492):362–5. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12972 PubMed
37 Kozar S, Morrissey E, Nicholson AM, van der Heijden M, Zecchini HI, Kemp R, et al.Continuous clonal labeling reveals small numbers of functional stem cells in intestinal crypts and adenomas. Cell Stem Cell. 2013;13(5):626–33. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2013.08.001 PubMed
38 Baker AM, Cereser B, Melton S, Fletcher AG, Rodriguez-Justo M, Tadrous PJ, et al.Quantification of crypt and stem cell evolution in the normal and neoplastic human colon. Cell Reports. 2014;8(4):940–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.07.019 PubMed
39 Vermeulen L, Morrissey E, van der Heijden M, Nicholson AM, Sottoriva A, Buczacki S, et al.Defining stem cell dynamics in models of intestinal tumor initiation. Science. 2013;342(6161):995–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1243148 PubMed
40 Snippert HJ, Schepers AG, van Es JH, Simons BD, Clevers H. Biased competition between Lgr5 intestinal stem cells driven by oncogenic mutation induces clonal expansion. EMBO Rep. 2014;15(1):62–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/embr.201337799 PubMed
41 Kon S, Ishibashi K, Katoh H, Kitamoto S, Shirai T, Tanaka S, et al.Cell competition with normal epithelial cells promotes apical extrusion of transformed cells through metabolic changes. Nat Cell Biol. 2017;19(5):530–41. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncb3509 PubMed
43 Pinto D, Gregorieff A, Begthel H, Clevers H. Canonical Wnt signals are essential for homeostasis of the intestinal epithelium. Genes Dev. 2003;17(14):1709–13. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gad.267103 PubMed
44 van Es JH, van Gijn ME, Riccio O, van den Born M, Vooijs M, Begthel H, et al.Notch/γ-secretase inhibition turns proliferative cells in intestinal crypts and adenomas into goblet cells. Nature. 2005;435(7044):959–63. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03659 PubMed
45 Hsu DR, Economides AN, Wang X, Eimon PM, Harland RM. The Xenopus dorsalizing factor Gremlin identifies a novel family of secreted proteins that antagonize BMP activities. Mol Cell. 1998;1(5):673–83. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1097-2765(00)80067-2 PubMed
46 He XC, Zhang J, Tong W-G, Tawfik O, Ross J, Scoville DH, et al.BMP signaling inhibits intestinal stem cell self-renewal through suppression of Wnt-beta-catenin signaling. Nat Genet. 2004;36(10):1117–21. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ng1430 PubMed
47 Aoki R, Shoshkes-Carmel M, Gao N, Shin S, May CL, Golson ML, et al.Foxl1-expressing mesenchymal cells constitute the intestinal stem cell niche. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;2(2):175–88. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmgh.2015.12.004 PubMed
48 Stzepourginski I, Nigro G, Jacob J-M, Dulauroy S, Sansonetti PJ, Eberl G, et al.CD34+ mesenchymal cells are a major component of the intestinal stem cells niche at homeostasis and after injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114(4):E506–13. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620059114 PubMed
49 Fre S, Huyghe M, Mourikis P, Robine S, Louvard D, Artavanis-Tsakonas S. Notch signals control the fate of immature progenitor cells in the intestine. Nature. 2005;435(7044):964–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03589 PubMed
50 Haramis A-PG, Begthel H, van den Born M, van Es J, Jonkheer S, Offerhaus GJ, et al.De novo crypt formation and juvenile polyposis on BMP inhibition in mouse intestine. Science. 2004;303(5664):1684–6. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1093587 PubMed
51 Davis H, Irshad S, Bansal M, Rafferty H, Boitsova T, Bardella C, et al.Aberrant epithelial GREM1 expression initiates colonic tumorigenesis from cells outside the stem cell niche. Nat Med. 2015;21(1):62–70. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm.3750 PubMed
52 Yan KS, Janda CY, Chang J, Zheng GXY, Larkin KA, Luca VC, et al.Non-equivalence of Wnt and R-spondin ligands during Lgr5(+) intestinal stem-cell self-renewal. Nature. 2017;545(7653):238–42. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature22313 PubMed
53 Totafurno J, Bjerknes M, Cheng H. The crypt cycle. Crypt and villus production in the adult intestinal epithelium. Biophys J. 1987;52(2):279–94. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(87)83215-0 PubMed
54 Cairnie AB, Millen BH. Fission of crypts in the small intestine of the irradiated mouse. Cell Tissue Kinet. 1975;8(2):189–96. PubMed
55 Cheng H, McCulloch C, Bjerknes M. Effects of 30% intestinal resection on whole population cell kinetics of mouse intestinal epithelium. Anat Rec. 1986;215(1):35–41. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ar.1092150106 PubMed
56 Clarke RM. The effect of growth and of fasting on the number of villi and crypts in the small intestine of the albino rat. J Anat. 1972;112(Pt 1):27–33. PubMed
57 Park HS, Goodlad RA, Wright NA. Crypt fission in the small intestine and colon. A mechanism for the emergence of G6PD locus-mutated crypts after treatment with mutagens. Am J Pathol. 1995;147(5):1416–27. PubMed
60 Langlands AJ, Almet AA, Appleton PL, Newton IP, Osborne JM, Näthke IS, et al. Paneth Cell-Rich Regions Separated by a Cluster of Lgr5+ Cells Initiate Crypt Fission in the Intestinal Stem Cell Niche. Hynes N, editor. PLOS Biol. 2016;14(6):e1002491.
61 Bruens L, Ellenbroek SIJ, van Rheenen J, Snippert HJ. In Vivo Imaging Reveals Existence of Crypt Fission and Fusion in Adult Mouse Intestine. Gastroenterology. 2017;153(3):674–677.e3. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.019 PubMed
62 Greaves LC, Preston SL, Tadrous PJ, Taylor RW, Barron MJ, Oukrif D, et al.Mitochondrial DNA mutations are established in human colonic stem cells, and mutated clones expand by crypt fission. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103(3):714–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0505903103 PubMed
63 Garcia SB, Park HS, Novelli M, Wright NA. Field cancerization, clonality, and epithelial stem cells: the spread of mutated clones in epithelial sheets. J Pathol. 1999;187(1):61–81. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199901)187:1<61::AID-PATH247>3.0.CO;2-I PubMed
64 Slaughter DP, Southwick HW, Smejkal W. Field cancerization in oral stratified squamous epithelium; clinical implications of multicentric origin. Cancer. 1953;6(5):963–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(195309)6:5<963::AID-CNCR2820060515>3.0.CO;2-Q PubMed
65 Zhu D, Keohavong P, Finkelstein SD, Swalsky P, Bakker A, Weissfeld J, et al.K-ras gene mutations in normal colorectal tissues from K-ras mutation-positive colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Res. 1997;57(12):2485–92. PubMed
66 Aivado M, Gynes M, Gorelov V, Schmidt WU, Röher HD, Goretzki PE. “Field cancerization”--ein zusätzliches Phänomen in der Entwicklung von Colontumoren? K-ras-Codon-12-Mutationen in normaler Colonmucosa von Patienten mit colorectalen Neoplasien. [“Field cancerization”--an additional phenomenon in development of colon tumors? K-ras codon 12 mutations in normal colonic mucosa of patients with colorectal neoplasms]. Chirurg. 2000;71(10):1230–4, discussion 1234–5. Article in German. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001040051207 PubMed
67 Preston SL, Wong W-M, Chan AO-O, Poulsom R, Jeffery R, Goodlad RA, et al.Bottom-up histogenesis of colorectal adenomas: origin in the monocryptal adenoma and initial expansion by crypt fission. Cancer Res. 2003;63(13):3819–25. PubMed
68 Fischer JM, Schepers AG, Clevers H, Shibata D, Liskay RM. Occult progression by Apc-deficient intestinal crypts as a target for chemoprevention. Carcinogenesis. 2014;35(1):237–46. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgt296 PubMed
69 Wasan HS, Park H-S, Liu KC, Mandir NK, Winnett A, Sasieni P, et al.APC in the regulation of intestinal crypt fission. J Pathol. 1998;185(3):246–55. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199807)185:3<246::AID-PATH90>3.0.CO;2-8 PubMed
70 Dekaney CM, Fong JJ, Rigby RJ, Lund PK, Henning SJ, Helmrath MA. Expansion of intestinal stem cells associated with long-term adaptation following ileocecal resection in mice. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2007;293(5):G1013–22. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpgi.00218.2007 PubMed
71 Dekaney CM, Gulati AS, Garrison AP, Helmrath MA, Henning SJ. Regeneration of intestinal stem/progenitor cells following doxorubicin treatment of mice. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2009;297(3):G461–70. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpgi.90446.2008 PubMed
72 Fischer JM, Calabrese PP, Miller AJ, Muñoz NM, Grady WM, Shibata D, et al.Single cell lineage tracing reveals a role for TgfβR2 in intestinal stem cell dynamics and differentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(43):12192–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611980113 PubMed
74 Verissimo CS, Overmeer RM, Ponsioen B, Drost J, Mertens S, Verlaan-Klink I, et al.Targeting mutant RAS in patient-derived colorectal cancer organoids by combinatorial drug screening. eLife. 2016;5:5. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18489 PubMed
75 Drost J, van Jaarsveld RH, Ponsioen B, Zimberlin C, van Boxtel R, Buijs A, et al.Sequential cancer mutations in cultured human intestinal stem cells. Nature. 2015;521(7550):43–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14415 PubMed
76 Alieva M, Ritsma L, Giedt RJ, Weissleder R, van Rheenen J. Imaging windows for long-term intravital imaging: General overview and technical insights. Intravital. 2014;3(2):e29917. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/intv.29917 PubMed
78 Scheele CLGJ, Maynard C, van Rheenen J. Intravital Insights into Heterogeneity, Metastasis, and Therapy Responses. Trends Cancer. 2016;2(4):205–16. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trecan.2016.03.001 PubMed
79 Suijkerbuijk SJE, van Rheenen J. From good to bad: Intravital imaging of the hijack of physiological processes by cancer cells. Dev Biol. 2017;428(2):328–37. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2017.04.015 PubMed
80 Ritsma L, Steller EJA, Beerling E, Loomans CJM, Zomer A, Gerlach C, et al.Intravital microscopy through an abdominal imaging window reveals a pre-micrometastasis stage during liver metastasis. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(158):158ra145. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3004394 PubMed
81 Ritsma L, Steller EJ, Ellenbroek SI, Kranenburg O, Borel Rinkes IH, van Rheenen J. Surgical implantation of an abdominal imaging window for intravital microscopy. Nat Protoc. 2013;8(3):583–94. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2013.026 PubMed
82 Fumagalli A, Drost J, Suijkerbuijk SJE, van Boxtel R, de Ligt J, Offerhaus GJ, et al.Genetic dissection of colorectal cancer progression by orthotopic transplantation of engineered cancer organoids. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114(12):E2357–64. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701219114 PubMed
a Hubrecht Institute-KNAW and University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands
b Molecular Cancer Research, Centre for Molecular Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands
c Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, The Netherlands
d Cancer Genomics Netherlands
No financial support and no other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Jacco van Rheenen, PhD, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, NL-1066 CX Amsterdam, j.v.rheenen[at]nki.nl
Published under the copyright license
“Attribution – Non-Commercial – NoDerivatives 4.0”.
No commercial reuse without permission.