Next Article in Journal
Tau Beyond Tangles: DNA Damage Response and Cytoskeletal Protein Crosstalk on Neurodegeneration
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Maternal High-Fat or High-Carbohydrate Diet during Pregnancy and Lactation on Cytochrome P450 2D (CYP2D) in the Liver and Brain of Rat Offspring
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Primary Cell Culture as a Model System for Evolutionary Molecular Physiology

by
James M. Harper
Department of Biological Sciences, Sam Houston State University, 1900 Avenue I, Huntsville, TX 77341, USA
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25(14), 7905; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25147905
Submission received: 13 June 2024 / Revised: 6 July 2024 / Accepted: 9 July 2024 / Published: 19 July 2024

Abstract

:
Primary cell culture is a powerful model system to address fundamental questions about organismal physiology at the cellular level, especially for species that are difficult, or impossible, to study under natural or semi-natural conditions. Due to their ease of use, primary fibroblast cultures are the dominant model system, but studies using both somatic and germ cells are also common. Using these models, genome evolution and phylogenetic relationships, the molecular and biochemical basis of differential longevities among species, and the physiological consequences of life history evolution have been studied in depth. With the advent of new technologies such as gene editing and the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC), the field of molecular evolutionary physiology will continue to expand using both descriptive and experimental approaches.

1. Introduction

Prior to the 20th century, studies of organismal physiology were largely restricted to intact animals, but these studies were limited in scope and difficult to interpret due to the restrictions associated with using a small number of individuals of unknown age, unknown genetic background, and unknown reproductive history, amongst other factors. During the early 1900s, the pioneering work of Abbie E.C. Lathrop, which was borne out of her business as a “fancy” mouse breeder and conducted in collaboration with scientists from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University, helped to establish the house mouse (Mus musculus) as a workhorse for experimental animal research [1]. The Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) then came into widespread use several years later due to the efforts of scientists at the Wistar Institute [2], and soon thereafter, the advent of tissue and cell culture techniques for the maintenance and propagation of individual cell types opened new avenues for physiological and biochemical research [3]. Initially, these studies focused on examining the structure and composition of individual tissue and cell types but soon transitioned to examining how cells and tissues behave in response to external stimuli. This led to fundamental questions about physiological function being addressed in a diverse array of animal models. A considerable strength of both tissue and cell culture models is that neither requires the maintenance of live animal colonies, which is often impractical, if not impossible, for some species due to the space and cost limitations. It also allows for populations to be sampled directly in the wild with minimal disruption, if done properly. Please see Jimenez and Harper [4] for a recent historical perspective of cell culture techniques and their application in comparative physiology. In this mini-review, I will highlight the utility of single cell type cultures to address questions in evolutionary physiology at the molecular level. Although they are a powerful experimental model system, the use of organ slices [5,6] will not be addressed here. On the other hand, 3D organoid cultures derived from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) have gained prominence as a tool to address questions about the molecular mechanisms underlying major evolutionary trends because they retain natural, species-specific properties that mimic specific properties across a wide range of tissues. Please see [7] for a brief history of the development of organoid cultures. Notwithstanding that it is beyond the scope of this review, recent examples of using organoid models to address fundamental question in evolutionary biology include the influence of copy number variation in genetic loci associated with primate neurodevelopment [8,9], as well as gene regulatory networks associated with the cardiopulmonary development and the transition to a terrestrial lifestyle [10]. Another approach relies on venom gland organoids derived from snakes to elucidate the processes that have led to the evolution of venom glands from salivary glands, as well as the venom types themselves [11]. As this technology expands to include organoids derived from a diverse range of species, for example, agricultural and companion animals, so too will the range of questions that can be addressed such as the evolution of pathophysiological mechanisms underlying zoonotic disease transmission, which is an area of growing concern [12].

2. Cell Culture Models

Although the terms are often used interchangeably, tissue culture and cell culture do not refer to the same technique. Tissue culture involves the maintenance of intact tissue explants in vitro that were collected via biopsy in order to study the response to various stimuli. Meanwhile, cell culture (typically) refers to the maintenance of a monoculture of a specific cell type (e.g., fibroblasts, hepatocytes, T-cells) under artificial conditions, although mixed cultures are sometimes used. Notably, tissue explants can be used to generate individual cell cultures, such as for the derivation of pulmonary fibroblasts [13] or epithelial cells from various organs such as the gastrointestinal tract [14]. However, it is more common to digest tissue fragments with proteolytic enzymes after mincing to “free” cells from the initial biopsy for the generation of individual cell cultures.
In many cases, primary cell cultures eventually give way to immortalized cell lines. Immortalization can be the result of spontaneous processes [15,16] that are the consequence of the stresses associated with being moved to an artificial environment [17], or they may be immortalized via experimenter-induced processes such as mutagenesis or cell transfection [18]. Once immortalized, the cells are referred to as cell lines. Oftentimes, these immortalized cell lines also undergo transformation to become cancer-like and lose many of the properties typically associated with normal cells such as contact inhibition. Undisputedly, the ability to indefinitely propagate an individual cell line in culture is useful since it only needs to be derived once. However, to what degree these immortalized/transformed cell lines behave relative to a normal cell is often unknown and/or can vary considerably from one cell line to the next. As an example, the proteome of exosomes analyzed from Jurkat cells, an immortalized human T-cell line, does not overlap extensively with those obtained from primary cultures of T-cells [19]. Moreover, the lack of functional overlap is often true among individual cell lines of the same cell type. For example, the degree to which various glial cell lines undergo myelination varies considerably from one line to the next in both murine and human glial cell lines [20]. More problematic, however, is the genetic heterogeneity that arises with the continuous culture of individual cell lines over time due to random genetic drifts at both the genomic [21,22] and epigenetic level [23,24,25] in addition to transposition events [26]. This means that the cell line of today can be very different from the cell line of tomorrow from both a genetic and a functional perspective, which is something that is often overlooked.
On the other hand, primary cell cultures consist of populations of individual cells that were isolated directly from a tissue biopsy. Primary cell cultures often have a limited capacity for expansion, and individual cell lineages within the population have a finite lifespan. Although this introduces the challenge of isolating and/or generating enough cells to conduct individual experiments, it varies considerably from one cell type to the next. For example, primary hepatocytes maintained in vitro lose their replicative capacity immediately [27], while primary fibroblasts isolated from a variety of organs, but most often the skin, can be expanded to generate tens- to hundreds-of-millions of cells over time. In many cases, batches of cells can be cryopreserved and stored for later use. Nevertheless, individual cultures of propagating cells eventually become replicatively senescent with subculturing (i.e., passaging) and will eventually stop dividing due to a critical shortening of the telomeres [28]. Indeed, foundational studies of cellular senescence were conducted using primary cultures of fibroblasts from multiple tissue sources [29], but this limitation can be overcome if the cells are frozen at an early passage number.
Despite these limitations, there are several strengths associated with using primary cell culture models. First, since individual cultures of primary cells are generated from discrete tissue biopsies collected from unique donors, the confounds associated with the pseudo-replication inherent to the testing of replicates of a clonal cell line are avoided. It also allows for factors such as age, sex, reproductive history, and the like to be included as experimental factors. This is not possible with established cell lines since they are limited by the identity of the original donor. Most importantly, however, primary cells maintain the morphology typical of a given cell type, as well as the cell surface and cytosolic markers that are critical for normal cellular function, making primary cell cultures a powerful model to study how these cells would behave in vivo [30].
Both primary cell cultures and immortalized cell lines are well-established models for pharmacological profiling, the study of gene-specific diseases processes and the changes in cellular morphology, biochemistry, and physiology that are associated with neoplastic transformation, including the evolution of cancer drug resistance and the metastatic potential of cancer cells, amongst other processes with direct biomedical applications. Although not as extensive, cell culture models are also utilized to study basic questions in evolutionary physiology down to the molecular level. Without question, primary cultures of fibroblasts are the most heavily used because of their ubiquitous distribution throughout an organism, high replicative potential, and ease of use (Figure 1). Fibroblasts grow readily in many different media formulations and often must be selected against when trying to establish cultures of other cell types such as keratinocytes or endothelial cells [4,31,32]. Interestingly, the source organ from which a fibroblast culture is derived can significantly alter the response of individual cultures to exogenous signals and should be considered when conducting experiments [33]. Here, I focus on the use of primary cell culture models for evolutionary questions concerning each of the following three areas: (1) Gene profiling, Genome Evolution, and Phylogenetic Reconstruction; (2) Longevity Associated Gene Expression and Cellular Function; and (3) Life History Evolution (Figure 2).

3. Genetic Profiling, Genome Evolution, and Phylogenetic Reconstruction

Cell culture models are well suited for cytogenetic studies [34] and have been conducted using cells derived from a wide array of vertebrate species. Although fibroblasts are the dominant cell type, the nucleated lymphocytes of non-mammalian vertebrates are a ready source for cytogenetic studies [35,36], while a recent study in birds used gonad-derived cells [37]. In general, it is relatively easy to generate high quality chromosome spreads from cultured cells which are amendable to karyotyping using standard staining techniques, as well as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Oftentimes, the biggest challenge for individuals using cells from non-traditional models (i.e., mammals and birds) is the need to determine the ideal culture conditions for the propagation and maintenance of individual cell types such as those from fishes [38,39,40]. Cell culture is also a powerful technique for basic cytogenetic studies when working with rare or endangered species because it allows for the generation of large numbers of cells for study while preserving other materials for anatomical, histological, and/or functional studies [41,42]. Alternatively, if a tissue biopsy is collected using a minimally invasive technique, such as an ear punch or toe clip, the sampled individual can be returned to the population.
Once they have been generated from individual cultures, the resultant karyotypes can be used to address different questions about genome evolution, the simplest being phylogenetic reconstruction at various taxonomic levels such as orders [43], families [44,45,46], or genera [47]. Within species, this approach can also be used to tease out phylogeographic relationships among populations [48,49]. In addition to using karyotypes, primary cell cultures are suitable for phylogenetic studies using methodologies such as satellite DNA sequence analysis [50,51] or more novel approaches such as using patterns of differential gene expression among individual cultures from various species as indicators of phylogenetic relatedness [52]. In other instances, primary cell cultures have been used to study the role of heterochromatin in karyotype reorganization in fishes [53], molecular mechanisms underlying the evolution of polyploidy in fishes [54], the variation in telomere dynamics among mammal species [55], and the biology of retrotransposons, well-known drivers of genome evolution [56].

4. Longevity Associated Gene Expression and Cellular Function

An intriguing question in the comparative biology of aging is what accounts for the dramatic difference in lifespans seen across vertebrate species despite them largely being built from the same “parts”? More specifically, the structural organization and biochemistry of skeletal muscle, for example, are the same in mice and humans, but the typical human will live 40 times (or more) longer than the typical mouse. As noted above, it is not practical, or even possible, to maintain captive populations of many different individual species to address this question. However, using primary cell cultures derived from individual species with disparate lifespans offers a simple alternative to the use of populations which have been exploited by biogerontologists for several decades. It also lends itself to studies examining which mechanism(s) may account for differential longevities within species such as single-gene mutations [57,58] or selective breeding [59]. For the sake of brevity, I will highlight some of the most significant findings from studies using primary cell cultures to study the biology of aging among vertebrates. Please see Alper et al. [60] and Jimenez and Harper [4] for the recent reviews. Moreover, within non-mammalian species, the short-term culture of erythrocytes has become a popular model system to study physiological function because large numbers of cells can be obtained from a simple blood draw, and because non-mammalian erythrocytes are nucleated and retain their mitochondria. Hence, they have high metabolic capacity and are amendable to studies of mitochondrial function, as well as telomere dynamics, an oft studied, if still contentious, area of research in biogerontology. Please see Stier et al. [61] for an overview of using erythrocytes for aging studies.
Because invertebrate models of differential aging have indicated that long-lived individuals tend to be more resistant to the lethal effects of a variety of exogenous stressors, such as oxidizing agents, heat, or heavy metals [62], initial studies using primary fibroblast cultures asked whether cells from long-lived species were more resistant to stress than those from shorter-lived species. Although not absolute, this was generally the case in both mammals [63,64,65,66] and birds [67,68,69]. While a specific mechanism that underlies this differential stress resistance has not been identified, primary cell cultures of fibroblasts have provided hints at the evolutionary origins of these processes. For example, Dostal et al. [70] demonstrated that fibroblasts from long-lived rodents have reduced uptake of the heavy metal cadmium in conjunction with reduced levels of metal ions that are active in redox reactions compared to cells from short-lived rodents. In addition, cells from long-lived mammals significantly upregulate the expression of DNA repair genes and those involved in glucose metabolism with clear phylogenetic underpinnings [71], as well as the differential expression of antioxidant enzymes [72]. Similarly, the metabolic function of cells isolated from small, long-lived dog breeds is different from that of those isolated from large, short-lived dog breeds [73]. Furthermore, in both bird and mammal cells, increased donor longevity was associated with differential activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK-1/2), an important mediator of cellular stress resistance [74]. Interestingly, while not directly related to aging research, using primary cultures of fibroblasts from a variety of species to examine the evolution of toxin resistance in the context of ecotoxicology has also become common [75,76,77,78].
In addition to differential stress resistance, studies of primary cell cultures from species with differential lifespans have indicated that the evolution of proteome maintenance and turnover is likely to be an important contributor to the aging process. More specifically, proteins isolated from fibroblasts grown from long-lived species exhibit reduced levels of protein carbonyl when compared to those grown from short-lived species [79,80,81], while the rate of protein turnover is also reduced in long-lived species [82,83,84] in conjunction with a differential induction of autophagy [85]. There is also evidence that the remarkable longevity of the naked mole rat may be due, at least in part, to the ability of their cells to resist malignant transformation due to differences in cell behavior [86] and biochemistry [87,88,89]. Cells from the blind mole rat (Spalax) are similarly cancer resistance, and can even directly kill cancer cells, perhaps as an adaptation to the hypoxic conditions they face as a subterranean mammal [90]. On the other hand, the evolution of differential oxygen sensitivity does not seem to be involved with the aging process except in the case of the peculiar evolutionary history of the laboratory mouse [91].
The relationships described above are robust and have consistently held up when moving from one model to another, but they have heavily utilized fibroblasts, most often isolated from the skin. In a recent study, it was found that the degree of resilience of primary cell cultures from different tissues and tissue regions, as well as different cell types, varied in their response to various insults [92]. Although this is not a surprising outcome, it does call into the question the reliance on a single cell type to infer broad physiological relationships for complex processes such as aging.

5. Life History Evolution

According to the tenets of life history theory, species tend to adopt a lifestyle that maximizes their reproductive fitness and lies along a ‘slow–fast’ axis [93]. Species on the ‘slow’ end of the axis tend to be slow growing with a late age of first reproduction in conjunction with a low mass-specific metabolic rate and a delayed onset of senescence. Conversely, species at the ‘fast’ end of the axis tend to high have mass specific metabolic rates, exhibit rapid growth, and have an early onset of senescence at the whole organism level. As with the evolution of longevity assurance mechanisms, primary cell cultures are an attractive model to determine how variation in life-histories translates to cellular function.
Interestingly, in both mammals [94] and birds [95], there is no correlation between cellular metabolic rate and body mass across species despite their dramatic differences in mass-specific metabolic rates. On the other hand, there are marked differences in stress resistance parameters that have been in concert with the individual life-history strategies in birds [69], perhaps downstream of the individual growth rates as demonstrated in cultures of fibroblasts and myoblasts [96,97]. Differences in the mitochondrial membrane lipid composition also varied as a function of individual life history strategies [98], while a more sophisticated approach using interspecific cybrids from bovids teased out the contribution of species-specific mitochondria to cellular metabolism [99]. Meanwhile, primary adipocytes from bears have been used to study the molecular basis of cellular adaptation to the metabolic stress of hibernation [100], while primary fibroblasts from reindeer have demonstrated that circadian clock genes are absent in this species, most likely because of the abnormal photoperiods experienced by arctic species [101].
On the other hand, body size does correlate with a p53-mediated DNA damage response in elephants [102], and reproductive history may also be an important modulator of cellular function, at least in mammals [103]. What remains to be seen is how other physiological processes such as endoplasmic reticulum stress and the unfolded protein response at the cellular level are shaped by ecology and evolution [104], although increased ER stress sensitivity has been seen in both a reptile [105] and a mammal [65] at the slow end of the axis.

6. Future Directions

Primary cell culture is a critical tool for conducting genome-to-phenome studies and are especially useful for species that are impractical to study under captive conditions such as aquatic species [106], leading to published protocols for the isolation of various cell types from both fishes [39] and marine mammals [107]. Undoubtedly, cell cultures derived from these, as well as endangered [108,109], species will continue to contribute to our understanding of evolutionary adaptations to different environments while helping to preserve individual species, but the application of “modern” techniques in cell culture and molecular biology are poised to move the use of primary cell cultures into new directions. This includes using transfection of individual cultures to generate immortalized cell lines [17], but this has the potential to change how the cells behave in an unpredictable manner [110,111].

6.1. CRISPR/Cas9

Techniques for the genetic manipulation of primary cells have existed for many years and have provided a means to examine the effect of specific genetic manipulations on cellular function [112]. The emergence of CRISPR/Cas9 technology has promised to take this to a new level due to its relative ease of use and applicability to all types of biological material [113], with optimization being necessary for some species [114,115]. In the context of primary cell culture, CRISPR/Cas9 has been used to demonstrate the role of the mitochondrial transcription factor, TFAM, on mitochondrial function in a bovine model [116] and the evolution of the integrated stress response in vertebrates [117]. This approach has also been used for studies of evolutionary developmental biology by manipulating ancestral genes in lampreys [118] fibroblast growth factor 5 (FGF5) in sheep [119], as well as the role of the CLOCK gene in the evolution of circadian time maintenance in eukaryotes [120], although here early-stage embryos or zygotes were used rather than cell cultures. Moreover, CRISPR/Cas9 technology provides a powerful means of creating specific models to address questions in evolutionary molecular physiology. For example, the experimental evolution of differential alcohol tolerance among yeast strains, followed by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeting of evolved mutations, allows for the direct confirmation of the role of specific mutations in the evolved trait, as well as putative trade-offs accompanying individual mutations [121]. This same approach could be readily applied to primary cultures of various cell types exposed to varied environmental conditions, such as heat or varying nutrient availability. Because genomic data are absent for most species, especially non-traditional or exotic model organisms, the primary hindrance to the widespread use of CRISPR/Cas9 technology to address central questions in evolutionary physiology is the lack of specific genomic sequences to be targeted. Since it is a gene editing tool, the simplest analogy for the CRISPR/Cas9 system is a genetic word processor that is used to correct typos or change the text in the form of nucleotide sequences rather than characters. However, as next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies continue to become increasingly rapid and cheaper, this limitation should be rendered moot for many species of interest soon enough.

6.2. Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSC)

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) were first described in 2006 [122] and refers to the generation of a pluripotent stem cell via the forced expression of key transcriptional regulators in somatic cells. While fibroblasts are the most used for the reasons cited previously, iPSCs can be generated from other somatic cells and can be differentiated to generate almost any somatic cell type, intact tissues or organs, or even whole animals via cloning [123]. Using this approach, the limitations of using a population of fibroblasts as a proxy for other cell types, or even as a proxy for fibroblasts from another tissue/organ sources, could be avoided. The list of species used to generate iPSCs is ever growing and, within mammals, includes humans and other primates, multiple rodents, multiple species of carnivores, and agriculturally important species such as pigs. Within birds, iPSCs have been generated from common domestic species such as chickens and zebra finches, but these lists also include exotic species such as the Tasmanian devil [124,125]. Examples of using this technique to address deep evolutionary questions, include the generation of an iPSC from a monotreme mammal (platypus) to dissect the role of specific factors in the evolution of pluripotency based on the differential expression of individual genes in eutherian mammals versus monotremes [126], while Hirata et al. [127] compared the transcriptome and epigenome of iPSCs from humans and chimpanzees to reveal their presumed contribution to the phenotypic divergence seen among these closely related species. Similarly, iPSC lines from horse, donkey, and mule demonstrated marked differences in cell growth, pluripotency, and patterns of differentiation in the mule iPSCs relative to the parental strains to provide material for the study of heterosis and hybrid gamete formation [128]. An iPSC line generated from a rodent with an unusual chromosome constitution involving the sex chromosomes provides a unique resource to elucidate the evolution of mammalian sex determination [129,130].

6.3. Transformed Human Cell Lines

In another approach, established human cells lines can be used to express individual gene products to ascertain their effect from an evolutionary perspective. Although not a primary cell culture model, this system is gaining momentum and has made significant contributions to understanding the evolution of complex physiological processes. Human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293 cells are one of the most widely used for these studies because they are easy to transfect, have high growth potential, and can be cultured under a variety of conditions [131]. Notable studies using the approach are the identification of key enzymes involved in carotenoid metabolism [132], the evolution of combinatorial coding of olfaction in canines [133], and the evolution of retinoids in the evolution of the vertebrate visual system [134]. In the first instance, the authors were able to confirm the role of specific enzymes in ketocarotenoid synthesis in both birds and fishes, where they play an important role in social interactions. In the second case, a subset of canine odorant receptor genes was expressed in HEK293 cells, and their response was monitored after the application of specific odorants. Finally, using bioinformatics, it was inferred that lampreys possessed enzymes that were homologous to those critical for enzymatic regeneration of 11-cis-Retinal in the vertebrate eye and were found to be functional when expressed in HEK293 cells.

7. Conclusions

Primary cell culture is a useful model to address the fundamental questions in evolutionary physiology since primary cells retain a ‘normal’ phenotype that recapitulates how the cells would behave in vivo. For the study of the molecular and biochemical mechanisms underlying genome evolution, longevity assurance mechanisms, and the variability in life history traits among species and populations, primary cell culture have been especially beneficial. Nevertheless, primary cell culture has also been used to infer the mechanisms underlying the evolution of sex determination in both cartilaginous and bony fishes [43,135], the evolution of innate immune function in eels [136], variation in skeletal traits among primate species [137], glial cell evolution in mustelids [138], hypoxia tolerance in ground squirrels [139], differential gene expression due to chromosomal fusion in mammalian germ cells [140], factors involved in the evolution of the mammalian uterus [141], and the evolution of skin development [142] in fishes to name a few. Except for [42], fibroblasts were not the cell type used for these studies, which is in stark contrast to most of the studies that have been cited. Undoubtedly, this reflects the relative ease in generating primary cultures of fibroblasts due to their abundance and ubiquitous distribution in situ and their ability to tolerate a wide range of culture conditions in conjunction with their high replicative potential. However, as demonstrated in [92], limiting studies to a single cell type can mask important relationships. Even inferring what occurs in a single cell type such as fibroblasts is erroneous since the tissue or organ from which it is isolated can significantly alter the outcome [32,92]. Moreover, since the primary role of fibroblasts in vivo is the establishment and maintenance of the extracellular matrix, in addition to playing a prominent role in the wound healing response, they cannot serve as surrogates for other cell types with specialized functions (e.g., myocytes).

8. Perspective and Significance

Primary cell cultures have proven their worth for those interested in studying evolutionary physiology at the molecular level and are amendable to studies of experimental evolution. In addition, the biochemical pathways that are central to organismal function, such as stress defense mechanisms, DNA repair, protein deamination and transamination, and so on are retained by primary cultures, and these cells will behave in a manner which is consistent with that seen in an intact organism. Moreover, primary cell cultures that have been established using donor individuals from different species, different populations of individual species, or even genetic variants within a species provide a powerful tool to address important question in evolutionary physiology at the molecular level. Although this review has emphasized the utility of classic two-dimensional cell culture models of individual cell types, there are limitations associated with this approach, the most significant being that it is a poor representation of the in situ condition. Individual cell types do not exist in isolation from others, nor do they exist in a monolayer that is provided with nutrients from the top down. In addition, the regular disruption of cells due to subculturing and the provision of blood serum rather than plasma is akin to repeated wounding rather than physiological stability. Two-dimensional models persist mostly due to their relative ease-of-use, a limited need for specialized equipment, and their legacy as a model system.
Nevertheless, there is tremendous interest in developing other cell culture systems that more closely recapitulate physiological normality. The simplest of these are mixed-cell (co-culture) systems that allow either of the following: (1) direct interaction of individual cell types via physical contact in heterogenous monolayers or on a three-dimensional scaffold, or (2) indirect interaction using conditioned media, a “shared” extracellular matrix, or porous membranes (e.g., Transwell®). In the latter case, the interaction is limited to the exposure of one cell type to factors secreted by another other cell type [143]. The most common use for this approach is the study of the influence of tumor cells on “normal” cells in the immediate area, but it can be asked to address fundamental questions in evolutionary physiology as well, such as the role of neuro-immune interactions in the evolution of the vertebrate nervous system [144].
Hollow fiber bioreactors (HFBR) are a continuous perfusion cell culture system whereby the cell culture medium is circulated through fibers whose outsides have been seeded with cells. This allows for nutrient and gas exchange to occur across the fiber walls in both directions for the continuous and controlled oxygenation of cells and nutrient delivery using a controlled medium composition. It also allows for the delivery of circulating factors such as signaling molecules or drugs in a manner that is consistent with their delivery to individual tissues via capillaries. Finally, it is possible to coculture multiple cell types in a system that more closely resembles intact tissues [145]. While HFBR systems are in widespread use within the biotech sector, there have been no studies using them to address the fundamental questions in evolutionary molecular physiology; thus, it would be beneficial to adapt them for the examination of the physiology of various cell types, either alone or in combination, from species with significant differences in maximum lifespan, for example. Undoubtedly, the continued use of these cell culture models will continue to provide important insight for evolutionary biologists.

Funding

Funding was provided by the Department of Biological Sciences and the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs at Sam Houston State University. The APC was funded by MDPI.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Steensma, D.P.; Robert, K.A.; Shampo, M.A. Abbie Lathrop, the “Mouse Woman of Granby”: Rodent Fancier and Accidental Genetics Pioneer. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2010, 85, e83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Baker, H.J.; Lindsey, J.R.; Wesibroth, S.H. (Eds.) The Laboratory Rat: Biology and Diseases; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  3. Carrel, A.; Burrows, M.T. Cultivation of Tissues In Vitro and Its Technique. J. Exp. Med. 1911, 13, 387–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jiménez, A.G.; Harper, J.M. Exploring the Role of Primary Fibroblast Cells in Comparative Physiology: A Historical and Contemporary Overview. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2023, 325, R45–R54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Dewyse, L.; Reynaert, H.; Grunsven, L.A. Best Practices and Progress in Precision-Cut Liver Slice Cultures. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 7137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Herbert, J.; Gow, A. Precision Cut Lung Slices as a Model for 2R Application in Toxicology. Appl. In Vitro Toxicol. 2020, 6, 47–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Corrò, C.; Novellasdemunt, L.; Li, V.S.W. A Brief History of Organoids. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2020, 319, C151–C165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lodewijk, G.A.; de Geus, M.; Guimarães, R.L.F.P.; Jacobs, F.M.J. Emergence of the ZNF675 Gene during Primate Evolution-Influenced Human Neurodevelopment through Changing HES1 Autoregulation. J. Comp. Neurol. 2024, 532, e25648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Pollen, A.A.; Bhaduri, A.; Andrews, M.G.; Nowakowski, T.J.; Meyerson, O.S.; Mostajo-Radji, M.A.; Di Lullo, E.; Alvarado, B.; Bedolli, M.; Dougherty, M.L.; et al. Establishing Cerebral Organoids as Models of Human-Specific Brain Evolution. Cell 2019, 176, 743–756.e17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rankin, S.A.; Steimle, J.D.; Yang, X.H.; Rydeen, A.B.; Agarwal, K.; Chaturvedi, P.; Ikegami, K.; Herriges, M.J.; Moskowitz, I.P.; Zorn, A.M. Tbx5 drives Aldh1a2 expression to regulate a RA-Hedgehog-Wnt gene regulatory network coordinating cardiopulmonary development. Elife 2021, 10, e69288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Post, Y.; Puschhof, J.; Beumer, J.; Kerkkamp, H.M.; de Bakker, M.A.G.; Slagboom, J.; de Barbanson, B.; Wevers, N.R.; Spijkers, X.M.; Olivier, T.; et al. Snake Venom Gland Organoids. Cell 2020, 180, 233–247.e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kawasaki, M.; Goyama, T.; Tachibana, Y.; Nagao, I.; Ambrosini, Y.M. Farm and Companion Animal Organoid Models in Translational Research: A Powerful Tool to Bridge the Gap Between Mice and Humans. Front. Med. Technol. 2022, 4, 895379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Baglole, C.J.; Reddy, S.Y.; Pollock, S.J.; Feldon, S.E.; Sime, P.J.; Smith, T.J.; Phipps, R.P. Isolation and Phenotypic Characterization of Lung Fibroblasts. Methods Mol. Med. 2005, 117, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  14. Randall, K.J.; Turton, J.; Foster, J.R. Explant Culture of Gastrointestinal Tissue: A Review of Methods and Applications. Cell Biol. Toxicol. 2011, 27, 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Perillo, M.; Punzo, A.; Caliceti, C.; Sell, C.; Lorenzini, A. The Spontaneous Immortalization Probability of Mammaliam Cell Culture Strains, as their Proliferative Capacity, Correlates with Species Body Mass, Not Longevity. Biomed. J. 2023, 46, 100596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hasche, D.; Stephan, S.; Savelyeva, L.; Westermann, F.; Rösl, F.; Vinzón, S.E. Establishment of an Immortalized Cell Line Derived from the Animal Model Mastomys coucha. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0161283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lewerentz, J.; Johansson, A.-M.; Stenberg, P. The Path to Immortalization of Cells Starts by Managing Stress through Gene Duplications. Exp. Cell Res. 2023, 422, 113431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Guo, D.; Zhang, L.; Wang, X.; Zheng, J.; Lin, S. Establishment Methods and Research Progress of Livestock and Poultry Immortalized Cell Lines: A Review. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 956357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Bosque, A.; Dietz, L.; Gallego-Lleyda, A.; Sanclemente, M.; Iturralde, M.; Naval, J.; Alava, M.A.; Martínez-Lostao, L.; Thierse, H.J.; Anel, A. Comparative Proteomics of Exosomes Secreted by Tumoral Jurkat T cells and Normal Human T cell Blasts Unravels a Potential Tumorigenic Role for Valosin-Containing Protein. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 29287–29305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. De Vries, G.H.; Boullerne, A.I. Glial Cell Lines: An Overview. Neurochem. Res. 2010, 35, 1978–2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Ben-David, U.; Siranosian, B.; Ha, G.; Tang, H.; Oren, Y.; Hinohara, K.; Strathdee, C.A.; Dempster, J.; Lyons, N.J.; Burns, R.; et al. Genetic and Transcriptional Evolution alters Cancer Cell Line Drug Response. Nature 2018, 560, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gutbier, S.; May, P.; Berthelot, S.; Krishna, A.; Trefzer, T.; Behbehani, M.; Efremova, L.; Delp, J.; Gastraunthaler, G.; Waldmann, T.; et al. Major Changes of Cell Function and Toxicant Sensitivity in Cultured Cells Undergoing Mild, Quasi-Natural Genetic Drift. Arch. Toxicol. 2018, 92, 3487–3503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hornsby, P.J.; Yang, L.; Gunter, L.E. Demethylation of Satellite I DNA during Senescence of Bovine Adrenocortical Cells in Culture. Mutat. Res. 1992, 275, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Nestor, C.E.; Ottaviano, R.; Reinhardt, D.; Cruickshanks, H.A.; Mjoseng, H.K.; McPherson, R.C.; Lentini, A.; Thomson, J.P.; Dunican, D.S.; Pennings, S.; et al. Rapid Reprogramming of Epigenetic and Transcriptional Profiles in Mammalian Culture Systems. Genome Biol. 2015, 16, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Franzen, J.; Georgomanolis, T.; Selich, A.; Kuo, C.C.; Stöger, R.; Brant, L.; Mulabdić, M.S.; Fernandez-Rebollo, E.; Grezella, C.; Ostrowska, A.; et al. DNA Methylation Changes During Long-Term In Vitro Cell Culture are Caused by Epigenetic Drift. Commun. Biol. 2021, 4, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Han, S.; Dias, G.B.; Basting, P.J.; Nelson, M.G.; Patel, S.; Marzo, M.; Bergman, C.M. Ongoing Transposition in Cell Culture Reveals the Phylogeny of Diverse Drosophila S2 Sublines. Genetics 2022, 221, iyac077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ramboer, E.; De Craene, B.; De Kick, J.; Vanhaecke, T.; Berx, G.; Rogiers, V.; Vinken, M. Strategies for Immortalization of Primary Hepatocytes. J. Hepatol. 2014, 61, 925–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Sadowska-Bartosz, I.; Bartosz, G. Effect of Antioxidants in the Fibroblast Replicative Lifespan In Vitro. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2020, 2020, 6423783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Van Gansen, P.; Van Lerberghe, N. Potential and Limitations of Cultivated Fibroblasts in the Study of Senescence in Animals. A Review on the Murine Skin Fibroblasts System. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 1988, 7, 31–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pan, C.; Kumar, C.; Bohl, S.; Klingmueller, U.; Mann, M. Comparative Proteomic Phenotyping of Cell Lines and Primary Cells to Assess Preservation of Cell Type-specific Functions. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2009, 8, 443–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Madelaire, C.B.; Klink, A.C.; Israelsen, W.J.; Hindle, A.G. Fibroblasts as an Experimental Model System for the Study of Comparative Physiology. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2022, 260, 110375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pathak, J.; Singh, S.P.; Kharche, S.D.; Goel, A.; Soni, Y.K.; Kaushik, R.; Kose, M.; Kumar, A. Cell Culture Media Dependent In Vitro Dynamics and Culture Characteristics of Adult Caprine Dermal Fibroblast Cells. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 13716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Luo, J.; Liang, M.-M.; Yang, X.-G.; Xu, H.-Y.; Shi, D.-S.; Lu, S.-S. Establishment and Biological Characteristics Comparison of Chinese Swamp Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) Fibroblast Cell Lines. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 2014, 50, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gray, B.A.; Gollin, S.M. Rapid Cell Culture Procedure for Tissue Samples. Am. J. Med. Genet. 1987, 28, 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Biederman, B.M.; Lin, C.C. A Leukocyte Culture and Chromosome Preparation Technique for Avian Species. In Vitro 1982, 18, 415–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ishijima, J.; Uno, Y.; Nunome, M.; Nishida, C.; Kuraku, S.; Matsuda, Y. Molecular Cytogenetic Characterization of Chromosome Site-specific Repetitive Sequences in the Arctic lamprey (Lethenteron camtschaticum, Petromyzontidae). DNA Res. 2017, 24, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Pristyazhnyuk, I.E.; Malinovskaya, L.P.; Borodin, P.M. Establishment of the Primary Avian Gonadal Somatic Cell Lines for Cytogenetic Studies. Animals 2022, 12, 1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Paim, F.G.; Maia, L.; da Cruz Landim-Alverenga, F.; Foresti, F.; Oliveira, C. New Protocol for Cell Culture to Obtain Mitotic Chromosomes in Fishes. Methods Protoc. 2018, 1, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Soares, L.B.; Paim, F.G.; Ramos, L.P.; Foresti, F.; Oliveira, C. Molecular Cytogenetic Analysis and the Establishment of a Cell Culture in the Fish Species Hollandichthys multifasciatus (Eigenmann & Norris, 1900) (Characiformes, Characidae). Genet. Mol. Biol. 2021, 44, e20200260. [Google Scholar]
  40. He, L.; Zhao, C.; Xiao, Q.; Zhao, J.; Liu, H.; Jiang, J.; Cao, Q. Profiling the Physiological Roles in Fish Primary Cell Culture. Biology 2023, 12, 1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jin, W.; Jia, K.; Yang, L.; Chen, J.; Wu, Y.; Yi, M. Derivation and Characterization of Cell Cultures from the Skin of the Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin Sousa chinensis. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 2013, 49, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pavlova, S.V.; Biltueva, L.S.; Romanenko, S.A.; Lemskaya, N.A.; Shchinov, A.V.; Abramov, A.V.; Rozhnov, V.V. First Cytogenetic Analysis of Lesser Gymnures (Mammalia, Galericidae, Hylomys) from Vietnam. Comp. Cytogenet. 2018, 12, 361–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Uno, Y.; Nozu, R.; Kiyatake, I.; Higashiguchi, N.; Sodeyama, S.; Murakumo, K.; Sato, K.; Kuraku, S. Cell Culture-based Karyotyping of Orectolobiform Sharks for Chromosome-scale Genome Analysis. Commun. Biol. 2020, 3, 652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Nash, W.G.; O’Brien, S.J. A Comparative Chromosome Banding Analysis of the Ursidae and Their Relationship to Other Carnivores. Cytogenet. Cell. Genet. 1987, 45, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Vassart, M.; Seguela, A.; Hayes, H. Chromosomal Evolution in Gazelle. J. Hered. 1995, 86, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Li, T.; Wang, J.; Su, W.; Nie, W.; Yang, F. Karyotypic Evolution of the Family Sciuridae: Inferences from the Genome Organizations of Ground Squirrels. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2006, 112, 270–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Li, T.; Wang, J.; Su, W.; Yang, F. Chromosomal Mechanisms Underlying the Karyotype Evolution of the Oriental Voles (Muridae, Eothenomys). Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2006, 114, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kacprzyk, J.; Teeling, E.C.; Kelleher, C.; Volleth, M. Wing Membrane Biopsies for Bat Cytogenetics: Finding of 2n = 54 in Irish Rhinolophus hipposideros (Rhinolophidae, Chiroptera, Mammalia) Supports Two Geographically Separated Chromosomal Variants in Europe. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2016, 148, 279–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Rodrigues-Oliveira, I.H.; Penteado, P.R.; Pasa, R.; Menegídio, F.B.; Kavalco, K.F. Phylogeography and Karyotypic Evolution of Some Deuterodon Species from Southeastern Brazil (Characiformes, Characidae, Stethaprioninae). Genet. Mol. Biol. 2023, 46, e20230044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vozdova, M.; Kubickova, S.; Martínková, N.; Galindo, D.J.; Bernegossi, A.M.; Cernohorska, H.; Kadlcikova, D.; Musilová, P.; Duarte, J.M.; Rubes, J. Satellite DNA in Neotropical Deer Species. Genes 2021, 12, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. de Sousa, R.P.C.; Furo, I.O.; Silva-Oliveira, G.C.; de Sousa-Felix, R.C.; Bessa-Brito, C.D.; Mello, R.C.; Sampaio, I.; Artoni, R.F.; de Oliveira, E.H.C.; Vallinoto, M. Comparative Cytogenetics of Microsatellite Distribution in Two Tetra Fishes Astyanax bimaculatus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Psalidodon scabripinnis (Jenyns, 1842). PeerJ 2024, 12, e16924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gu, J.; Gu, X. Further Statistical Analysis for Genome-wide Expression Evolution in Primate Brain/Liver/Fibroblast Tissues. Hum. Genom. 2004, 1, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Uno, Y.; Asada, Y.; Nishida, C.; Takehana, Y.; Sakaizumi, M.; Matsuda, Y. Divergence of Repetitive DNA Sequences in the Heterochromatin of Medaka Fishes: Molecular Cytogenetic Characterization of Constitutive Heterochromatin in Two Medaka Species: Oryzias hubbsi and O. celebensis (Adrianichthyidae, Beloniformes). Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2013, 141, 212–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, X.; Ma, C.; Qin, Y.-J.; Wu, D.; Bai, L.-W.; Pei, A.-J. Establishment and Characterization of Fin Cell Lines from Diploid, Triploid and Tetraploid Oriental Weatherfish (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus). Fish Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 41, 661–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Santagostino, M.; Piras, F.M.; Cappelletti, E.; Del Giudice, S.; Semino, O.; Nergadze, S.G.; Giulotto, E. Insertion of Telomeric Repeats in the Human and Horse Genomes: An Evolutionary Perspective. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Goodier, J.L.; Mandall, P.K.; Zhang, L.; Kazazian, H.H., Jr. Discrete Subcellular Partitioning of Human Retrotransposon RNAs Despite a Common Mechanism of Genome Insertion. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2010, 19, 1712–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sands, W.; Page, M.M.; Selman, C. Proteostasis and Ageing: Insights from Long-Lived Mutant Mice. J. Physiol. 2017, 595, 6383–6390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bartke, A.; Quainoo, N. Impact of Growth Hormone-Related Mutations on Mammalian Aging. Front. Genet. 2018, 9, 586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Jimenez, A.G. A Revisiting of “the Hallmarks of Aging: In Domestic Dogs: Current Status of the Literature. GeroScience 2024, 46, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Alper, S.J.; Bronikowski, A.M.; Harper, J.M. Comparative Cellular Biogerontology: Where Do We Stand? Exp. Geron. 2015, 71, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Stier, A.; Reichert, S.; Criscuolo, F.; Bize, P. Red Blood Cells Open Promising Avenues for Longitudinal Studies of Ageing in Laboratory, Non-model and Wild animals. Exp. Geron. 2015, 71, 118–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. DiLoret, R.; Murphy, C.T. The Cell Biology of Aging. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2015, 26, 4524–4531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Kapahi, P.; Boulton, M.E.; Kirkwood, T.B.L. Positive Correlation Between Mammalian Life Span and Cellular Resistance to Stress. Free Rad. Biol. Med. 1999, 26, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Harper, J.M.; Salmon, A.B.; Leiser, S.F.; Galecki, A.T.; Miller, R.A. Skin-derived Fibroblasts from Long-lived Species are Resistant to Some, But Not All, Lethal Stresses and to the Mitochondrial Inhibitor Rotenone. Aging Cell. 2007, 6, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Salmon, A.B.; Sadighi Akha, A.A.; Buffenstein, R.; Miller, R.A. Fibroblasts from Naked Mole-Rats Are Resistant to Multiple Forms of Cell Injury, but Sensitive to Peroxide, UV Light, and ER Stress. J. Geron. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2008, 63, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Csiszar, A.; Podlutsky, A.; Podlutskaya, N.; Sonntag, W.E.; Merlin, S.Z.; Philipp, E.E.; Doyle, K.; Davila, A.; Recchia, F.A.; Ballabh, P.; et al. Testing the Oxidative Stress Hypothesis of Aging in Primate Fibroblasts: Is There a Correlation Between Species Longevity and Cellular ROS Production? J. Geron. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2012, 67, 841–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Ogburn, C.E.; Carlberg, K.; Ottinger, M.A.; Holmes, D.J.; Martin, G.M.; Austad, S.N. Exceptional Cellular Resistance to Oxidative Damage in Long-lived Birds Requires Active Gene Expression. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2001, 56, B468–B474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Harper, J.M.; Wang, M.; Galecki, A.T.; Ro, J.; Williams, J.B.; Miller, R.A. Fibroblasts from Long-lived Bird Species Are Resistant to Multiple Forms of Stress. J. Exp. Biol. 2011, 214, 1902–1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jimenez, A.G.; Harper, J.M.; Queenborough, S.A.; Williams, J.B. Linkages Between the Life-history Evolution of Tropical and Temperate Birds and the Resistance of Cultured Skin Fibroblasts to Oxidative and Non-oxidative Chemical Injury. J. Exp. Biol. 2013, 216, 1373–1380. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  70. Dostál, L.; Kohler, W.M.; Penner-Hahn, J.E.; Miller, R.A.; Fierke, C.A. Fibroblasts from Long-lived Rodent Species Exclude Cadmium. J. Geron. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2015, 70, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ma, S.; Upneja, A.; Galecki, A.; Tsai, Y.M.; Burant, C.F.; Raskind, S.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, Z.D.; Seluanov, A.; Gorbunova, V.; et al. Cell Culture-based Profiling Across Mammals Reveals DNA Repair and Metabolism as Determinants of Species Longevity. Elife 2016, 5, e19130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Brown, M.E.; Stuart, J.A. Correlation of Mitochondrial Superoxide Dismutase and DNA Polymerase β in Mammalian Dermal Fibroblasts with Species Maximal Lifespan. Mech. Ageing Dev. 2007, 128, 696–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Brookes, P.S.; Jimenez, A.G. Metabolomics of Aging in Primary Fibroblasts from Small and Large Breed Dogs. GeroScience 2021, 43, 1683–1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Elbourkadi, N.; Austad, S.N.; Miller, R.A. Fibroblasts from Long-lived Species of Mammals and Birds Show Delayed, but Prolonged, Phosphorylation of ERK. Aging Cell. 2014, 13, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Wise, J.P.; Wise, S.S.; Kraus, S.; Shaffiey, F.; Grau, M.; Chen, T.L.; Perkins, C.; Thompson, W.D.; Zheng, T.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Hexavalent Chromium is Cytotoxic and Genotoxic to the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Lung and Testes Fibroblasts. Mutat. Res. 2008, 650, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Webb, S.J.; Zychowski, G.V.; Bauman, S.W.; Higgins, B.M.; Raudsepp, T.; Gollahon, L.S.; Wooten, K.J.; Cole, J.M.; Godard-Codding, C. Establishment, Characterization, and Toxicological Application of Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) Primary Skin Fibroblast Cell Cultures. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 14728–14737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Boroda, A.V.; Kipryushina, Y.O.; Golochvastova, R.V.; Shevchenko, O.G.; Shulgina, M.A.; Efimova, K.V.; Katin, I.O.; Maiorova, M.A. Isolation, Characterization, and Ecotoxicological Application of Marine Mammal Skin Fibroblast Cultures. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 2020, 56, 744–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Součková, K.; Jasík, M.; Sovadinová, I.; Sember, A.; Sychrová, E.; Konieczna, A.; Bystrý, V.; Dyková, I.; Blažek, R.; Lukšíková, K.; et al. From Fish to Cells: Establishment of Continuous Cell Lines from Embryos of Annual Killifish Nothobranchius furzeri and N. kadleci. Aquat. Toxicol. 2023, 259, 106517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Pickering, A.M.; Lehr, M.; Kohler, W.J.; Han, M.L.; Miller, R.A. Fibroblasts from Longer-Lived Species of Primates, Rodents, Bats Carnivores, and Birds Resist Protein Damage. J. Geron. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2015, 70, 791–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Pérez, V.I.; Buffenstein, R.; Masamsetti, V.; Leonard, S.; Salmon, A.B.; Mele, J.; Andziak, B.; Yang, T.; Edrey, Y.; Friguet, B.; et al. Protein Stability and Resistance to Oxidative Stress are Determinants of Longevity in the Longest-Living Rodent, the Naked Mole-Rat. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 3059–3064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Azpurua, J.; Ke, Z.; Chen, I.X.; Zhang, Q.; Ermolenk, D.N.; Zhang, Z.D.; Gorbunova, V.; Seluanov, A. Naked Mole-Rat Has Increased Translational Fidelity Compared With the Mouse, As Well As Unique 28S Ribosomal RNA Cleavage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 17350–17355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pickering, A.M.; Lehr, M.; Miller, R.A. Lifespan of Mice and Primates Correlated with Immunoproteasome Expression. J. Clin. Investig. 2015, 125, 2059–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Pride, H.; Yu, Z.; Sunchu, B.; Mochnick, J.; Coles, A.; Zhang, Y.; Buffenstein, R.; Hornsby, P.J.; Austad, S.N.; Perez, V.I. Long-Lived Species Have Improved Proteostasis Compared to Phylogenetically-Related Shorter-Lived Species. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2015, 457, 669–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Swovick, K.; Firsanov, D.; Welle, K.A.; Hyyhorenko, J.R.; Wise, J.P., Sr.; George, C.; Sformo, T.L.; Selianov, A.; Gorbunova, V.; Ghaemmaghami, S. Interspecies Differences in Proteome Turnover Kinetics Are Correlated with Life Spans and Energetic Demands. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2021, 20, 100041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Kacprzyk, J.; Locatelli, A.G.; Hughes, G.M.; Huang, Z.; Clarke, M.; Gorbunova, V.; Sacchi, C.; Stewart, G.S.; Teeling, E.C. Evolution of Mammalian Longevity: Age-related Increase in Autophagy in Bats Compared to Other Mammals. Aging 2021, 13, 7998–8025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Seluanov, A.; Hine, C.; Azpurua, J.; Feigenson, M.; Bozzella, M.; Mao, Z.; Catania, K.C.; Gorbunova, V. Hypersensitivity to Contact Inhibition Provides a Clue to Cancer Resistance of Naked Mole-Rat. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 19352–19357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Tian, X.; Azpurua, J.; Hine, C.; Vaidya, A.; Myakishev-Rempel, M.; Ablaeva, J.; Mao, Z.; Nevo, E.; Gorbunova, V.; Seluanov, A. High-Molecular-Mass Hyaluronan Mediates the Cancer Resistance of the Naked Mole Rat. Nature 2013, 499, 346–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Tian, X.; Doerig, K.; Park, R.; Can Ran Qin, A.; Hwang, C.; Neary, A.; Gilbert, M.; Seluanov, A.; Gorbunova, V. Evolution of telomere maintenance and tumour suppressor mechanisms across mammals. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 2018, B373, 20160443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Deuker, M.M.; Lewis, K.N.; Ingaramo, M.; Kimmel, J.; Buffenstein, R.; Settleman, J. Unprovoked Stabilization and Nuclear Accumulation of the Naked Mole-Rat p53 Protein. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 6966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Manov, I.; Hirsh, M.; Iancu, T.C.; Malik, A.; Sotnichenko, N.; Band, M.; Avivi, A.; Shams, I. Pronounced Cancer Resistance in a Subterranean Rodent, the Blind Mole-Rat, Spalax: In Vivo and In Vitro Evidence. BMC Biol. 2013, 11, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Patrick, A.; Seluanov, M.; Hwang, C.; Tam, J.; Khan, T.; Morgenstern, A.; Wiener, L.; Vazquez, J.M.; Zafar, H.; Wen, R.; et al. Sensitivity of Primary Fibroblasts in Culture to Atmospheric Oxygen Does Not Correlate with Species Lifespan. Aging 2016, 8, 841–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Adekunbi, D.A.; Huber, H.F.; Li, C.; Nathanelsz, P.W.; Cox, L.A.; Salmon, A.B. Differential Mitochondrial Bioenergetics and Cellular Resilience in Astrocytes, Hepatocytes, and Fibroblasts from Aging Baboons. GeroScience 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Stearns, S.C. Life History Evolution: Successes, Limitations, and Prospects. Naturwissenschaften 2000, 87, 476–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Brown, M.F.; Gratton, T.P.; Stuart, J.A. Metabolic Rate Does Not Scale with Body Mass in Cultured Mammalian Cells. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2007, 292, R2115–R2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Jimenez, A.G.; Williams, J.B. Cellular Metabolic Rates from Primary Dermal Fibroblast Cells Isolated from Birds of Different Body Masses. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2014, 176, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Jimenez, A.G.; Cooper-Mullin, C.; Anthony, N.B.; Williams, J.B. Cellular Metabolic Rates in Cultured Primary Dermal Fibroblasts and Myoblasts from Fast-Growing and Control Coturnix Quail. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2014, 171, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Cooper-Mullin, C.; Jimenez, A.G.; Anthony, N.B.; Wortman, M.; Williams, J.B. The Metabolic Rate of Cultured Muscle Cells from Hybrid Coturnix Quail is Intermediate to that of Muscle Cells from Fast-growing and Slow-growing Coturnix Quail. J. Comp. Physiol. B. 2015, 185, 547–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Calhoon, E.A.; Jimenez, A.G.; Harper, J.M.; Jurkowitz, M.S.; Williams, J.B. Linkages Between Mitochondrial Lipids and Life History in Temperate and Tropical Birds. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2014, 87, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wang, J.; Xiang, H.; Liu, L.; Kong, M.; Yin, T.; Zhao, X. Mitochondrial Haplotypes Influence Metabolic Traits Across Bovine Inter- and Intra-Species Cybrids. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Hogan, H.R.H.; Hutzenbiler, B.D.E.; Robbins, C.T.; Jansen, H.T. Changing Lanes: Seasonal Differences in Cellular Metabolism of Adipocytes in Grizzly Bears (Ursus arctos horribilis). J. Comp. Physiol. B. 2022, 192, 397–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lu, W.; Meng, Q.-J.; Tyler, N.J.C.; Stokkan, K.-A.; Loudon, A.S.I. A Circadian Clock in not Requires in an Arctic Mammal. Curr. Biol. 2010, 20, 533–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sulak, M.; Fong, L.; Mika, K.; Chigurupati, S.; Yon, L.; Mongan, N.P.; Emes, R.D.; Lynch, V.J. TP53 Copy Number Expansion is Associated with the Evolution of Increased Body Size and an Enhanced DNA Damage Response in Elephants. Elife 2016, 5, e11994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Winward, J.D.; Ragan, C.M.; Jimenez, A.G. Cellular Metabolic Rates and Oxidative Stress Profiles in Primary Fibroblast Cells Isolated from Virgin Females, Reproductively Experienced Females, and Male Sprague-Dawley Rats. Physiol. Rep. 2018, 20, e13909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Yap, K.N.; Yamada, K.; Zikeli, S.; Kiaris, H.; Hood, W.R. Evaluating Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress and Unfolded Protein Response Through the Lens of Ecology and Evolution. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2021, 96, 541–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Glaberman, S.; Bulls, S.E.; Vazquez, J.M.; Chiari, Y.; Lynch, V.J. Concurrent Evolution of Antiaging Gene Duplications and Cellular Phenotypes in Long-Lived Turtles. Genome Biol. Evol. 2021, 13, evab244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Lam, E.K.; Allen, K.N.; Torres-Velarde, J.M.; Vázquez-Medina, J.P. Functional Studies with Primary Cells Provide a System for Genome-to-Phenome Investigations in Marine Mammals. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2020, 60, 348–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Boroda, A.V. Marine Mammal Cell Cultures: To Obtain, to Apply, and to Preserve. Mar. Environ. Res. 2017, 129, 316–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Tovar, H.; Navarrete, F.; Rodriguez, L.; Skewes, O.; Castro, F.O. Cold Storage of Biopsies from Wild Endangered Chilean Species in Field Conditions and Subsequent Isolation of Primary Cell Culture Cell Lines. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 2008, 44, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Golkar-Narenji, A.; Dziegel, P.; Kempisty, B.; Petitte, J.; Mozdziak, P.E.; Bryja, A. In Vitro Culture of Reptile PGCS to Preserve Endangered Species. Cell Biol. Int. 2023, 47, 1314–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Seridi, N.; Hamidouche, M.; Belmessabih, N.; El Kennani, S.; Gagnon, J.; Martine, G.; Coutton, C.; Marchal, T.; Chebloune, Y. Immortalization of Primary Sheep Embryo Kidney Cells. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 2021, 57, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hopperstad, K.; Truschel, T.; Wahlicht, T.; Stewart, W.; Eicher, A.; May, T.; Deisenroth, C. Characterization of Novel Human Immortalized Thyroid Follicular Epithelial Cell Lines. Appl. In Vitro Toxicol. 2021, 7, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Fus-Kujawa, A.; Prus, P.; Bajdak-Rusinek, K.; Teper, P.; Gawron, K.; Kowalczuk, A.; Sieron, A.L. An Overview of Methods and Tools for Transfection of Eukaryotic Cells in vitro. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021, 9, 701031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Tyumentseva, M.; Tyumentsev, A.; Akimkin, V. CRISPR/Cas9 Landscape: Current State and Future Perspectives. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 16077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Hryhorowicz, M.; Grześkowiak, B.; Mazurkiewicz, N.; Śledziński, P.; Lipiński, D.; Słomski, R. Improved Delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 System Using Magnetic Nanoparticles into Porcine Fibroblast. Mol. Biotechnol. 2019, 61, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Bajwa, K.K.; Punetha, M.; Kumar, D.; Yadav, P.S.; Long, C.R.; Selokar, N.L. Electroporation-based CRISPR gene editing in adult buffalo fibroblast cells. Anim. Biotech. 2023, 34, 5055–5066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. de Oliveira, V.C.; Gomes Mariano Junior, C.; Belizário, J.E.; Krieger, J.E.; Fernandes Bressan, F.; Roballo, K.C.S.; Fantinato-Neto, P.; Meirelles, F.V.; Chiaratti, M.R.; Concordet, J.P.; et al. Characterization of Post-Edited Cells Modified in the TFAM Gene by CRISPR/Cas9 Technology in the Bovine Model. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Taniuchi, S.; Miyake, M.; Tsugawa, K.; Oyadomari, M.; Oyadomari, S. Integrated Stress Response of Vertebrates is Regulated by Four eIF2α Kinases. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 32886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Square, T.; Romášek, M.; Jandzik, D.; Cattell, M.V.; Klymkowsky, M.; Medeiros, D.M. CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Mutagenesis in the Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus: A Powerful Tool for Understanding Ancestral Gene Functions in Vertebrates. Development 2015, 142, 4180–4187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Zhang, R.; Wu, H.; Lian, Z. Bioinformatics Analysis of Evolutionary Characteristics and Biochemical Structure of FGF5 Gene in Sheep. Gene 2019, 720, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Aguillon, R.; Rinsky, M.; Simon-Blecher, N.; Doniger, T.; Appelbaum, L.; Levy, O. CLOCK evolved in cnidaria to synchronize internal rhythms with diel environmental cues. Elife 2024, 12, RP89499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Jacobus, A.P.; Cavassana, S.D.; de Oliveira, I.I.; Barreto, J.A.; Rohwedder, E.; Frazzon, J.; Basso, T.P.; Basso, L.C.; Gross, J. Optimal trade-off between boosted tolerance and growth fitness during adaptive evolution of yeast to ethanol shocks. Biotechnol. Biofuels Bioprod. 2024, 17, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Takahashi, K.; Yamanaka, S. Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors. Cell 2006, 126, 663–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Nogueira, I.P.M.; Costa, G.M.J.; Lacerda, S.M.D.S.N. Avian iPSC Derivation to Recover Threatened Wild Species: A Comprehensive Review in Light of Well-Established Protocols. Animals 2024, 14, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. de Figueiredo Pessôa, L.V.; Bressan, F.F.; Freude, K.K. Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Throughout the Animal Kingdom: Availability and Applications. World J. Stem Cells. 2019, 11, 491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Ben-Nun, I.F.; Montague, S.C.; Houck, M.L.; Ryder, O.; Loring, J.F. Generation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mammalian Endangered Species. Methods Mol. Biol. 2015, 1330, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  126. Hirata, M.; Ichiyanagi, T.; Katoh, H.; Hashimoto, T.; Suzuki, H.; Nitta, H.; Kawase, M.; Nakai, R.; Imamura, M.; Ichiyanagi, K. Sequence divergence and retrotransposon insertion underlie interspecific epigenetic differences in primates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2022, 39, msac208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Zhang, J.; Zhao, L.; Fu, Y.; Liu, F.; Wang, Z.; Li, Y.; Zhao, G.; Sun, W.; Wu, B.; Song, Y.; et al. Reprogramming efficiency and pluripotency of mule iPSCs over its parents. Biol. Reprod. 2023, 108, 887–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Honda, A.; Choijookhuu, N.; Izu, H.; Kawano, Y.; Inokuchi, M.; Honsho, K.; Lee, A.R.; Nabekura, H.; Ohta, H.; Tsukiyama, T.; et al. Flexible adaptation of male germ cells from female iPSCs of endangered Tokudaia osimensis. Sci. Adv. 2017, 12, e1602179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Honda, A. Applying iPSCs for Preserving Endangered Species and Elucidating the Evolution of Mammalian Sex Determination. Bioessays 2018, 40, e1700152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Whitworth, D.J.; Limnios, I.J.; Gauthier, M.E.; Weeratunga, P.; Ovchinnikov, D.A.; Baillie, G.; Grimmond, S.M.; Graves, J.A.M.; Wolvetang, E.J. Platypus Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: The Unique Pluripotency Signature of a Monotreme. Stem Cells Dev. 2019, 28, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Tan, E.; Chin, C.S.H.; Lim, Z.F.S.; Ng, S.K. HEK293 Cell Line as a Platform to Produce Recombinant Proteins and Viral Vectors. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021, 9, 796991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Toomey, M.B.; Marques, C.I.; Araújo, P.M.; Huang, D.; Zhong, S.; Liu, Y.; Schreiner, G.D.; Myers, C.A.; Pereira, P.; Afonso, S.; et al. A Mechanism for Red Coloration in Vertebrates. Curr. Biol. 2022, 32, 4201–4214.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Bendernou, N.; Tacher, S.; Robin, S.; Rakotomanga, M.; Senger, F.; Galibert, F. Functional Analysis of a Subset of Olfactory Receptor Genes. J. Hered. 2007, 98, 500–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Poliakov, E.; Gubin, A.N.; Stearn, O.; Li, Y.; Campos, M.M.; Gentleman, S.; Rogozin, I.B.; Redmond, T.M. Origin and Evolution of Retinoid Isomerization Machinery in Vertebrate Visual Cycle: Hint from Jawless Vertebrates. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e49975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Sun, A.; Chen, S.L.; Gao, F.T.; Li, H.L.; Liu, X.F.; Wang, N.; Sha, Z.X. Establishment and Characterization of a Gonad Cell Line from Half-Smooth Tongue Sole Cynoglossus semilaevis Pseudomale. Fish Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 41, 673–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Callol, A.; Roher, N.; Amaro, C.; MacKenzie, S. Characterization of PAMP/PRR Interactions in European Eel (Anguilla anguilla) Macrophage-like Primary Cell Cultures. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2013, 35, 1216–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Housman, G.; Briscoe, E.; Gilad, Y. Evolutionary Insights into Primate Skeletal Gene Regulation Using a Comparative Cell Culture Model. PLoS Genet. 2022, 18, e1010073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Roboon, J.; Hattori, T.; Nguyen, D.T.; Ishii, H.; Takarada-Iemata, M.; Kannon, T.; Hosomichi, K.; Maejima, T.; Saito, K.; Shinmyo, Y.; et al. Isolation of Ferret Astrocytes Reveals Their Morphological, Transcriptional, and Functional Differences from Mouse Astrocytes. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 2022, 16, 877131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Singhal, N.S.; Bai, M.; Lee, E.M.; Luo, S.; Cook, K.R.; Ma, D.K. Cytoprotection by a Naturally Occurring Variant of ATP5G1 in Arctic Ground Squirrel Neural Progenitor Cells. eLife 2020, 9, e55578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Vara, C.; Paytuví-Gallart, A.; Cuartero, Y.; Álvarez-González, L.; Marín-Gual, L.; Garcia, F.; Florit-Sabater, B.; Capilla, L.; Sanchéz-Guillén, R.A.; Sarrate, Z.; et al. The Impact of Chromosomal Fusions on 3D Genome Folding and Recombination in the Germ Line. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Erkenbrack, E.M.; Maziarz, J.D.; Griffith, O.W.; Liang, C.; Chavan, A.R.; Nnamani, M.C.; Wagner, G.P. The mammalian Decidual Cell Evolved from a Cellular Stress Response. PLoS Biol. 2018, 16, e2005594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Karim, N.; Lin, L.W.; Van Eenennaam, J.P.; Fangue, N.A.; Schreier, A.D.; Phillips, M.A.; Rice, R.H. Epidermal Cell Cultures from White and Green Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus and medirostris): Expression of TGM1-like Transglutaminases and CYP4501A. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0265218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Yoo, J.; Jung, Y.; Char, K.; Jang, Y. Advances in cell coculture membranes recapitulating in vivo microenvironments. Trends Biotechnol. 2023, 41, 214–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Clatworthy, A.L. Neural-immune interactions--an evolutionary perspective. Neuroimmunomodulation 1998, 5, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Shen, J.X.; Youhanna, S.; Zandi Shafagh, R.; Kele, J.; Lauschke, V.M. Organotypic and Microphysiological Models of Liver, Gut, and Kidney for Studies of Drug Metabolism, Pharmacokinetics, and Toxicity. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2020, 33, 38–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Primary cultures of fibroblasts, such as these from a turtle (left) and a bird (right) are the most used model for studies of comparative physiology. They are widely distributed in connective tissue, are easily isolated from tissue biopsies, grow readily in many different media formulations, and have a high proliferative potential. 4X magnification.
Figure 1. Primary cultures of fibroblasts, such as these from a turtle (left) and a bird (right) are the most used model for studies of comparative physiology. They are widely distributed in connective tissue, are easily isolated from tissue biopsies, grow readily in many different media formulations, and have a high proliferative potential. 4X magnification.
Ijms 25 07905 g001
Figure 2. Primary cell cultures derived from tissue biopsies can be used to address fundamental questions in evolutionary biology such as phylogenetic reconstruction using chromosome spreads (top), the mechanistic basis for differential survival among species (middle), or the relationship between cellular and whole animal physiology within individual species (bottom).
Figure 2. Primary cell cultures derived from tissue biopsies can be used to address fundamental questions in evolutionary biology such as phylogenetic reconstruction using chromosome spreads (top), the mechanistic basis for differential survival among species (middle), or the relationship between cellular and whole animal physiology within individual species (bottom).
Ijms 25 07905 g002
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Harper, J.M. Primary Cell Culture as a Model System for Evolutionary Molecular Physiology. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 7905. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25147905

AMA Style

Harper JM. Primary Cell Culture as a Model System for Evolutionary Molecular Physiology. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2024; 25(14):7905. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25147905

Chicago/Turabian Style

Harper, James M. 2024. "Primary Cell Culture as a Model System for Evolutionary Molecular Physiology" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25, no. 14: 7905. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25147905

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop