Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Article Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Editorial Fellowship
    • Editorial Fellowship Team
    • Editorial Fellowship Application Process
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Impact Factor
    • Reprints
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Article Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Editorial Fellowship
    • Editorial Fellowship Team
    • Editorial Fellowship Application Process
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Impact Factor
    • Reprints
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Follow JASN on Twitter
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow JASN on RSS
  • Community Forum
Review
You have accessRestricted Access

Regrow or Repair: An Update on Potential Regenerative Therapies for the Kidney

Melissa H. Little and Benjamin D. Humphreys
JASN January 2022, 33 (1) 15-32; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2021081073
Melissa H. Little
1Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
2Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Melissa H. Little
Benjamin D. Humphreys
4Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri
5Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Benjamin D. Humphreys
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

Abstract

Fifteen years ago, this journal published a review outlining future options for regenerating the kidney. At that time, stem cell populations were being identified in multiple tissues, the concept of stem cell recruitment to a site of injury was of great interest, and the possibility of postnatal renal stem cells was growing in momentum. Since that time, we have seen the advent of human induced pluripotent stem cells, substantial advances in our capacity to both sequence and edit the genome, global and spatial transcriptional analysis down to the single-cell level, and a pandemic that has challenged our delivery of health care to all. This article will look back over this period of time to see how our view of kidney development, disease, repair, and regeneration has changed and envision a future for kidney regeneration and repair over the next 15 years.

  • kidney development
  • stem cell
  • regenerative therapies
  • single-cell expression profiling
  • pluripotent stem cell
  • directed differentiation
  • tissue repair
  • gene editing

The incidence of CKD continues to rise across the globe with clear recognition of this as a major global health challenge by the World Health Organization. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study reported that, in 2015, 1.2 million people died from kidney failure, an increase of 32% since 2005. The drivers for this increase are an aging population, the obesity epidemic, and a steep increase in diabetes. The indirect involvement of CKD in diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease leads to an underestimation of the global morbidity and mortality attributed to CKD. For example, the GBD 2015 study estimated that over 1 million deaths, 19 million disability-adjusted life-years, and 18 million years of life lost from cardiovascular diseases were directly attributable to CKD.1 Despite this growing incidence, there have been few major advances in the treatment of ESKD for the past 70 years.2 Although human-to-human kidney transplantation was pioneered in the 1950s,3 successful immunosuppression was not achieved until the early 1960s,4 initially relying upon cyclosporine and steroids, but with more modern approaches including the use of tacrolimus and T cell antibodies. The long-term hope is to reach drugfree immunosuppression; however, this does not address the challenge of organ availability. Despite the introduction of live donor transplantation, it is estimated that only one in four patients with end stage renal failure will successfully receive a transplanted kidney. At present, the only alternative is dialysis—either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Willem Kolff is credited with developing hemodialysis, first successfully applied in 1945.5 Since that time there have been incremental advances in the use of distinct dialysis approaches, application to children and young adults, and attempts to simplify the process and reduce the size of dialyzers. However, dialysis continues to be associated with considerable morbidity and mortality.

It was on the background of advances in our understanding of stem cell populations within other adult organs that the concept of encouraging kidney repair or regeneration using stem cells became an attractive possibility. Although tissue turnover and repair were evident in organs such as the skin and the lining of the gut, these processes were not regarded as possible in many adult organs, including the kidney, in which there was little evidence of ongoing cellular proliferation. The identification of postnatal neural stem cells in the brain6 challenged this concept. At almost the same time, the successful derivation of pluripotent embryonic stem cells from a human blastocyst suggested a new era of stem cell–derived tissue engineering. Although mouse embryonic stem cells were already used routinely to initiate transgenic mouse chimeras for the study of disease, the ability to direct the differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) to a specific tissue type opened many doors. In 2006, the potential of stem cell therapies was reviewed in this journal.7 That review pre-dated the observations of Takahashi and Yamanaka in the same year that an adult mouse somatic cell could be reprogrammed to an state of pluripotency equivalent to a human embryonic stem cell,8 a finding that has revolutionized the stem cell field. In the following 15 years, our understanding of kidney repair and homeostasis, the process of cellular dedifferentiation to take on a new state, and the ability to create human kidney cell types in vitro, have all dramatically increased. This has been enabled by exponential changes in our ability to image cells across time and space, transcriptionally interrogate and manipulate individual cell states, and both sequence and readily manipulate the human genome. Along the way, some of the previously proposed approaches have proven to be dead ends. In this update on progress in the field of renal regeneration, we will return to the state of play in 2006, describe the technological advances that have changed our view, and discuss three clear options with which to repair or regrow human kidneys for the treatment of renal failure.

Proposed Renal Therapeutic Options in 2006

Novel renal therapeutic options encompass two treatments paradigms: the repair of a damaged organ to return function or the de novo replacement of that organ with cells, bioengineered devices, or engineered tissue. Within organ repair, options proposed were the delivery of stem cells isolated and expanded ex vivo or the in situ repair of the organ via tissue stem cells (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Original diagram of renal regeneration options illustrating proposed approaches to organ repair, including in situ kidney repair and ex vivo renal stem cell approaches, or de novo regenerative options.7

Recruitment of Stem Cells to the Kidney

Studies suggested that stem cells from distant organs were able to home to a site of injury and transdifferentiate into a replacement cell type, such as renal tubular epithelium. In most instances, such cells were regarded as hematopoietic in origin, with the suggestion that it may be possible to deliver these cells from a nonautologous donor for the treatment of renal injury.9⇓⇓⇓–13 Such studies in kidney have since been questioned due to the clear evidence of fusion between incoming-labeled cells and the resident cell type14 and the likelihood that the very low level of contribution from the exogenous cell source was unlikely to significantly contribute to repair.15,16 Although fusion per se does not eliminate the possibility that such an event was reparative, as had been reported for the rejuvenation of Purkinje cells in the brain,17 this pathway of investigation has not proven fruitful.

Adult Kidney Stem Cells

Rather than recruitment from a distant site, there was a growing argument that all postnatal organs, including the kidney, contained stem cells responsible for homeostasis and repair. Hence, stimulation of endogenous adult kidney stem cells or the isolation and redelivery of such stem cells may have been reparative (Figure 1). Were an adult kidney stem cell present, it was evident that in patients such stem cells were failing to rescue CKD. However, the identification of previously elusive stem cells in other tissues drove a large amount of research into their identification in the adult mammalian kidney. Such studies used staining for putative stem cell markers,18 bromodeoxyuridine pulse-labeling to search for slow-cycling label-retaining progenitors,19,20 evidence of cells able to clonally form colonies in vitro21,22 or Hoescht dye efflux,23,24 all of which were parameters used to previously define stem cells/progenitors in other tissues. Although still a contentious area, these studies did report evidence of the capacity for injured renal tubules to repair on the basis of the survival of a subset of cells post injury. Whether these were surviving mature epithelial cells, mature cells that dedifferentiated to elicit repair, or a subpopulation of cells with unique regenerative properties will be discussed in detail below. What is clear is that there is no evidence in any mammalian species of an ability to generate new nephrons in a postnatal kidney, with or without an injury trigger. Hence, there is no postnatal pan-nephron progenitor. Further studies in mouse, and more recently in human, have improved our understanding of nephron formation during embryogenesis, but rather than advancing therapies with adult kidney stem cells, this new knowledge has driven the application of pluripotent stem cells.

Early studies of acute renal injury also suggested that mesenchymal stromal cells (also called mesenchymal stem cells [MSCs]), initially characterized from the bone marrow as a cell type able to differentiate into stromal cell types, possess a broader capacity for transdifferentiation and may be useful for the treatment of kidney disease.25⇓–27 MSCs were readily expanded in vitro and were regarded as immunoprivileged upon transplantation, making them an ideal off-the-shelf adult stem cell product. There has been intense focus on this cell type for the treatment of an incredible variety of conditions, including large numbers of ongoing clinical trials. However, the evidence now suggests that MSCs produce secreted paracrine factors that may ameliorate an existing inflammatory condition and play no genuine role in cellular replacement.28,29 Indeed, clinical studies would suggest that infused MSCs do not survive after injection.30 The promising application of MSCs for the treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease supports a capacity to modify immune responses.31 Many reports describe a wide variety of chemokines and other cytokines produced by MSCs, including IL-6, HGF, IDO, SDF1, IGF, and HO-1, along with increased exosome production.32 Hence, it remains possible that such cells will find utility in immunomodulation. However, the definitive causal link between such factors and the observed response is not clear. In nephrology, although a number of clinical trials have shown the potential utility of autologous MSC infusion in reducing acute rejection and withdrawing immunosuppression after renal transplantation,33 there is little evidence that these cells effectively treat CKD.34,35

Dedifferentiation

A concept in its infancy at the time of the last review, it was hypothesized that we may be able to reimpose a distinct cellular state via the enforced expression of key genes driving cellular identity. In this way, it may be possible to drive the adoption of a specific cellular identity, thereby generating cells able to repair or rejuvenate damaged tissues. This idea suggested the possibility of recreating kidney progenitor states for the purposes of tissue engineering. Although early studies in other systems showed a capacity to actively reprogram a cellular state via the overexpression of individual transcription factors,36 this research mostly focused on transitioning between individual hematopoietic lineages.37⇓–39 Since that time, several groups have illustrated a proof-of-principle for this approach, defining minimal transcription factor combinations able to reprogram from adult epithelial cell to nephron progenitor40 or from fibroblast to renal epithelium.41 The induction of nephron progenitors38 relied upon a transcriptional characterization of this state in vivo, as described below. This concept of dedifferentiation or transdifferentiation via the expression of critical gene networks is now readily being applied with global transcriptional profiling and sophisticated bioinformatic algorithms predicting how to change one cellular state into another.42 Indeed, the targeted generation of a homogenous cellular state from a pluripotent stem cell is now frequently enforced using gene overexpression.43

In 2006, the laboratory of Takahashi and Yamanaka performed a limited genetic screen in mouse actively selecting for combinations of genes able to dedifferentiate an adult fibroblast to a pluripotent state equivalent to the inner cell mass of the blastocyst.8 Subsequently demonstrated using human somatic cells,44 this astounding observation has revolutionized the stem cell field, providing an opportunity to recreate pluripotent stem cells from any individual. As pluripotent stem cells, these cells should then theoretically be able to generate any other cellular state, including kidney. This will be discussed in detail with respect to the use of such cells to generate human kidney cell types in vitro.

Advancing Our Understanding of Kidney Development across Time and Space in Mouse and Human

Although much research has been focused on investigating regeneration options, the past 15 years has also seen a considerable advance in our understanding of mammalian kidney development and disease. This progress has influenced the approaches now on the table, and provided comprehensive global transcriptional profiles of this process, initially in mouse and more recently in human kidney.

A major breakthrough came with the identification of key genes marking the mesenchyme immediately surrounding the branching ureteric tips in the developing mouse kidney. This mesenchyme, initially regarded as simply a part of the metanephric mesenchyme, was shown to express key transcription factors, including Cited1 and Six2.45,46 Gene deletion of Six2 resulted in premature cessation of branching and loss of nephron formation,46 and lineage tracing for both Cited1 and Six2 showed that this mesenchymal population represented a self-renewing progenitor population that gave rise to all epithelial cell types in the forming nephrons.45,47 As such, this cell type is the nephron progenitor. Many subsequent studies investigated the process of mesenchymal-to-epithelial commitment, identified requirements for FGF9/20 for survival,48 and the requirement for canonical Wnt signaling for both progenitor self-renewal and commitment to nephron formation.49⇓⇓–52 Optimal nephron formation, therefore, was seen to require a tight balance between progenitor turnover and commitment, with this population reciprocally driving the continued branching of the underlying ureteric epithelium. Indeed, mesoscale imaging shows how this balance plays out across time,53 and high-resolution time-lapse imaging has revealed a process whereby the mesenchyme is motile and “swarms” around the ureteric tips, driving organ expansion while providing a source of cells for nephron commitment.54,55 Such studies provided a very detailed window into nephron formation during development. However, this progenitor population was not seen in postnatal mammals with a complete exhaustion of the nephrogenic zone within 2 days of birth in the mouse.56,57 This finding confirmed that there was no opportunity for the postnatal kidney to generate new nephrons. Careful studies of the transcriptional profile and behavior of mouse capping mesenchymal cells/nephron progenitors across embryonic development suggested a shift from early to late progenitors,58 a distinction in identity and capacity with time. The ex vivo transplantation of “old” progenitors back into a “young” cap mesenchyme niche suggested that these old progenitors displayed a renewed capacity to form nephrons, indicating perhaps a retained plasticity dependent upon the surrounding niche. This suggested the identification of the right conditions may allow prolonged support of this cellular state. Many studies into the ligands that support nephron progenitors in vivo were used to develop media for the support of this population ex vivo.59⇓⇓–62 Common to all such media are prolonged low levels of canonical Wnt signaling, with this pathway clearly required both for nephron progenitor self-renewal and commitment to nephrogenesis.51,63 As described above (in Dedifferentiation section), transcriptional profiling was also used to guide approaches for re-enforcing a nephron progenitor state on adult renal epithelial cells.40,64 Although initial studies defined a combination of six transcription factors (SIX1, SIX2, EYA1, HOXA11, OSR1, and SNAI2) able to re-enforce a nephron progenitor state on an adult epithelial cell, dereplication revealed a minimal requirement for only three genes (SIX1, EYA1, and SNAI2).62 The resulting cells were able to contribute to cap mesenchyme and form nephrons when induced to do so.62 As CITED1 deletion has no effect on kidney development, this gene was not included for overexpression65 but was used as a readout of successful reprogramming. Of note, SIX2 was not required. Although SIX2 is expressed in the human nephron progenitor population, SIX1 is also expressed, with this gene possibly more critical in human than in mouse.66

Alongside these functional studies, major efforts were made to globally map gene expression across time and space during first mouse67⇓⇓⇓–71 and then human kidney development.72⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–78 This detailed molecular mapping exercise has developed alongside the technology for transcriptional profiling, such that although this started with spotted cDNA arrays,68 oligonucleotide arrays,67 and validation by section in situ hybridization,67,71,79 single-cell genomic profiling and spatial transcriptomics are now being applied.80 As the resolution of these molecular atlases increases and our capacity to interpret the networks at play expands, so will our understanding of the processes regulating the stem/progenitor cells within the human developing kidney and their congruence with, or divergence from, those of other mammals. This is also identifying the landmarks required to direct the differentiation of stem cells not only to the nephrons but also to the other progenitor cell types required to rebuild a kidney.

Shifting Views on Tubular and Glomerular Repair

At the same time as major advances were being made in our understanding of mammalian kidney development, similar transcriptional and lineage tracing approaches were being applied to our understanding of postnatal epithelial kidney repair. Fifteen years ago, podocytes were viewed as terminally differentiated cells with no capacity for regeneration by mitosis, and with no podocyte progenitor population available for replacement.81 That view has been challenged in the intervening years and remains a topic of active investigation without clear consensus. Several groups used inducible genetic lineage tracing models to permanently label podocytes in glomerular disease models such as FSGS. These studies suggested that lost podocytes can be partially replaced from a nonpodocyte progenitor, and that this process could be augmented pharmacologically.82,83 Interest has focused on two cellular compartments that may house podocyte progenitors: parietal epithelial cells (PECs) and cells of renin lineage. Regarding the former, multiphoton imaging revealed unexpected migration of podocytes into the parietal space and migration of PECs onto the glomerular tuft, suggesting an unappreciated dynamic nature of cells within the glomerulus.84 Indeed, investigators have identified a subset of PECs at the urinary pole expressing the stemness markers CD133 and CD24 (note that CD24 refers to mouse as this is not equivalent in human) and suggest that they can replace either podocytes or tubular epithelia.85,86 Genetic labeling of PECs in mice supports this concept.83,87⇓–89

Other studies have challenged the notion that PECs represent podocyte progenitors. Berger and colleagues reassessed their prior lineage tracing of PECs90 using a different labeling strategy and aging and glomerular hypertrophy to stimulate PEC recruitment. They concluded that PECs do not represent a podocyte progenitor pool, but rather that a small number of committed podocytes reside on the parietal epithelium adjacent to the vascular pole in juveniles and that this population is subsequently recruited onto the glomerular tuft as it enlarges with maturation, but not during homeostasis or injury states.90 Other investigators combined inducible genetic labeling of podocytes with a FACS-based podocyte quantitation method to track podocyte dynamics in aging and injury. They concluded that very limited podocyte renewal occurs only with the most severe podocyte depletion, but could detect none in homeostasis, aging, or glomerular hypertrophy.91 Although these negative findings have been challenged as not inducing a sufficient magnitude of podocyte loss to trigger regeneration, it is clear that a consensus on PECs as potential podocyte progenitors has yet to emerge.89 To further complicate matters, more recent lineage analysis in mice has implicated a subset of vascular smooth muscle cells that express renin as a separate podocyte progenitor pool in FSGS, 5/6 nephrectomy, and aging.88,89,92,93 It is difficult to reconcile these disparate findings. Although more studies are clearly needed, it is our opinion that the traditional view of podocytes as terminally differentiated cells that are not replenished during homeostasis or disease is most likely correct. The reasons for some lineage analyses suggesting otherwise are not clear to us and await independent confirmation.

In contrast to the glomerulus, it has long been appreciated that tubular epithelium can repair after acute injury, but the cellular mechanism for that repair has been a topic of vigorous debate. Fifteen years ago, proximal tubule progenitors were proposed to exist in a variety of locations including bone marrow, the renal interstitium, and the renal papilla. Genetic lineage tracing studies in which either all tubular epithelia (using the Six2-Cre driver) or proximal tubule alone (using the Slc34a1-CreERt2 driver) were labeled, followed by a complete cycle of acute ischemic injury and repair, demonstrated that there was no dilution of epithelial label. This finding indicated that the source of reparative cells was intratubular, ruling out significant contributions from bone marrow or other nontubular kidney sources.94,95 Although these results are largely accepted, controversy remains concerning the intratubular cells responsible for that repair. On the one hand, a strong body of evidence suggests that surviving proximal tubule cells have the capacity to dedifferentiate, losing some markers of terminal differentiation, and then they re-enter the cell cycle to undergo proliferative expansion, reconstituting the tubule. Indeed, lineage analysis with thymidine analogues and clonal analysis of terminally differentiated proximal tubule both suggest a stochastic process of surviving proximal tubule proliferation after injury that is consistent with the notion that any surviving proximal tubule cell can proliferate after injury to repair the tubule.95,96 A separate lineage tracing/clonal analysis study both supports this model and adds new information. It used a Havcr1-CreERt2 driver to label injured proximal tubule (which uniquely express Kim-1/Havcr1 after injury) and demonstrated clonal expansion during repair. This study showed that the cells that proliferate after injury are first injured, providing further support for the notion that any proximal tubule cell that survives the initial AKI insult responds by dedifferentiating and mounting an injury response, followed by proliferation and redifferentiation.97 These results do not support the existence of a proximal tubule progenitor.

On the other hand, a separate body of evidence implicates a fixed intratubular proximal tubule progenitor cell. This model posits that reparative progenitor cells are selectively activated after injury, arguing against the concept that all injured epithelia have an equivalent capacity to repair after injury. Support for this hypothesis comes from the identification of a subset of PECs and proximal tubule expressing CD133 and CD24 with multipotent differentiation capacity in vitro.18,98,99 A follow-up study identified a subset of CD133+ CD24+ cells that also expressed VCAM1 with high proliferative capacity and the ability to differentiate into either podocytes or proximal tubule.100 CD24+ cells in human proximal tubules with a distinct morphology have been independently observed where they are present in a “scattered” fashion and expand in number in human AKI while also taking on expression of the cell proliferation marker, Ki67, and the injury marker, Kim-1.101 Whether these cells represent the hypothesized intratubular progenitor, or rather an individual epithelial cell “caught in the act” of dedifferentiating in situ, remains unresolved.102 Lineage tracing evidence in mouse suggests that such scattered cells are not fixed progenitors90 but there remains disagreement about whether these scattered cells in mouse are equivalent to the human CD24+CD133+ progenitors.85 Other mouse genetic lineage tracing studies favor the fixed intratubular progenitor model. A Pax2-based inducible lineage tracing study has suggested that a Pax2+ fixed subpopulation of intratubular progenitors is responsible for repair.103 A separate lineage tracing study utilized clonal analysis, concluding that intratubular progenitors are all unipotent (e.g., restricted to repopulate the nephron segment from which they arise only) and are differentiated from their nonprogenitor neighbors by Wnt responsiveness.104 At present, which of these dueling models of tubular repair (dedifferentiation versus fixed progenitors) is correct remains unresolved. However, a capacity to harness or enhance such regeneration is an attractive target for the treatment of kidney injury.

The Current View of Renal Therapeutic Options

Clearly, there have been substantial advances in our understanding and our technical capacity to investigate kidney development, postnatal repair, and disease since 2006. As a result, although some proposed approaches to renal regeneration have not progressed, others have radically changed direction (Figure 2). As noted, until 2007, the only available hPSCs were derived from the embryo (human embryonic stem cells)105 and no methods were available for directing their differentiation to kidney. Although approaches were in development for the bioengineering of renal replacement devices, the cell types available for use were all primary isolates.106,107 In the past 15 years, three major technological advances have profoundly influenced this field and many others. Single-cell transcriptional profiling has revolutionized our capacity to dissect normal development and repair processes at great resolution. The development of human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) has enabled the generation of human kidney tissue in vitro without the use of human blastocysts. Finally, CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing, as applied to human iPSC technology, has enabled the complete characterization of such stem cell–derived human kidney tissue and will continue to advance their utility in understanding genetic disease in a human context (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Contemporary view of options available for regenerative therapies in the kidney, highlighting the technology advances that have underpinned these areas of research.

As a result of such technological advances, we can propose three distinct approaches for the development of new therapies in the kidney (Figure 3). Renal regenerative approaches include manipulation of the repair processes to reduce fibrosis and reverse injury or recreation of human kidney tissue for delivery of renal function ex vivo or upon transplantation. Finally, stem cell–derived models of human kidney disease have the potential to improve drug development for the treatment of inherited forms of these diseases (Figure 3).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Summary of our current understanding of responses to kidney injury. (A) Pseudotemporal ordering of proximal tubule (PT) cells during injury and repair on the basis of mouse scRNA-seq data reveal distinct trajectories: successful repair (green) and failed repair (blue). The failed repair cell state does not simply represent ongoing acute injury because the failed repair cell state is characterized by expression of a group of genes that are never expressed in cells that undergo successful repair. Data are from Kirita et al.119 (B) Model for successful versus failed repair. Although the majority of PT epithelia successfully repair after acute injury, a minority adopts a failed repair cell state characterized by increased NFκB activity and the secretion of a variety of proinflammatory and profibrotic cytokines. Figure created with BioRender.com.

Manipulation of the Repair Process To Reduce Fibrosis and Reverse Injury

In recent years, the goal of leveraging the kidney’s intrinsic repair program to reduce fibrosis and the AKI to CKD transition, and thereby improve outcomes, has been intensively studied. Both whole kidney and cell-type–specific transcriptional profiling have yielded many insights concerning the molecular mechanisms of repair and led to novel therapeutic strategies. Early studies consistently identified injury-induced proximal tubule mitochondrial dysfunction accompanied by a metabolic switch from oxidative phosphorylation to glycolysis.108⇓⇓–111 Tran et al. identified downregulation of the transcriptional coactivator peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ coactivator 1-α (PGC1α) as key in driving this metabolic switch.110 The same team later observed that injury-induced downregulation of PGC1α impairs renal recovery by reducing NAD biosynthesis.112 Importantly, either inducible expression of murine Pgc1a in proximal tubule or exogenous administration of the NAD precursor nicotinamide could accelerate renal recovery in AKI.112 Phase 1 trials have shown that exogenous nicotinamide can increase circulating NAD in humans with AKI and was safe and well tolerated.113,114 These studies constitute a compelling proof-of-principle for the strategy of targeting the repair process for therapeutic benefit. Transcriptomic studies have recently yielded other insights into AKI. Both volume depletion and intrinsic kidney injury may reduce GFR to an equal degree, but the transcriptional profiles in these two syndromes are completely different, highlighting the power of unbiased genome-wide approaches to identify subtypes of AKI.115 A similar analysis of the transcriptional trajectory of the AKI to CKD transition in human allograft biopsies identified a conserved set of markers that predicted CKD progression instead of successful repair and even evidence that B lymphocytes may be driving this transition.116,117 These authors analyzed protocol kidney transplant biopsies 1 year after transplant by RNA sequencing and found that a B cell signature most closely correlated with the degree of fibrosis. In a mouse model of AKI to CKD transition, the authors confirmed similar B cell responses including antigen-driven clonal expansion of B lymphocytes in germinal centers, resulting in production of broadly reactive autoantibodies. This surprising and exciting result suggests that long-term kidney damage after AKI is driven at least in part by B lymphocyte maturation and clonal proliferation, ultimately resulting in production of deleterious autoantibodies that promotes ongoing tissue damage, leading to CKD.

The recent application of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) technologies to better understand AKI has also yielded new insights (Figure 3A). Perhaps most notably, scRNA-seq has allowed the characterization of distinct epithelial cell states along the injury and repair spectrum. Two independent studies of murine AKI identified a new proximal tubule cell state termed “failed repair proximal tubule cell” (FR-PTC), a cell state arising in approximately 5%–10% of injured proximal tubules and characterized by a proinflammatory and profibrotic transcriptional profile118,119 (Figure 3B). This cell state increases with age and could also be identified in human AKI. The authors concluded that FR-PTCs may be driving the AKI to CKD transition. A third group, also using scRNA-seq, described FR-PTCs as vulnerable to ferroptotic stress, which was associated with development of a proinflammatory phenotype.120 Whether eliminating FR-PTC might improve repair and decrease fibrosis awaits experimental validation.

Multiomic analyses combining scRNA-seq with single-cell assay for transposase-accessible chromatin sequencing (ATAC-seq) to profile chromatin accessibility represent one area of recent focus. In a multiomic analysis of apparently healthy human kidneys, Muto et al. identified a minority proximal tubule cell characterized by VCAM1 expression and nuclear factor κ light chain enhancer of activated B cells (NFκB) activity even in apparently healthy kidneys.121 These cells are transcriptionally closest to FR-PTC, even though the human kidneys had not undergone acute injury. Intriguingly, the VCAM1+ proximal tubule cluster also expresses CD133 and CD24, suggesting they may represent the putative CD133+/CD24+ intratubular progenitors described above. In a separate multiomic analysis unrelated to VCAM1 and FR-PTCs, Doke et al. identified Dachshund homolog 1 (DACH1) as a potentially causal gene for a particular eGFR-associated genome-wide association study risk locus.122 Using single-cell ATAC-seq data, the team localized the causal cell type by matching the genome-wide association study single nucleotide polymorphism to a cell where that region had open chromatin, leading them to the distal convoluted tubule. Cell-specific Dach1 knockout subsequently led to increased fibrosis after AKI, strongly implicating tubular Dach1 as a kidney disease risk gene. Collectively, these studies illustrate the power of single-cell omics to identify new therapeutic targets to improve AKI outcomes. A limitation of current single-cell approaches is the loss of positional information, and the next frontier in single-cell studies will undoubtedly be the generation of spatially resolved transcriptomic maps of AKI, repair, and failed repair at genome depth. Single-cell resolution proteomics is also advancing our capacity to monitor protein-based effects not apparent at the transcriptional level. The deeper our understanding of the process of injury response and failed versus successful repair, the more likely it will be to influence the outcome in vivo in a patient setting.

Recreation of Human Kidney Tissue Using Stem Cells for Replacement of Renal Function

Although murine embryonic stem cells have been genetically manipulated and used for the study of specific gene mutation in mouse development, the eventual isolation of human embryonic stem cells105 came with a promise of cellular therapy based upon the assumption that such pluripotent cells would be used to generate pure populations of target cell types for delivery back into patients. Despite a significant amount of public debate on the ethics of deriving such lines from human blastocysts, the generation of neural cell types was quickly demonstrated,123 with subsequent evidence of differentiation to cell types representative of all germ layers.124 The capacity to make iPSCs via reprogramming of any somatic cell type8,44 initially removed the ethical concerns about such technology, although the recent generation of human blastocyst-like structures from iPSCs125,126 has ignited new ethical debate. Most methods for the differentiation of hPSCs have drawn on our understanding of the early steps taken during embryogenesis. The embryo, however, does not create a single-cell type but a complex multicellular 3D structure arising via a process of self-organization.127 Indeed, it was quickly appreciated that differentiating cultures of hPSCs also formed 3D multicellular models, which have been referred to as organoids or models of an organ. The spontaneous formation of retina, cerebellum, cerebral cortex, small and large intestine, stomach, lung, pancreas, skin, muscle, and even sensory structures such as inner ear have now been reported.

The first reports of complex stem cell–derived human kidney also adopted a directed differentiation approach based upon an understanding of kidney development in the mouse.125,128⇓⇓⇓–132 Since being initially reported, the cellular complexity and accuracy of such models have been extensively examined at the morphologic and transcriptional levels133⇓⇓–136 and although there are technical differences between methods, most follow a stepwise process designed to commit through posterior primitive streak to intermediate mesoderm and on to nephron progenitor.137 The extensive transcriptional datasets now available for both mouse and human developing kidney have guided the analysis of kidney organoids and revealed the deficits in maturation. Current studies would suggest that although kidney organoids contain significant multicellularity with strong transcriptional accuracy, they are models of trimester 1 to trimester 2 human fetal kidney and not the postnatal organ. Recent characterization of the component endothelial cells suggests that these are immature.138 Kidney organoids are also lacking ureteric tips/epithelium, resulting in the absence of a true nephrogenic niche; can contain off-target populations; and are missing some stromal cell types. More recently, a number of methods have been developed to separately differentiate hPSCs to generate human ureteric epithelium139⇓–141 or transdifferentiate this from hPSC-derived distal nephron,142 with some evidence that the combination of ureteric epithelium–containing and nephron progenitor–containing cultures recreates a more complex and mature structure.143 It may be that the separate generation of multiple required progenitors and the appropriate recombination of each cell type at an appropriate ratio and spatial arrangement will be required to generate a complete model organ and that this alone may improve maturation. Conversely, by deconvoluting the entire process, we are able to dissect the noncell autonomous requirements of human kidney organogenesis in a manner never previously tractable.

As an approach to renal regeneration, the use of hPSC-derived human kidney tissue falls far short of a mature organ at the level of scale, effective renal capacity (nephron number), and anatomic structure. However, transplantation of existing kidney organoids into immunocompromised recipient animals has revealed rapid host-derived vascularization resulting in substantial tubular maturation at the ultrastructural and transcriptional levels135,144,145 (Figure 4). More exciting has been the formation of complete glomerular capillary beds contiguous with the vasculature of the host immunocompromised mouse, with evidence of the formation of a glomerular filtration barrier that is not only tight, but displays a sieving coefficient not dissimilar to what would be anticipated in vivo in the human.146 For such transplanted tissue to provide functional renal replacement, it must have enough nephrons and have all of these nephrons patent and connected to an exit path to remove the urinary filtrate. A major challenge has been the observation of “off-target” tissue formation with time, particularly cartilage.144,145,147 Whether this arises as a result of an inappropriate stromal population within the organoids or as a response to the environment at transplantation is still under debate. Although these remain enormous obstacles, the application of tissue engineering is beginning to address challenges such as scaling up the number of nephrons55 or addressing cellular manufacturing challenges.148⇓–150 In addition, the ability to differentiate individual renal cell types from hPSCs represents an opportunity for the development of cellularized devices for the delivery of some aspects of renal function (Figure 4). The recreation of an entire human kidney surely remains one of the most challenging of tissue engineering objectives, but the remarkable advances in our ability to generate human renal cell types will completely change the possibilities across the coming decade.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Illustration of how human stem cell–derived kidney organoids and cell types may be used for disease modeling or regenerative therapies. hPSCs can be derived from the inner cell mass (ICM) of a human blastocyst or via direct reprogramming from any adult somatic cell, including cells from a patient who has a known mutation or VOUS detected using next generation sequencing. The resulting hPSCs can be gene edited using CRISPR/Cas9 to correct putative patient mutations, introduce novel mutations, or create modified cells that read out cellular state or identity. The generation of kidney organoids is possible via the directed differentiation of hPSCs based upon our understanding of development. Such kidney organoids are being evaluated for maturation and function post-transplantation in immunocompromised mouse models to optimize tissue for renal replacement. Individual cell types can be generated from iPSCs or isolated from kidney organoids for use in drug screening or as a cell source in biodevices. Finally, hPSC-derived models of the kidney or specific kidney cell types can be used as human models of disease for the development of drugs. Generated using BioRender.com.

Developing Therapies for Inherited Kidney Disease Based on Stem Cell–Derived Models

Inherited kidney disease is estimated to have a prevalence of 70.6 per million age-representative population,151 with mutations in >400 genes now described as being associated with kidney disease.152,153 Since the completion and compilation of the first human genome sequence in 2003, advances in next generation sequencing have led to increased speed and reduced costs for whole exome, and now whole genome, sequencing such that this is now being provided as a diagnostic tool in clinical settings around the globe.154,155 Although diagnostic sequencing is improving the rate of providing definitive genetic diagnoses, research genomics is rapidly increasing the identification of potentially causative mutations or variants of unknown significance (VOUSs).156⇓–159 The ability to accurately model such VOUSs will be critical to linking them with disease phenotypes. A definitive genetic diagnosis, or even a putative VOUS, enables the generation and gene correction of putative mutations to create patient and isogenic pluripotent stem cell lines, and the gene editing of control lines to generate allelic series160,161 (Figure 4). In this way, stem cell biology, gene editing, and genomic sequencing have the potential to change the drug development pipeline (Figure 4). Rather than creating cells for treatment or regenerating damaged tissue, we can create accurate models of human genetic kidney disease to screen for compounds that may provide personalized treatments. The use of CRISPR-edited or patient-derived pluripotent stem cells to recapitulate disease phenotypes in vitro is now well established for cystic kidney disease/tubulopathies128,142,162⇓⇓–165 and glomerulopathies.166⇓⇓–169 Indeed, the utility of hPSC-derived organoids both to validate disease association for a novel podocytopathy gene, NOS1AP,167 and to evaluate the utility of a specific treatment for Mucin1 kidney disease162 has been demonstrated. This raises the prospect of screening for the repurposing of existing drugs or the development of novel lead compounds for therapy (Figure 4). hPSC-derived kidney organoids may well prove a valuable approach to screening for nephrotoxicity before a clinical trial, with proof-of-concept of this now demonstrated.55 Both of these approaches will require modifications to culture conditions to increase throughput. Several studies have applied bioprocessing approaches during organoid generation, including liquid handling robotics and cellular bioprinting, to improve quality control and throughput.55,170 Although this will be critical to develop further, organoid-based drug screening will likely require high content analysis of 10–10,000 compounds, as opposed to the millions of compounds feasible in high throughput screening. However, such organoid-based high content screening may be coupled with high throughput screening on simpler 2D cell cultures, allowing a more accurate prioritization of lead compounds for further optimization. Although this avenue of therapy development is not a regenerative or cellular therapy, the ability to more accurately model human kidney disease in vitro may well have a larger impact on novel treatments for kidney disease than cellular therapy. Were we able to reach the point where an hPSC-derived kidney could more accurately mimic the adult kidney, this may provide additional avenues for the study of repair.

The Next Wave of Advances

Just as some approaches are no longer on the table, others remain in infancy, but may well deliver outcomes in the future. These strategies include efficient in situ dedifferentiation to enable tissue regeneration within the patient, the creation of xenogenic humanized organs, and the combination of cells and devices to provide either transplantable or ex vivo renal replacement. As noted above, transcriptional reprogramming from one cell state to another in vitro is now feasible. If appropriately targeted and controlled, it may be possible to reprogram specific target cell types in vivo to elicit repair. In the heart, viral reprogramming of cardiac fibroblasts toward cardiomyocytes171⇓⇓–174 and the induced reinitiation of cell proliferation in cardiomyocytes175,176 are being developed. Delivering such an approach in kidney will need to consider which cell types to generate and whether this will be disruptive or productive for ongoing tissue function. Indeed, one of the challenges of reinitiating cardiomyocyte proliferation is the potential for disruption to contractility or conductivity in the process, which may be life-threatening.

The staggering complexity of kidney architecture is such that recreating such an intricate organ in totality may never be possible, or even to replace selected renal functions, with stem cell–derived engineered tissue. The xenogenic generation of human kidneys within a nonhuman host animal via blastocyst complementation is being investigated as an alternative.177 A proof-of-concept experiment for this approach delivered mouse pluripotent stem cells into blastocysts of either a Sall1-deficient mouse or rat strain, resulting in a kidney entirely generated from the donor, except the collecting ducts and microvasculature.178,179 Because the vasculature was host-derived, were this to be successful using hPSCs into a xenogenic host, the resulting chimeric organ would elicit hyperacute rejection. Although the host animal may be genetically engineered to be unable to contribute to a particular target organ, the human donor cells may contribute to both that target organ along with any other tissue of the host animal, including the brain. This represents a considerable ethical concern. Donor pluripotent cells from humans create the prospect of humanized tissue throughout the host. One approach to address this challenge has been the preinduction of genes driving a specific differentiation trajectory. For example, induced Mixl1 expression in mouse embryonic stem cells restricted contribution of donor cells to endodermal tissues, facilitating selective pancreas formation in a Pdx1-knockout recipient blastocyst.180 “Mouse into mouse” and some but not all “mouse into rat” and “rat into mouse” proof-of-concept studies have been successful. However, there have been challenges to the successful generation of xenogenic animals using blastocyst complementation between human and other organisms, including pig and mouse. This limitation is proposed to arise due to the significant evolutionary barrier between these species. More recent studies suggest improved integration and survival of hPSCs when delivered into a nonhuman primate (Macaca fascicularis) embryo.181 Here again, there are considerable ethical concerns and regulatory barriers in some countries to such practices. Also a completely untested regulatory and health economic environment will present major barriers to implementation.

Finally, there are too many future options to contemplate using combinations of stem cell–derived renal cell types and engineered devices to comprehensively review. For some time, considerable interest focused on the capacity of the decellularized whole kidney scaffold to act as an appropriate framework for organ reconstruction. Although the creation of such a scaffold is entirely feasible,182 even from a human kidney,183 the ability to generate, let alone accurately deliver, the cellular complement required for organ function is unlikely to be achievable. Successful revascularization has been accomplished in mouse, pig, and human scaffolds, including iPSC-derived endothelium,183,184 but successful recreation of functional tubules has not been achieved. To avoid this requirement, and address the hyperacute issues around xenogenic kidneys, a partial decellularization approach to rat and porcine kidneys selectively removed the endothelium, with human placenta-derived endothelial cells replacing it.185 This intervention does not remove the ethical issue around use of xenogenic animals. The functional complement of nephrons that will be required to provide sufficient renal replacement for clinical utility is also quite unresolved. However, the engineering of a wearable cell-based filtration unit101,102 is likely more feasible in the near future than an entire de novo engineered kidney. Although the concept of human primary renal cell–based renal assist devices for the treatment of AKI has been in development for many years, the inclusion of human stem cell–derived, or ultimately patient pluripotent stem cell–derived, requisite cell types is theoretically feasible, but a long way from development.

Conclusion

The future is now bright for innovation in nephrology. Stem cell medicine in the short term is likely to deliver rapid, accurate evaluation of drugs for the treatment of specific forms of inherited kidney disease via high content human tissue-based compound screens. The ability to develop rapid personalized approaches to assessing the appropriateness of a given drug for a patient has been demonstrated in the field of cystic fibrosis186 and may potentially be applied using urine-derived epithelial stem cells or differentiated patient hPSCs. Such stem cell–based models may also prove valuable during drug development outside of nephrology to reduce attrition at clinical trial due to nephrotoxicity. Finally, stem cell–derived human kidney avatars are currently being used to understand the effect of infectious disease, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2,187 providing an additional tool for understanding both inherited and environmental insult to the kidney. Our increasing understanding of how the adult kidney responds to injury, within both an acute and a chronic setting, represents another avenue for the development of drugs or even cellular therapies to improve the endogenous postnatal repair process. Finally, although there is a long way to go, advances in cellular manufacturing and tissue engineering using stem cell–derived human kidney cell types may one day enable the generation of transplantable renal tissue, potentially exceeding the outcomes of dialysis and addressing the lack of available organs for transplantation.

Disclosures

B. Humphreys reports consultancy agreements with Chinook Therapeutics, Janssen, and Pfizer; reports ownership interest with Chinook Therapeutics; reports research funding with Chinook Therapeutics and Janssen; reports honoraria with the American Society of Nephrology; reports patents and inventions with Evotec, AG; is on the editorial board for Seminars in Nephrology, Kidney International, JCI Insight, and American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology; is associate editor of JASN; is vice-president of the American Society of Clinical Investigation; and is on the scientific advisory board for Regenerative Medicine Crossing Borders, Chinook Therapeutics, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. M. H. Little reports research funding with Novo Nordisk; reports patents and inventions with Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and UniQuest Pty Ltd; reports scientific advisor or membership via the editorial board of the following journals: Cell Stem Cell, Development, Developmental Biology, JASN, and Kidney International; is on the advisory board for Nature Reviews Nephrology; and has other interests/relationships as president-elect of the International Society for Stem Cell Research.

Funding

M.H. Little is supported by National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Senior Principal Research Fellow grant GNT1136085. B.D. Humphreys is supported by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant UC2DK126024 from the (Re)Building a Kidney consortium.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.jasn.org.

  • Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Luyckx VA,
    2. Tonelli M,
    3. Stanifer JW
    : The global burden of kidney disease and the sustainable development goals. Bull World Health Organ 96: 414–422D, 2018 doi:10.2471/blt.17.206441
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Barker CF,
    2. Markmann JF
    : Historical overview of transplantation. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 3: a014977, 2013 doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a014977
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Harrison JH,
    2. Merrill JP,
    3. Murray JE
    : Renal homotransplantation in identical twins. Surg Forum 6: 432–436, 1956
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Starzl TE,
    2. Marchioro TL,
    3. Waddell WR
    : The reversal of rejection in human renal homografts with subsequent development of homograft tolerance. Surg Gynecol Obstet 117: 385–395, 1963
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Watts G
    : Willem Johan Kolff. Lancet 373: 1168, 2009 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60673-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. Rietze RL,
    2. Valcanis H,
    3. Brooker GF,
    4. Thomas T,
    5. Voss AK,
    6. Bartlett PF
    : Purification of a pluripotent neural stem cell from the adult mouse brain. Nature 412: 736–739, 2001 doi:10.1038/35089085
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Little MH
    : Regrow or repair: Potential regenerative therapies for the kidney. J Am Soc Nephrol 17: 2390–2401, 2006 doi:10.1681/asn.2006030218
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Takahashi K,
    2. Yamanaka S
    : Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126: 663–676, 2006 doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Cornacchia F,
    2. Fornoni A,
    3. Plati AR,
    4. Thomas A,
    5. Wang Y,
    6. Inverardi L, et al
    : Glomerulosclerosis is transmitted by bone marrow-derived mesangial cell progenitors. J Clin Invest 108: 1649–1656, 2001 doi:10.1172/jci12916
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Imasawa T,
    2. Utsunomiya Y,
    3. Kawamura T,
    4. Zhong YU,
    5. Nagasawa R,
    6. Okabe M, et al
    : The potential of bone marrow-derived cells to differentiate to glomerular mesangial cells. J Am Soc Nephrol 12: 1401–1409, 2001 doi:10.1681/asn.V1271401
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Ito T,
    2. Suzuki A,
    3. Imai E,
    4. Okabe M,
    5. Hori M
    : Bone marrow is a reservoir of repopulating mesangial cells during glomerular remodeling. J Am Soc Nephrol 12: 2625–2635, 2001 doi:10.1681/asn.V12122625
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Ito T,
    2. Suzuki A,
    3. Okabe M,
    4. Imai E,
    5. Hori M
    : Application of bone marrow-derived stem cells in experimental nephrology. Exp Nephrol 9: 444–450, 2001 doi:10.1159/000052644
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Poulsom R,
    2. Forbes SJ,
    3. Hodivala-Dilke K,
    4. Ryan E,
    5. Wyles S,
    6. Navaratnarasah S, et al
    : Bone marrow contributes to renal parenchymal turnover and regeneration. J Pathol 195: 229–235, 2001 doi:10.1002/path.976
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Camargo FD,
    2. Chambers SM,
    3. Goodell MA
    : Stem cell plasticity: From transdifferentiation to macrophage fusion. Cell Prolif 37: 55–65, 2004 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2184.2004.00300.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Duffield JS,
    2. Park KM,
    3. Hsiao LL,
    4. Kelley VR,
    5. Scadden DT,
    6. Ichimura T, et al
    : Restoration of tubular epithelial cells during repair of the postischemic kidney occurs independently of bone marrow-derived stem cells. J Clin Invest 115: 1743–1755, 2005 doi:10.1172/jci22593
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Lin F,
    2. Moran A,
    3. Igarashi P
    : Intrarenal cells, not bone marrow-derived cells, are the major source for regeneration in postischemic kidney. J Clin Invest 115: 1756–1764, 2005 doi:10.1172/jci23015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Weimann JM,
    2. Johansson CB,
    3. Trejo A,
    4. Blau HM
    : Stable reprogrammed heterokaryons form spontaneously in Purkinje neurons after bone marrow transplant. Nat Cell Biol 5: 959–966, 2003 doi:10.1038/ncb1053
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Bussolati B,
    2. Bruno S,
    3. Grange C,
    4. Buttiglieri S,
    5. Deregibus MC,
    6. Cantino D, et al
    : Isolation of renal progenitor cells from adult human kidney. Am J Pathol 166: 545–555, 2005 doi:10.1016/s0002-9440(10)62276-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Maeshima A,
    2. Sakurai H,
    3. Nigam SK
    : Adult kidney tubular cell population showing phenotypic plasticity, tubulogenic capacity, and integration capability into developing kidney. J Am Soc Nephrol 17: 188–198, 2006 doi:10.1681/asn.2005040370
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Oliver JA,
    2. Maarouf O,
    3. Cheema FH,
    4. Martens TP,
    5. Al-Awqati Q
    : The renal papilla is a niche for adult kidney stem cells. J Clin Invest 114: 795–804, 2004 doi:10.1172/jci20921
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Kitamura S,
    2. Yamasaki Y,
    3. Kinomura M,
    4. Sugaya T,
    5. Sugiyama H,
    6. Maeshima Y, et al
    : Establishment and characterization of renal progenitor like cells from S3 segment of nephron in rat adult kidney. FASEB J 19: 1789–1797, 2005 doi:10.1096/fj.05-3942com
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Lusis M,
    2. Li J,
    3. Ineson J,
    4. Christensen ME,
    5. Rice A,
    6. Little MH
    : Isolation of clonogenic, long-term self renewing embryonic renal stem cells. Stem Cell Res (Amst) 5: 23–39, 2010 doi:10.1016/j.scr.2010.03.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Challen GA,
    2. Bertoncello I,
    3. Deane JA,
    4. Ricardo SD,
    5. Little MH
    : Kidney side population reveals multilineage potential and renal functional capacity but also cellular heterogeneity. J Am Soc Nephrol 17: 1896–1912, 2006 doi:10.1681/asn.2005111228
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Hishikawa K,
    2. Marumo T,
    3. Miura S,
    4. Nakanishi A,
    5. Matsuzaki Y,
    6. Shibata K, et al
    : Musculin/MyoR is expressed in kidney side population cells and can regulate their function. J Cell Biol 169: 921–928, 2005 doi:10.1083/jcb.200412167
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Herrera MB,
    2. Bussolati B,
    3. Bruno S,
    4. Fonsato V,
    5. Romanazzi GM,
    6. Camussi G
    : Mesenchymal stem cells contribute to the renal repair of acute tubular epithelial injury. Int J Mol Med 14: 1035–1041, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Morigi M,
    2. Imberti B,
    3. Zoja C,
    4. Corna D,
    5. Tomasoni S,
    6. Abbate M, et al
    : Mesenchymal stem cells are renotropic, helping to repair the kidney and improve function in acute renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 1794–1804, 2004 doi:10.1097/01.asn.0000128974.07460.34
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Yokoo T,
    2. Ohashi T,
    3. Shen JS,
    4. Sakurai K,
    5. Miyazaki Y,
    6. Utsunomiya Y, et al
    : Human mesenchymal stem cells in rodent whole-embryo culture are reprogrammed to contribute to kidney tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 3296–3300, 2005 doi:10.1073/pnas.0406878102
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Lange C,
    2. Tögel F,
    3. Ittrich H,
    4. Clayton F,
    5. Nolte-Ernsting C,
    6. Zander AR, et al
    : Administered mesenchymal stem cells enhance recovery from ischemia/reperfusion-induced acute renal failure in rats. Kidney Int 68: 1613–1617, 2005 doi:10.1111/j.1523-1755.2005.00573.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Tögel F,
    2. Hu Z,
    3. Weiss K,
    4. Isaac J,
    5. Lange C,
    6. Westenfelder C
    : Administered mesenchymal stem cells protect against ischemic acute renal failure through differentiation-independent mechanisms. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 289: F31–F42, 2005 doi:10.1152/ajprenal.00007.2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Galleu A,
    2. Riffo-Vasquez Y,
    3. Trento C,
    4. Lomas C,
    5. Dolcetti L,
    6. Cheung TS, et al
    : Apoptosis in mesenchymal stromal cells induces in vivo recipient-mediated immunomodulation. Sci Transl Med 9: eaam7828, 2017 doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aam7828
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Kebriaei P,
    2. Hayes J,
    3. Daly A,
    4. Uberti J,
    5. Marks DI,
    6. Soiffer R, et al
    : A phase 3 randomized study of remestemcel-L versus placebo added to second-line therapy in patients with steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 26: 835–844, 2020 doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.08.029
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Liang X,
    2. Ding Y,
    3. Zhang Y,
    4. Tse HF,
    5. Lian Q
    : Paracrine mechanisms of mesenchymal stem cell-based therapy: Current status and perspectives. Cell Transplant 23: 1045–1059, 2014 doi:10.3727/096368913x667709
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Reinders MEJ,
    2. Groeneweg KE,
    3. Hendriks SH,
    4. Bank JR,
    5. Dreyer GJ,
    6. de Vries APJ, et al
    : Autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cell therapy with early tacrolimus withdrawal: The randomized prospective, single-center, open-label TRITON study. Am J Transplant 21: 3055–3065, 2021 doi:10.1111/ajt.16528
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    1. Fleig SV,
    2. Humphreys BD
    : Rationale of mesenchymal stem cell therapy in kidney injury. Nephron Clin Pract 127: 75–80, 2014 doi:10.1159/000363680
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Squillaro T,
    2. Peluso G,
    3. Galderisi U
    : Clinical trials with mesenchymal stem cells: An update. Cell Transplant 25: 829–848, 2016 doi:10.3727/096368915x689622
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Davis RL,
    2. Weintraub H,
    3. Lassar AB
    : Expression of a single transfected cDNA converts fibroblasts to myoblasts. Cell 51: 987–1000, 1987 doi:10.1016/0092-8674(87)90585-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Kulessa H,
    2. Frampton J,
    3. Graf T
    : GATA-1 reprograms avian myelomonocytic cell lines into eosinophils, thromboblasts, and erythroblasts. Genes Dev 9: 1250–1262, 1995 doi:10.1101/gad.9.10.1250
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Nerlov C,
    2. Graf T
    : PU.1 induces myeloid lineage commitment in multipotent hematopoietic progenitors. Genes Dev 12: 2403–2412, 1998 doi:10.1101/gad.12.15.2403
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Xie H,
    2. Ye M,
    3. Feng R,
    4. Graf T
    : Stepwise reprogramming of B cells into macrophages. Cell 117: 663–676, 2004 doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(04)00419-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Hendry CE,
    2. Vanslambrouck JM,
    3. Ineson J,
    4. Suhaimi N,
    5. Takasato M,
    6. Rae F, et al
    : Direct transcriptional reprogramming of adult cells to embryonic nephron progenitors. J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 1424–1434, 2013 doi:10.1681/asn.2012121143
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Kaminski MM,
    2. Tosic J,
    3. Kresbach C,
    4. Engel H,
    5. Klockenbusch J,
    6. Müller AL, et al
    : Direct reprogramming of fibroblasts into renal tubular epithelial cells by defined transcription factors. Nat Cell Biol 18: 1269–1280, 2016 doi:10.1038/ncb3437
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Rackham OJ,
    2. Firas J,
    3. Fang H,
    4. Oates ME,
    5. Holmes ML,
    6. Knaupp AS, et al; FANTOM Consortium
    : A predictive computational framework for direct reprogramming between human cell types. Nat Genet 48: 331–335, 2016 doi:10.1038/ng.3487
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Song S,
    2. Ashok A,
    3. Williams D,
    4. Kaufman M,
    5. Duff K,
    6. Sproul A
    : Efficient derivation of excitatory and inhibitory neurons from human pluripotent stem cells stably expressing direct reprogramming factors. Curr Protoc 1: e141, 2021 doi:10.1002/cpz1.141
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. ↵
    1. Takahashi K,
    2. Tanabe K,
    3. Ohnuki M,
    4. Narita M,
    5. Ichisaka T,
    6. Tomoda K, et al
    : Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 131: 861–872, 2007 doi:10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Boyle S,
    2. Misfeldt A,
    3. Chandler KJ,
    4. Deal KK,
    5. Southard-Smith EM,
    6. Mortlock DP, et al
    : Fate mapping using Cited1-CreERT2 mice demonstrates that the cap mesenchyme contains self-renewing progenitor cells and gives rise exclusively to nephronic epithelia. Dev Biol 313: 234–245, 2008 doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2007.10.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Self M,
    2. Lagutin OV,
    3. Bowling B,
    4. Hendrix J,
    5. Cai Y,
    6. Dressler GR, et al
    : Six2 is required for suppression of nephrogenesis and progenitor renewal in the developing kidney. EMBO J 25: 5214–5228, 2006 doi:10.1038/sj.emboj.7601381
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Kobayashi A,
    2. Valerius MT,
    3. Mugford JW,
    4. Carroll TJ,
    5. Self M,
    6. Oliver G, et al
    : Six2 defines and regulates a multipotent self-renewing nephron progenitor population throughout mammalian kidney development. Cell Stem Cell 3: 169–181, 2008 doi:10.1016/j.stem.2008.05.020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Barak H,
    2. Huh SH,
    3. Chen S,
    4. Jeanpierre C,
    5. Martinovic J,
    6. Parisot M, et al
    : FGF9 and FGF20 maintain the stemness of nephron progenitors in mice and man. Dev Cell 22: 1191–1207, 2012 doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2012.04.018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Carroll TJ,
    2. Park JS,
    3. Hayashi S,
    4. Majumdar A,
    5. McMahon AP
    : Wnt9b plays a central role in the regulation of mesenchymal to epithelial transitions underlying organogenesis of the mammalian urogenital system. Dev Cell 9: 283–292, 2005 doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2005.05.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Guo Q,
    2. Kim A,
    3. Li B,
    4. Ransick A,
    5. Bugacov H,
    6. Chen X, et al
    : A β-catenin-driven switch in TCF/LEF transcription factor binding to DNA target sites promotes commitment of mammalian nephron progenitor cells. eLife 10: e64444, 2021 doi:10.7554/eLife.64444
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. ↵
    1. Karner CM,
    2. Das A,
    3. Ma Z,
    4. Self M,
    5. Chen C,
    6. Lum L, et al
    : Canonical Wnt9b signaling balances progenitor cell expansion and differentiation during kidney development. Development 138: 1247–1257, 2011 doi:10.1242/dev.057646
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Lindström NO,
    2. Carragher NO,
    3. Hohenstein P
    : The PI3K pathway balances self-renewal and differentiation of nephron progenitor cells through β-catenin signaling. Stem Cell Reports 4: 551–560, 2015 doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.01.021
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. ↵
    1. Short KM,
    2. Combes AN,
    3. Lefevre J,
    4. Ju AL,
    5. Georgas KM,
    6. Lamberton T, et al
    : Global quantification of tissue dynamics in the developing mouse kidney. Dev Cell 29: 188–202, 2014 doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2014.02.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Combes AN,
    2. Lefevre JG,
    3. Wilson S,
    4. Hamilton NA,
    5. Little MH
    : Cap mesenchyme cell swarming during kidney development is influenced by attraction, repulsion, and adhesion to the ureteric tip. Dev Biol 418: 297–306, 2016 doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.06.028
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. ↵
    1. Lawlor KT,
    2. Vanslambrouck JM,
    3. Higgins JW,
    4. Chambon A,
    5. Bishard K,
    6. Arndt D, et al
    : Cellular extrusion bioprinting improves kidney organoid reproducibility and conformation. Nat Mater 20: 260–271, 2021 doi:10.1038/s41563-020-00853-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. ↵
    1. Hartman HA,
    2. Lai HL,
    3. Patterson LT
    : Cessation of renal morphogenesis in mice. Dev Biol 310: 379–387, 2007 doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2007.08.021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Rumballe BA,
    2. Georgas KM,
    3. Combes AN,
    4. Ju AL,
    5. Gilbert T,
    6. Little MH
    : Nephron formation adopts a novel spatial topology at cessation of nephrogenesis. Dev Biol 360: 110–122, 2011 doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2011.09.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Chen S,
    2. Brunskill EW,
    3. Potter SS,
    4. Dexheimer PJ,
    5. Salomonis N,
    6. Aronow BJ, et al
    : Intrinsic age-dependent changes and cell-cell contacts regulate nephron progenitor lifespan. Dev Cell 35: 49–62, 2015 doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2015.09.009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Brown AC,
    2. Muthukrishnan SD,
    3. Oxburgh L
    : A synthetic niche for nephron progenitor cells. Dev Cell 34: 229–241, 2015 doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2015.06.021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Li Z,
    2. Araoka T,
    3. Wu J,
    4. Liao HK,
    5. Li M,
    6. Lazo M, et al
    : 3D culture supports long-term expansion of mouse and human nephrogenic progenitors. Cell Stem Cell 19: 516–529, 2016 doi:10.1016/j.stem.2016.07.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Tanigawa S,
    2. Naganuma H,
    3. Kaku Y,
    4. Era T,
    5. Sakuma T,
    6. Yamamoto T, et al
    : Activin is superior to BMP7 for efficient maintenance of human iPSC-derived nephron progenitors. Stem Cell Reports 13: 322–337, 2019 doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2019.07.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. ↵
    1. Tanigawa S,
    2. Taguchi A,
    3. Sharma N,
    4. Perantoni AO,
    5. Nishinakamura R
    : Selective in vitro propagation of nephron progenitors derived from embryos and pluripotent stem cells. Cell Rep 15: 801–813, 2016 doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2016.03.076
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Ramalingam H,
    2. Fessler AR,
    3. Das A,
    4. Valerius MT,
    5. Basta J,
    6. Robbins L, et al
    : Disparate levels of beta-catenin activity determine nephron progenitor cell fate. Dev Biol 440: 13–21, 2018 doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2018.04.020
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. ↵
    1. Vanslambrouck JM,
    2. Woodard LE,
    3. Suhaimi N,
    4. Williams FM,
    5. Howden SE,
    6. Wilson SB, et al
    : Direct reprogramming to human nephron progenitor-like cells using inducible piggyBac transposon expression of SNAI2-EYA1-SIX1. Kidney Int 95: 1153–1166, 2019 doi:10.1016/j.kint.2018.11.041
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. ↵
    1. Boyle S,
    2. Shioda T,
    3. Perantoni AO,
    4. de Caestecker M
    : Cited1 and Cited2 are differentially expressed in the developing kidney but are not required for nephrogenesis. Dev Dyn 236: 2321–2330, 2007 doi:10.1002/dvdy.21242
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. O’Brien LL,
    2. Guo Q,
    3. Lee Y,
    4. Tran T,
    5. Benazet JD,
    6. Whitney PH, et al
    : Differential regulation of mouse and human nephron progenitors by the Six family of transcriptional regulators. Development 143: 595–608, 2016 doi:10.1242/dev.127175
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    1. Brunskill EW,
    2. Aronow BJ,
    3. Georgas K,
    4. Rumballe B,
    5. Valerius MT,
    6. Aronow J, et al
    : Atlas of gene expression in the developing kidney at microanatomic resolution [published correction appears in Dev Cell 16: 482, 2008]. Dev Cell 15: 781–791, 2008 doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2008.09.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Challen G,
    2. Gardiner B,
    3. Caruana G,
    4. Kostoulias X,
    5. Martinez G,
    6. Crowe M, et al
    : Temporal and spatial transcriptional programs in murine kidney development. Physiol Genomics 23: 159–171, 2005 doi:10.1152/physiolgenomics.00043.2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Harding SD,
    2. Armit C,
    3. Armstrong J,
    4. Brennan J,
    5. Cheng Y,
    6. Haggarty B, et al
    : The GUDMAP database--an online resource for genitourinary research. Development 138: 2845–2853, 2011 doi:10.1242/dev.063594
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. ↵
    1. McMahon AP,
    2. Aronow BJ,
    3. Davidson DR,
    4. Davies JA,
    5. Gaido KW,
    6. Grimmond S, et al; GUDMAP project
    : GUDMAP: The genitourinary developmental molecular anatomy project. J Am Soc Nephrol 19: 667–671, 2008 doi:10.1681/asn.2007101078
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Yu J,
    2. Valerius MT,
    3. Duah M,
    4. Staser K,
    5. Hansard JK,
    6. Guo JJ, et al
    : Identification of molecular compartments and genetic circuitry in the developing mammalian kidney. Development 139: 1863–1873, 2012 doi:10.1242/dev.074005
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. ↵
    1. Hochane M,
    2. van den Berg PR,
    3. Fan X,
    4. Bérenger-Currias N,
    5. Adegeest E,
    6. Bialecka M, et al
    : Single-cell transcriptomics reveals gene expression dynamics of human fetal kidney development. PLoS Biol 17: e3000152, 2019 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000152
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Holloway EM,
    2. Czerwinski M,
    3. Tsai YH,
    4. Wu JH,
    5. Wu A,
    6. Childs CJ, et al
    : Mapping development of the human intestinal niche at single-cell resolution. Cell Stem Cell 28: 568–580.e4, 2021 doi:10.1016/j.stem.2020.11.008
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. ↵
    1. Lindström NO,
    2. De Sena Brandine G,
    3. Tran T,
    4. Ransick A,
    5. Suh G,
    6. Guo J, et al
    : Progressive recruitment of mesenchymal progenitors reveals a time-dependent process of cell fate acquisition in mouse and human nephrogenesis. Dev Cell 45: 651–660.e4, 2018 doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2018.05.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Lindström NO,
    2. Guo J,
    3. Kim AD,
    4. Tran T,
    5. Guo Q,
    6. De Sena Brandine G, et al
    : Conserved and divergent features of mesenchymal progenitor cell types within the cortical nephrogenic niche of the human and mouse kidney. J Am Soc Nephrol 29: 806–824, 2018 doi:10.1681/asn.2017080890
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. ↵
    1. Lindström NO,
    2. McMahon JA,
    3. Guo J,
    4. Tran T,
    5. Guo Q,
    6. Rutledge E, et al
    : Conserved and divergent features of human and mouse kidney organogenesis. J Am Soc Nephrol 29: 785–805, 2018 doi:10.1681/asn.2017080887
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. ↵
    1. Lindström NO,
    2. Tran T,
    3. Guo J,
    4. Rutledge E,
    5. Parvez RK,
    6. Thornton ME, et al
    : Conserved and divergent molecular and anatomic features of human and mouse nephron patterning. J Am Soc Nephrol 29: 825–840, 2018 doi:10.1681/asn.2017091036
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. ↵
    1. Tran T,
    2. Lindström NO,
    3. Ransick A,
    4. De Sena Brandine G,
    5. Guo Q,
    6. Kim AD, et al
    : In vivo developmental trajectories of human podocyte inform in vitro differentiation of pluripotent stem cell-derived podocytes. Dev Cell 50: 102–116.e6, 2019 doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2019.06.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Georgas K,
    2. Rumballe B,
    3. Valerius MT,
    4. Chiu HS,
    5. Thiagarajan RD,
    6. Lesieur E, et al
    : Analysis of early nephron patterning reveals a role for distal RV proliferation in fusion to the ureteric tip via a cap mesenchyme-derived connecting segment. Dev Biol 332: 273–286, 2009 doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.05.578
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Lindström NO,
    2. Sealfon R,
    3. Chen X,
    4. Parvez R,
    5. Ransick A,
    6. De Sena Brandine G, et al
    : Spatial transcriptional mapping of the human nephrogenic program. Dev Cell: 56: 2381–2398.e6, 2021
    OpenUrl
  81. ↵
    1. Marshall CB,
    2. Shankland SJ
    : Cell cycle regulatory proteins in podocyte health and disease. Nephron, Exp Nephrol 106: e51–e59, 2007 doi:10.1159/000101793
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Kaverina NV,
    2. Eng DG,
    3. Schneider RR,
    4. Pippin JW,
    5. Shankland SJ
    : Partial podocyte replenishment in experimental FSGS derives from nonpodocyte sources. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 310: F1397–F1413, 2016 doi:10.1152/ajprenal.00369.2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Lasagni L,
    2. Angelotti ML,
    3. Ronconi E,
    4. Lombardi D,
    5. Nardi S,
    6. Peired A, et al
    : Podocyte regeneration driven by renal progenitors determines glomerular disease remission and can be pharmacologically enhanced. Stem Cell Reports 5: 248–263, 2015 doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.07.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Hackl MJ,
    2. Burford JL,
    3. Villanueva K,
    4. Lam L,
    5. Suszták K,
    6. Schermer B, et al
    : Tracking the fate of glomerular epithelial cells in vivo using serial multiphoton imaging in new mouse models with fluorescent lineage tags. Nat Med 19: 1661–1666, 2013 doi:10.1038/nm.3405
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Romagnani P,
    2. Rinkevich Y,
    3. Dekel B
    : The use of lineage tracing to study kidney injury and regeneration. Nat Rev Nephrol 11: 420–431, 2015 doi:10.1038/nrneph.2015.67
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Ronconi E,
    2. Sagrinati C,
    3. Angelotti ML,
    4. Lazzeri E,
    5. Mazzinghi B,
    6. Ballerini L, et al
    : Regeneration of glomerular podocytes by human renal progenitors. J Am Soc Nephrol 20: 322–332, 2009 doi:10.1681/asn.2008070709
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  87. ↵
    1. Appel D,
    2. Kershaw DB,
    3. Smeets B,
    4. Yuan G,
    5. Fuss A,
    6. Frye B, et al
    : Recruitment of podocytes from glomerular parietal epithelial cells. J Am Soc Nephrol 20: 333–343, 2009 doi:10.1681/asn.2008070795
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. ↵
    1. Eng DG,
    2. Sunseri MW,
    3. Kaverina NV,
    4. Roeder SS,
    5. Pippin JW,
    6. Shankland SJ
    : Glomerular parietal epithelial cells contribute to adult podocyte regeneration in experimental focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Kidney Int 88: 999–1012, 2015 doi:10.1038/ki.2015.152
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. ↵
    1. Shankland SJ,
    2. Freedman BS,
    3. Pippin JW
    : Can podocytes be regenerated in adults? Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 26: 154–164, 2017 doi:10.1097/mnh.0000000000000311
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Berger K,
    2. Bangen JM,
    3. Hammerich L,
    4. Liedtke C,
    5. Floege J,
    6. Smeets B, et al
    : Origin of regenerating tubular cells after acute kidney injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111: 1533–1538, 2014 doi:10.1073/pnas.1316177111
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. ↵
    1. Wanner N,
    2. Hartleben B,
    3. Herbach N,
    4. Goedel M,
    5. Stickel N,
    6. Zeiser R, et al
    : Unraveling the role of podocyte turnover in glomerular aging and injury. J Am Soc Nephrol 25: 707–716, 2014 doi:10.1681/asn.2013050452
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. ↵
    1. Kaverina NV,
    2. Kadoya H,
    3. Eng DG,
    4. Rusiniak ME,
    5. Sequeira-Lopez ML,
    6. Gomez RA, et al
    : Tracking the stochastic fate of cells of the renin lineage after podocyte depletion using multicolor reporters and intravital imaging. PLoS One 12: e0173891, 2017 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173891
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Lichtnekert J,
    2. Kaverina NV,
    3. Eng DG,
    4. Gross KW,
    5. Kutz JN,
    6. Pippin JW, et al
    : Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition increases podocyte derivation from cells of renin lineage. J Am Soc Nephrol 27: 3611–3627, 2016 doi:10.1681/asn.2015080877
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  94. ↵
    1. Humphreys BD,
    2. Valerius MT,
    3. Kobayashi A,
    4. Mugford JW,
    5. Soeung S,
    6. Duffield JS, et al
    : Intrinsic epithelial cells repair the kidney after injury. Cell Stem Cell 2: 284–291, 2008 doi:10.1016/j.stem.2008.01.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Kusaba T,
    2. Lalli M,
    3. Kramann R,
    4. Kobayashi A,
    5. Humphreys BD
    : Differentiated kidney epithelial cells repair injured proximal tubule. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111: 1527–1532, 2014 doi:10.1073/pnas.1310653110
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  96. ↵
    1. Humphreys BD,
    2. Czerniak S,
    3. DiRocco DP,
    4. Hasnain W,
    5. Cheema R,
    6. Bonventre JV
    : Repair of injured proximal tubule does not involve specialized progenitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 9226–9231, 2011 doi:10.1073/pnas.1100629108
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. ↵
    1. Chang-Panesso M,
    2. Kadyrov FF,
    3. Lalli M,
    4. Wu H,
    5. Ikeda S,
    6. Kefaloyianni E, et al
    : FOXM1 drives proximal tubule proliferation during repair from acute ischemic kidney injury. J Clin Invest 129: 5501–5517, 2019 doi:10.1172/jci125519
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. ↵
    1. Lindgren D,
    2. Boström AK,
    3. Nilsson K,
    4. Hansson J,
    5. Sjölund J,
    6. Möller C, et al
    : Isolation and characterization of progenitor-like cells from human renal proximal tubules. Am J Pathol 178: 828–837, 2011 doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2010.10.026
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. ↵
    1. Sagrinati C,
    2. Netti GS,
    3. Mazzinghi B,
    4. Lazzeri E,
    5. Liotta F,
    6. Frosali F, et al
    : Isolation and characterization of multipotent progenitor cells from the Bowman’s capsule of adult human kidneys. J Am Soc Nephrol 17: 2443–2456, 2006 doi:10.1681/asn.2006010089
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  100. ↵
    1. Angelotti ML,
    2. Ronconi E,
    3. Ballerini L,
    4. Peired A,
    5. Mazzinghi B,
    6. Sagrinati C, et al
    : Characterization of renal progenitors committed toward tubular lineage and their regenerative potential in renal tubular injury. Stem Cells 30: 1714–1725, 2012 doi:10.1002/stem.1130
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. ↵
    1. Smeets B,
    2. Boor P,
    3. Dijkman H,
    4. Sharma SV,
    5. Jirak P,
    6. Mooren F, et al
    : Proximal tubular cells contain a phenotypically distinct, scattered cell population involved in tubular regeneration. J Pathol 229: 645–659, 2013 doi:10.1002/path.4125
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Chang-Panesso M,
    2. Humphreys BD
    : Cellular plasticity in kidney injury and repair. Nat Rev Nephrol 13: 39–46, 2017 doi:10.1038/nrneph.2016.169
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. ↵
    1. Lazzeri E,
    2. Angelotti ML,
    3. Peired A,
    4. Conte C,
    5. Marschner JA,
    6. Maggi L, et al
    : Endocycle-related tubular cell hypertrophy and progenitor proliferation recover renal function after acute kidney injury. Nat Commun 9: 1344, 2018 doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03753-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. Rinkevich Y,
    2. Montoro DT,
    3. Contreras-Trujillo H,
    4. Harari-Steinberg O,
    5. Newman AM,
    6. Tsai JM, et al
    : In vivo clonal analysis reveals lineage-restricted progenitor characteristics in mammalian kidney development, maintenance, and regeneration. Cell Rep 7: 1270–1283, 2014 doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2014.04.018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. Thomson JA,
    2. Itskovitz-Eldor J,
    3. Shapiro SS,
    4. Waknitz MA,
    5. Swiergiel JJ,
    6. Marshall VS, et al
    : Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282: 1145–1147, 1998 doi:10.1126/science.282.5391.1145
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  106. ↵
    1. Buffington DA,
    2. Westover AJ,
    3. Johnston KA,
    4. Humes HD
    : The bioartificial kidney. Transl Res 163: 342–351, 2014 doi:10.1016/j.trsl.2013.10.006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  107. ↵
    1. Johnston KA,
    2. Westover AJ,
    3. Rojas-Pena A,
    4. Buffington DA,
    5. Pino CJ,
    6. Smith PL, et al
    : Development of a wearable bioartificial kidney using the Bioartificial Renal Epithelial Cell System (BRECS). J Tissue Eng Regen Med 11: 3048–3055, 2017 doi:10.1002/term.2206
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  108. ↵
    1. Kang HM,
    2. Ahn SH,
    3. Choi P,
    4. Ko YA,
    5. Han SH,
    6. Chinga F, et al
    : Defective fatty acid oxidation in renal tubular epithelial cells has a key role in kidney fibrosis development. Nat Med 21: 37–46, 2015 doi:10.1038/nm.3762
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  109. ↵
    1. Liu J,
    2. Krautzberger AM,
    3. Sui SH,
    4. Hofmann OM,
    5. Chen Y,
    6. Baetscher M, et al
    : Cell-specific translational profiling in acute kidney injury [published correction appears in J Clin Invest 124: 2288, 2014]. J Clin Invest 124: 1242–1254, 2014 doi:10.1172/jci72126
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. ↵
    1. Tran M,
    2. Tam D,
    3. Bardia A,
    4. Bhasin M,
    5. Rowe GC,
    6. Kher A, et al
    : PGC-1α promotes recovery after acute kidney injury during systemic inflammation in mice. J Clin Invest 121: 4003–4014, 2011 doi:10.1172/jci58662
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. ↵
    1. Wu H,
    2. Lai CF,
    3. Chang-Panesso M,
    4. Humphreys BD
    : Proximal tubule translational profiling during kidney fibrosis reveals proinflammatory and long noncoding RNA expression patterns with sexual dimorphism. J Am Soc Nephrol 31: 23–38, 2020 doi:10.1681/asn.2019040337
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  112. ↵
    1. Tran MT,
    2. Zsengeller ZK,
    3. Berg AH,
    4. Khankin EV,
    5. Bhasin MK,
    6. Kim W, et al
    : PGC1α drives NAD biosynthesis linking oxidative metabolism to renal protection. Nature 531: 528–532, 2016 doi:10.1038/nature17184
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. ↵
    1. Poyan Mehr A,
    2. Tran MT,
    3. Ralto KM,
    4. Leaf DE,
    5. Washco V,
    6. Messmer J, et al
    : De novo NAD+ biosynthetic impairment in acute kidney injury in humans. Nat Med 24: 1351–1359, 2018 doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0138-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. ↵
    1. Simic P,
    2. Vela Parada XF,
    3. Parikh SM,
    4. Dellinger R,
    5. Guarente LP,
    6. Rhee EP
    : Nicotinamide riboside with pterostilbene (NRPT) increases NAD+ in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI): A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, stepwise safety study of escalating doses of NRPT in patients with AKI. BMC Nephrol 21: 342, 2020 doi:10.1186/s12882-020-02006-1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  115. ↵
    1. Xu K,
    2. Rosenstiel P,
    3. Paragas N,
    4. Hinze C,
    5. Gao X,
    6. Huai Shen T, et al
    : Unique transcriptional programs identify subtypes of AKI. J Am Soc Nephrol 28: 1729–1740, 2017 doi:10.1681/asn.2016090974
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  116. ↵
    1. Cippà PE,
    2. Liu J,
    3. Sun B,
    4. Kumar S,
    5. Naesens M,
    6. McMahon AP
    : A late B lymphocyte action in dysfunctional tissue repair following kidney injury and transplantation. Nat Commun 10: 1157, 2019 doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09092-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. ↵
    1. Cippà PE,
    2. Sun B,
    3. Liu J,
    4. Chen L,
    5. Naesens M,
    6. McMahon AP
    : Transcriptional trajectories of human kidney injury progression. JCI Insight 3: e123151, 2018 doi:10.1172/jci.insight.123151
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  118. ↵
    1. Gerhardt LMS,
    2. Liu J,
    3. Koppitch K,
    4. Cippà PE,
    5. McMahon AP
    : Single-nuclear transcriptomics reveals diversity of proximal tubule cell states in a dynamic response to acute kidney injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 118: e2026684118, 2021 doi:10.1073/pnas.2026684118
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  119. ↵
    1. Kirita Y,
    2. Wu H,
    3. Uchimura K,
    4. Wilson PC,
    5. Humphreys BD
    : Cell profiling of mouse acute kidney injury reveals conserved cellular responses to injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117: 15874–15883, 2020 doi:10.1073/pnas.2005477117
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  120. ↵
    1. Ide S,
    2. Kobayashi Y,
    3. Ide K,
    4. Strausser SA,
    5. Abe K,
    6. Herbek S, et al
    : Ferroptotic stress promotes the accumulation of pro-inflammatory proximal tubular cells in maladaptive renal repair. eLife 10: e68603, 2021 doi:10.7554/eLife.68603
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  121. ↵
    1. Muto Y,
    2. Wilson PC,
    3. Ledru N,
    4. Wu H,
    5. Dimke H,
    6. Waikar SS, et al
    : Single cell transcriptional and chromatin accessibility profiling redefine cellular heterogeneity in the adult human kidney. Nat Commun 12: 2190, 2021 doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22368-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  122. ↵
    1. Doke T,
    2. Huang S,
    3. Qiu C,
    4. Liu H,
    5. Guan Y,
    6. Hu H, et al
    : Transcriptome-wide association analysis identifies DACH1 as a kidney disease risk gene that contributes to fibrosis. J Clin Invest 131: e141801, 2021 doi:10.1172/jci141801
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  123. ↵
    1. Itsykson P,
    2. Ilouz N,
    3. Turetsky T,
    4. Goldstein RS,
    5. Pera MF,
    6. Fishbein I, et al
    : Derivation of neural precursors from human embryonic stem cells in the presence of noggin. Mol Cell Neurosci 30: 24–36, 2005 doi:10.1016/j.mcn.2005.05.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  124. ↵
    1. Schuldiner M,
    2. Yanuka O,
    3. Itskovitz-Eldor J,
    4. Melton DA,
    5. Benvenisty N
    : Effects of eight growth factors on the differentiation of cells derived from human embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97: 11307–11312, 2000 doi:10.1073/pnas.97.21.11307
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  125. ↵
    1. Taguchi A,
    2. Kaku Y,
    3. Ohmori T,
    4. Sharmin S,
    5. Ogawa M,
    6. Sasaki H, et al
    : Redefining the in vivo origin of metanephric nephron progenitors enables generation of complex kidney structures from pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 14: 53–67, 2014 doi:10.1016/j.stem.2013.11.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. ↵
    1. Yu L,
    2. Wei Y,
    3. Duan J,
    4. Schmitz DA,
    5. Sakurai M,
    6. Wang L, et al
    : Blastocyst-like structures generated from human pluripotent stem cells. Nature 591: 620–626, 2021 doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03356-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  127. ↵
    1. Sasai Y,
    2. Eiraku M,
    3. Suga H
    : In vitro organogenesis in three dimensions: Self-organising stem cells. Development 139: 4111–4121, 2012 doi:10.1242/dev.079590
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  128. ↵
    1. Freedman BS,
    2. Brooks CR,
    3. Lam AQ,
    4. Fu H,
    5. Morizane R,
    6. Agrawal V, et al
    : Modelling kidney disease with CRISPR-mutant kidney organoids derived from human pluripotent epiblast spheroids. Nat Commun 6: 8715, 2015 doi:10.1038/ncomms9715
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. ↵
    1. Morizane R,
    2. Lam AQ,
    3. Freedman BS,
    4. Kishi S,
    5. Valerius MT,
    6. Bonventre JV
    : Nephron organoids derived from human pluripotent stem cells model kidney development and injury. Nat Biotechnol 33: 1193–1200, 2015 doi:10.1038/nbt.3392
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  130. ↵
    1. Takasato M,
    2. Er PX,
    3. Becroft M,
    4. Vanslambrouck JM,
    5. Stanley EG,
    6. Elefanty AG, et al
    : Directing human embryonic stem cell differentiation towards a renal lineage generates a self-organizing kidney. Nat Cell Biol 16: 118–126, 2014 doi:10.1038/ncb2894
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. ↵
    1. Takasato M,
    2. Er PX,
    3. Chiu HS,
    4. Maier B,
    5. Baillie GJ,
    6. Ferguson C, et al
    : Kidney organoids from human iPS cells contain multiple lineages and model human nephrogenesis. Nature 526: 564–568, 2015 doi:10.1038/nature15695
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. ↵
    1. Xia Y,
    2. Nivet E,
    3. Sancho-Martinez I,
    4. Gallegos T,
    5. Suzuki K,
    6. Okamura D, et al
    : Directed differentiation of human pluripotent cells to ureteric bud kidney progenitor-like cells. Nat Cell Biol 15: 1507–1515, 2013 doi:10.1038/ncb2872
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. ↵
    1. Combes AN,
    2. Zappia L,
    3. Er PX,
    4. Oshlack A,
    5. Little MH
    : Single-cell analysis reveals congruence between kidney organoids and human fetal kidney. Genome Med 11: 3, 2019 doi:10.1186/s13073-019-0615-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  134. ↵
    1. Phipson B,
    2. Er PX,
    3. Combes AN,
    4. Forbes TA,
    5. Howden SE,
    6. Zappia L, et al
    : Evaluation of variability in human kidney organoids. Nat Methods 16: 79–87, 2019 doi:10.1038/s41592-018-0253-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. ↵
    1. Subramanian A,
    2. Sidhom EH,
    3. Emani M,
    4. Vernon K,
    5. Sahakian N,
    6. Zhou Y, et al
    : Single cell census of human kidney organoids shows reproducibility and diminished off-target cells after transplantation. Nat Commun 10: 5462, 2019 doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13382-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  136. ↵
    1. Wu H,
    2. Uchimura K,
    3. Donnelly EL,
    4. Kirita Y,
    5. Morris SA,
    6. Humphreys BD
    : Comparative analysis and refinement of human PSC-derived kidney organoid differentiation with single-cell transcriptomics. Cell Stem Cell 23: 869–881.e8, 2018 doi:10.1016/j.stem.2018.10.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  137. ↵
    1. Little MH,
    2. Combes AN
    : Kidney organoids: Accurate models or fortunate accidents. Genes Dev 33: 1319–1345, 2019 doi:10.1101/gad.329573.119
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  138. ↵
    1. Ryan AR,
    2. England AR,
    3. Chaney CP,
    4. Cowdin MA,
    5. Hiltabidle M,
    6. Daniel E, et al
    : Vascular deficiencies in renal organoids and ex vivo kidney organogenesis. Dev Biol 477: 98–116, 2021 doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2021.04.009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  139. ↵
    1. Mae SI,
    2. Ryosaka M,
    3. Sakamoto S,
    4. Matsuse K,
    5. Nozaki A,
    6. Igami M, et al
    : Expansion of human iPSC-derived ureteric bud organoids with repeated branching potential. Cell Rep 32: 107963, 2020 doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107963
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  140. ↵
    1. Mae SI,
    2. Ryosaka M,
    3. Toyoda T,
    4. Matsuse K,
    5. Oshima Y,
    6. Tsujimoto H, et al
    : Generation of branching ureteric bud tissues from human pluripotent stem cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 495: 954–961, 2018 doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2017.11.105
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  141. ↵
    1. Taguchi A,
    2. Nishinakamura R
    : Higher-order kidney organogenesis from pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 21: 730–746.e6, 2017 doi:10.1016/j.stem.2017.10.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  142. ↵
    1. Howden SE,
    2. Wilson SB,
    3. Groenewegen E,
    4. Starks L,
    5. Forbes TA,
    6. Tan KS, et al
    : Plasticity of distal nephron epithelia from human kidney organoids enables the induction of ureteric tip and stalk. Cell Stem Cell 28: 671–684.e6, 2021 doi:10.1016/j.stem.2020.12.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  143. ↵
    1. Uchimura K,
    2. Wu H,
    3. Yoshimura Y,
    4. Humphreys BD
    : Human pluripotent stem cell-derived kidney organoids with improved collecting duct maturation and injury modeling. Cell Rep 33: 108514, 2020 doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108514
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  144. ↵
    1. Bantounas I,
    2. Ranjzad P,
    3. Tengku F,
    4. Silajdžić E,
    5. Forster D,
    6. Asselin MC, et al
    : Generation of functioning nephrons by implanting human pluripotent stem cell-derived kidney progenitors. Stem Cell Reports 10: 766–779, 2018 doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.01.008
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  145. ↵
    1. van den Berg CW,
    2. Ritsma L,
    3. Avramut MC,
    4. Wiersma LE,
    5. van den Berg BM,
    6. Leuning DG, et al
    : Renal subcapsular transplantation of PSC-derived kidney organoids induces neo-vasculogenesis and significant glomerular and tubular maturation in vivo. Stem Cell Reports 10: 751–765, 2018 doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.01.041
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  146. ↵
    1. van den Berg CW,
    2. Koudijs A,
    3. Ritsma L,
    4. Rabelink TJ
    : In vivo assessment of size-selective glomerular sieving in transplanted human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived kidney organoids. J Am Soc Nephrol 31: 921–929, 2020 doi:10.1681/asn.2019060573
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  147. ↵
    1. Nam SA,
    2. Seo E,
    3. Kim JW,
    4. Kim HW,
    5. Kim HL,
    6. Kim K, et al
    : Graft immaturity and safety concerns in transplanted human kidney organoids. Exp Mol Med 51: 1–13, 2019 doi:10.1038/s12276-019-0336-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  148. ↵
    1. Kumar SV,
    2. Er PX,
    3. Lawlor KT,
    4. Motazedian A,
    5. Scurr M,
    6. Ghobrial I, et al
    : Kidney micro-organoids in suspension culture as a scalable source of human pluripotent stem cell-derived kidney cells. Development 146: dev172361, 2019 doi:10.1242/dev.172361
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  149. ↵
    1. Przepiorski A,
    2. Sander V,
    3. Tran T,
    4. Hollywood JA,
    5. Sorrenson B,
    6. Shih JH, et al
    : A simple bioreactor-based method to generate kidney organoids from pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Reports 11: 470–484, 2018 doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.06.018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  150. ↵
    1. Skylar-Scott MA,
    2. Uzel SGM,
    3. Nam LL,
    4. Ahrens JH,
    5. Truby RL,
    6. Damaraju S, et al
    : Biomanufacturing of organ-specific tissues with high cellular density and embedded vascular channels. Sci Adv 5: eaaw2459, 2019 doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw2459
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  151. ↵
    1. Fletcher J,
    2. McDonald S,
    3. Alexander SI; Australian and New Zealand Pediatric Nephrology Association (ANZPNA)
    : Prevalence of genetic renal disease in children. Pediatr Nephrol 28: 251–256, 2013 doi:10.1007/s00467-012-2306-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  152. ↵
    1. Braun DA,
    2. Hildebrandt F
    : Ciliopathies. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 9: a028191, 2017 doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a028191
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  153. ↵
    1. Little MH,
    2. Quinlan C
    : Advances in our understanding of genetic kidney disease using kidney organoids. Pediatr Nephrol 35: 915–926, 2020 doi:10.1007/s00467-019-04259-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  154. ↵
    1. Jayasinghe K,
    2. Stark Z,
    3. Kerr PG,
    4. Gaff C,
    5. Martyn M,
    6. Whitlam J, et al
    : Clinical impact of genomic testing in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease. Genet Med 23: 183–191, 2021 doi:10.1038/s41436-020-00963-4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  155. ↵
    1. Lunke S,
    2. Eggers S,
    3. Wilson M,
    4. Patel C,
    5. Barnett CP,
    6. Pinner J, et al; Australian Genomics Health Alliance Acute Care Flagship
    : Feasibility of ultra-rapid exome sequencing in critically ill infants and children with suspected monogenic conditions in the Australian public health care system. JAMA 323: 2503–2511, 2020 doi:10.1001/jama.2020.7671
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  156. ↵
    1. Cocchi E,
    2. Nestor JG,
    3. Gharavi AG
    : Clinical genetic screening in adult patients with kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 1497–1510, 2020 doi:10.2215/cjn.15141219
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. de Haan A,
    2. Eijgelsheim M,
    3. Vogt L,
    4. Knoers NVAM,
    5. de Borst MH
    : Diagnostic yield of next-generation sequencing in patients with chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology. Front Genet 10: 1264, 2019 doi:10.3389/fgene.2019.01264
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  157. ↵
    1. Mansilla MA,
    2. Sompallae RR,
    3. Nishimura CJ,
    4. Kwitek AE,
    5. Kimble MJ,
    6. Freese ME, et al
    : Targeted broad-based genetic testing by next-generation sequencing informs diagnosis and facilitates management in patients with kidney diseases. Nephrol Dial Transplant 36: 295–305, 2021 doi:10.1093/ndt/gfz173
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  158. ↵
    1. Vivante A,
    2. Hildebrandt F
    : Exploring the genetic basis of early-onset chronic kidney disease. Nat Rev Nephrol 12: 133–146, 2016 doi:10.1038/nrneph.2015.205
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  159. ↵
    1. Howden SE,
    2. McColl B,
    3. Glaser A,
    4. Vadolas J,
    5. Petrou S,
    6. Little MH, et al
    : A Cas9 variant for efficient generation of indel-free knockin or gene-corrected human pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Reports 7: 508–517, 2016 doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.07.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  160. ↵
    1. Howden SE,
    2. Thomson JA,
    3. Little MH
    : Simultaneous reprogramming and gene editing of human fibroblasts. Nat Protoc 13: 875–898, 2018 doi:10.1038/nprot.2018.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  161. ↵
    1. Dvela-Levitt M,
    2. Kost-Alimova M,
    3. Emani M,
    4. Kohnert E,
    5. Thompson R,
    6. Sidhom EH, et al
    : Small molecule targets TMED9 and promotes lysosomal degradation to reverse proteinopathy. Cell 178: 521–535.e23, 2019 doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.07.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  162. ↵
    1. Forbes TA,
    2. Howden SE,
    3. Lawlor K,
    4. Phipson B,
    5. Maksimovic J,
    6. Hale L, et al
    : Patient-iPSC-derived kidney organoids show functional validation of a ciliopathic renal phenotype and reveal underlying pathogenetic mechanisms. Am J Hum Genet 102: 816–831, 2018 doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.03.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  163. ↵
    1. Kuraoka S,
    2. Tanigawa S,
    3. Taguchi A,
    4. Hotta A,
    5. Nakazato H,
    6. Osafune K, et al
    : PKD1-dependent renal cystogenesis in human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived ureteric bud/collecting duct organoids. J Am Soc Nephrol 31: 2355–2371, 2020 doi:10.1681/asn.2020030378
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  164. ↵
    1. Cruz NM,
    2. Song X,
    3. Czerniecki SM,
    4. Gulieva RE,
    5. Churchill AJ,
    6. Kim YK, et al
    : Organoid cystogenesis reveals a critical role of microenvironment in human polycystic kidney disease. Nat Mater 16: 1112–1119, 2017 doi:10.1038/nmat4994
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  165. ↵
    1. Hale LJ,
    2. Howden SE,
    3. Phipson B,
    4. Lonsdale A,
    5. Er PX,
    6. Ghobrial I, et al
    : 3D organoid-derived human glomeruli for personalised podocyte disease modelling and drug screening. Nat Commun 9: 5167, 2018 doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07594-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  166. ↵
    1. Majmundar AJ,
    2. Buerger F,
    3. Forbes TA,
    4. Klämbt V,
    5. Schneider R,
    6. Deutsch K, et al
    : Recessive NOS1AP variants impair actin remodeling and cause glomerulopathy in humans and mice. Sci Adv 7: eabe1386, 2021 doi:10.1126/sciadv.abe1386
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  167. ↵
    1. Ohmori T,
    2. De S,
    3. Tanigawa S,
    4. Miike K,
    5. Islam M,
    6. Soga M, et al
    : Impaired NEPHRIN localization in kidney organoids derived from nephrotic patient iPS cells. Sci Rep 11: 3982, 2021 doi:10.1038/s41598-021-83501-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  168. ↵
    1. Tanigawa S,
    2. Islam M,
    3. Sharmin S,
    4. Naganuma H,
    5. Yoshimura Y,
    6. Haque F, et al
    : Organoids from nephrotic disease-derived iPSCs identify impaired NEPHRIN localization and slit diaphragm formation in kidney podocytes. Stem Cell Reports 11: 727–740, 2018 doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.08.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  169. ↵
    1. Czerniecki SM,
    2. Cruz NM,
    3. Harder JL,
    4. Menon R,
    5. Annis J,
    6. Otto EA, et al
    : High-throughput screening enhances kidney organoid differentiation from human pluripotent stem cells and enables automated multidimensional phenotyping. Cell Stem Cell 22: 929–940.e4, 2018 doi:10.1016/j.stem.2018.04.022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  170. ↵
    1. Isomi M,
    2. Sadahiro T,
    3. Fujita R,
    4. Abe Y,
    5. Yamada Y,
    6. Akiyama T, et al
    : Direct reprogramming with Sendai virus vectors repaired infarct hearts at the chronic stage. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 560: 87–92, 2021 doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2021.04.121
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  171. ↵
    1. López-Muneta L,
    2. Miranda-Arrubla J,
    3. Carvajal-Vergara X
    : The future of direct cardiac reprogramming: Any GMT cocktail variety? Int J Mol Sci 21: 7950, 2020 doi:10.3390/ijms21217950
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  172. ↵
    1. Qian L,
    2. Huang Y,
    3. Spencer CI,
    4. Foley A,
    5. Vedantham V,
    6. Liu L, et al
    : In vivo reprogramming of murine cardiac fibroblasts into induced cardiomyocytes. Nature 485: 593–598, 2012 doi:10.1038/nature11044
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  173. ↵
    1. Srivastava D,
    2. DeWitt N
    : In vivo cellular reprogramming: The next generation. Cell 166: 1386–1396, 2016 doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.055
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  174. ↵
    1. Monroe TO,
    2. Hill MC,
    3. Morikawa Y,
    4. Leach JP,
    5. Heallen T,
    6. Cao S, et al
    : YAP partially reprograms chromatin accessibility to directly induce adult cardiogenesis in vivo. Dev Cell 48: 765–779.e7, 2019 doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2019.01.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  175. ↵
    1. Xin M,
    2. Kim Y,
    3. Sutherland LB,
    4. Murakami M,
    5. Qi X,
    6. McAnally J, et al
    : Hippo pathway effector Yap promotes cardiac regeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110: 13839–13844, 2013 doi:10.1073/pnas.1313192110
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  176. ↵
    1. Osafune K
    : Regenerative treatments for kidney diseases: The closest and fastest strategies to solving related medical and economic problems. Artif Organs 45: 447–453, 2021 doi:10.1111/aor.13943
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  177. ↵
    1. Goto T,
    2. Hara H,
    3. Sanbo M,
    4. Masaki H,
    5. Sato H,
    6. Yamaguchi T, et al
    : Generation of pluripotent stem cell-derived mouse kidneys in Sall1-targeted anephric rats. Nat Commun 10: 451, 2019 doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08394-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  178. ↵
    1. Usui J,
    2. Kobayashi T,
    3. Yamaguchi T,
    4. Knisely AS,
    5. Nishinakamura R,
    6. Nakauchi H
    : Generation of kidney from pluripotent stem cells via blastocyst complementation. Am J Pathol 180: 2417–2426, 2012 doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2012.03.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  179. ↵
    1. Kobayashi T,
    2. Kato-Itoh M,
    3. Nakauchi H
    : Targeted organ generation using Mixl1-inducible mouse pluripotent stem cells in blastocyst complementation. Stem Cells Dev 24: 182–189, 2015 doi:10.1089/scd.2014.0270
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  180. ↵
    1. Tan T,
    2. Wu J,
    3. Si C,
    4. Dai S,
    5. Zhang Y,
    6. Sun N, et al
    : Chimeric contribution of human extended pluripotent stem cells to monkey embryos ex vivo [published correction appears in Cell 184: 3589, 2021 10.1016/j.cell.2021.06.011]. Cell 184: 2020-2032.e14, 2021 doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.020
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  181. ↵
    1. Song JJ,
    2. Guyette JP,
    3. Gilpin SE,
    4. Gonzalez G,
    5. Vacanti JP,
    6. Ott HC
    : Regeneration and experimental orthotopic transplantation of a bioengineered kidney. Nat Med 19: 646–651, 2013 doi:10.1038/nm.3154
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  182. ↵
    1. Leuning DG,
    2. Witjas FMR,
    3. Maanaoui M,
    4. de Graaf AMA,
    5. Lievers E,
    6. Geuens T, et al
    : Vascular bioengineering of scaffolds derived from human discarded transplant kidneys using human pluripotent stem cell-derived endothelium. Am J Transplant 19: 1328–1343, 2019 doi:10.1111/ajt.15200
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  183. ↵
    1. Ciampi O,
    2. Bonandrini B,
    3. Derosas M,
    4. Conti S,
    5. Rizzo P,
    6. Benedetti V, et al
    : Engineering the vasculature of decellularized rat kidney scaffolds using human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived endothelial cells. Sci Rep 9: 8001, 2019 doi:10.1038/s41598-019-44393-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  184. ↵
    1. Cohen S,
    2. Partouche S,
    3. Gurevich M,
    4. Tennak V,
    5. Mezhybovsky V,
    6. Azarov D, et al
    : Generation of vascular chimerism within donor organs. Sci Rep 11: 13437, 2021 doi:10.1038/s41598-021-92823-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  185. ↵
    1. de Winter-de Groot KM,
    2. Janssens HM,
    3. van Uum RT,
    4. Dekkers JF,
    5. Berkers G,
    6. Vonk A, et al
    : Stratifying infants with cystic fibrosis for disease severity using intestinal organoid swelling as a biomarker of CFTR function. Eur Respir J 52: 1702529, 2018 doi:10.1183/13993003.02529-2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  186. ↵
    1. Monteil V,
    2. Kwon H,
    3. Prado P,
    4. Hagelkrüys A,
    5. Wimmer RA,
    6. Stahl M, et al
    : Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 infections in engineered human tissues using clinical-grade soluble human ACE2. Cell 181: 905–913.e7, 2020 doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

If you are:

  • an ASN member, select the "ASN Member" login button. 
  • an individual subscriber, login with you User Name and Password.
  • an Institutional user, select the Institution option where you will be presented with a list of Shibboleth federations. If you do not see your federation, contact publications@asn-online.org. 

ASN MEMBER LOGIN

ASN MEMBER LOGIN

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?

Log in through your institution

You may be able to gain access using your login credentials for your institution. Contact your library if you do not have a username and password.

Purchase access

Pay Per Article - You may access this article (from the computer you are currently using) for 1 day for US$34.00

In order to get access to the article, you must have an account.  If you have an account, enter your user name and password into the boxes above. If you do not have an account, follow the instructions below to create one.  Once you have purchased the article, you will have access to it for 24 hours.  

Steps for Creating an Account:

Click the "Purchase Access" button.  The page will redisplay with the following message at the top of the screen. In the message, click to create an account. 

When you create the account, you will be asked to register a user name, email address and you will need to create a password that is at least eight characters in length.  You do not need an ASN Member number to complete the form. As you move through the registration page, you will have to verify you are a person by completing a Captcha request.   Lastly, your first and last name will be required. 

Once your information is successfully saved, the system will redisplay the home page of the journal.  From there, navigate back to the article to purchase.  Select the article and at the bottom of the page, use the credentials you just created to login. The article will be added to your shopping cart.  You can continue to navigate across JASN and CJASN adding to your cart from both journals. When you are ready to complete your purchse, select the Shopping Cart from the upper right hand corner of the page and follow the onscreen instructions. 

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 33 (1)
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 33, Issue 1
January 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in JASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Regrow or Repair: An Update on Potential Regenerative Therapies for the Kidney
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Regrow or Repair: An Update on Potential Regenerative Therapies for the Kidney
Melissa H. Little, Benjamin D. Humphreys
JASN Jan 2022, 33 (1) 15-32; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2021081073

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Regrow or Repair: An Update on Potential Regenerative Therapies for the Kidney
Melissa H. Little, Benjamin D. Humphreys
JASN Jan 2022, 33 (1) 15-32; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2021081073
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Proposed Renal Therapeutic Options in 2006
    • Advancing Our Understanding of Kidney Development across Time and Space in Mouse and Human
    • Shifting Views on Tubular and Glomerular Repair
    • The Current View of Renal Therapeutic Options
    • Manipulation of the Repair Process To Reduce Fibrosis and Reverse Injury
    • Recreation of Human Kidney Tissue Using Stem Cells for Replacement of Renal Function
    • Developing Therapies for Inherited Kidney Disease Based on Stem Cell–Derived Models
    • The Next Wave of Advances
    • Conclusion
    • Disclosures
    • Funding
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry for the Measurement of PTH and PTH Fragments: Insights into PTH Physiology and Bioactivity
  • Cost Barriers to More Widespread Use of Peritoneal Dialysis in the United States
  • Tissue Culture Models of AKI: From Tubule Cells to Human Kidney Organoids
Show more Review

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • kidney development
  • stem cell
  • regenerative therapies
  • single-cell expression profiling
  • pluripotent stem cell
  • directed differentiation
  • tissue repair
  • gene editing

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Annual Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Resources
  • Editorial Fellowship Program
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • JASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About JASN
  • JASN Email Alerts
  • JASN Key Impact Information
  • JASN Podcasts
  • JASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1046-6673 Online ISSN - 1533-3450

Powered by HighWire