Advertisement

Biological Theory

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 48–58 | Cite as

Stem Cells and the Temporal Boundaries of Development: Toward a Species-Dependent View

  • Lucie Laplane
Original Paper

Abstract

The tacit standard view that development ends once reproductive capacity is acquired (reproductive boundary, or “RB,” thesis) has recently been challenged by biologists and philosophers of biology arguing that development continues until death (death boundary, or “DB,” thesis). The relevance of these two theses is difficult to assess because the fact that there is no precise definition of development makes the determination of its temporal boundaries problematic. Taking into account this difficulty, this article tries to develop a new species-dependent perspective on temporal boundaries of development. This species-dependent account stands against both RB and DB theses since neither of them reflects the differences between species in the temporality of their development. In this perspective, I propose to use stem cells as a tool to analyze (1) the different developmental capacities of an organism during its life; and (2) the different developmental temporal capacities between species. In particular, I will show that stem cells enable four distinct temporal developmental patterns to be distinguished, i.e., four distinct temporal boundaries of development in the living. I show how these four patterns can be interpreted differently depending on the perspective one has on the definition of development.

Keywords

Asexual reproduction Boundary Definition Development Differentiation Division Regeneration Stem cells 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Michel Morange, Antonine Nicoglou, Thomas Pradeu, Frédérique Théry, and Michel Vervoort for the collective work that we have done together and for the critical reading of this manuscript. I am also thankful to Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, Jean Gayon, Thierry Hoquet, Jane Maienschein, and Francesca Merlin for their critical reading of the manuscript. I address a special thanks to Thierry Hoquet for formulating development as “le temps qui traverse les corps” (“the time which passes through the body”), a formulation that has greatly influenced the articulation of this article around the TDPs. Finally, I want to thank Charles Durand, Jean Gayon, Thierry Hoquet, Thierry Jaffredo, Francesca Merlin, and Valérie Ngo-Muller for useful discussions. My work is supported by the Cancéropôle and the University Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense.

References

  1. Alison MR, Poulsom R, Forbes S, Wright NA (2002) An introduction to stem cells. J Pathol 197(4):419–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blau HM, Brazelton TR, Weimann JM (2001) The evolving concept of a stem cell: entity or function? Cell 105(7):829–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosch TCG (2008) Stem cells: from hydra to man. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brockes JP, Kumar A (2008) Comparative aspects of animal regeneration. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 24:525–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burian R (2005) Too many kinds of genes. Some problems posed by discontinuities in gene concepts and the continuity of the genetic material. In: Burian R (ed) The epistemology of development, evolution, and genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 166–178Google Scholar
  6. Crist E, Tauber AI (1999) Selfhood, immunity, and the biological imagination: the thought of Frank Macfarlane Burnet. Biol Philos 15(4):509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cummins R (1975) Functional analysis. J Philos 72:741–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dzierzak E, Speck NA (2008) Of lineage and legacy: the development of mammalian hematopoietic stem cells. Nat Immunol 9(2):129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garces H, Sinha N (2009) The “mother of thousands” (Kalanchoe daigremontiana): a plant model for asexual reproduction and CAM studies. Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2009(10):133Google Scholar
  10. Hauskeller C (2005) Science in touch: functions of biomedical terminology. Biol Philos 20:815–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hughes RN (1989) A functional biology of clonal animals. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Jaffredo T, Bollerot K, Sugiyama D, Gautier R, Drevon C (2005) Tracing the hemangioblast during embryogenesis: developmental relationships between endothelial and hematopoietic cells. Int J Dev Biol 49(2–3):269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiang Y, Jahagirdar BN, Reinhardt RL, Schwartz RE, Keene CD, Ortiz-Gonzalez XR, Reyes M, Lenvik T, Lund T, Blackstad M, Du J, Aldrich S, Lisberg A, Low WC, Largaespada DA, Verfaillie CM (2002) Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult marrow. Nature 418:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lander AD (2009) The “stem cell” concept: is it holding us back? J Biol 8:70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laubichler MD, Maienschein J (2005) Development. In: Horowitz MC (ed) New dictionary of the history of ideas. Thomson Gale, Detroit, pp 570–574Google Scholar
  16. Levi BP, Morrison SJ (2008) Stem cells use distinct self-renewal programs at different ages. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 73:539–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leychkis Y, Munzer SR, Richardson JL (2009) What is stemness? Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 40(4):312–320Google Scholar
  18. Loeffler M, Roeder I (2002) Tissue stem cells: definition, plasticity, heterogeneity, self-organization and models—a conceptual approach. Cells Tissues Organs 171(1):8–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Love A (2006) Taking development seriously: who, what, when, where, why, how? Biol Philos 21:575–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Löwy I (1991) The immunological construction of the self. In: Tauber AI (ed) Organism and the origins of self, 3-75. Kluwer: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  21. Löwy I (1992) The strength of loose concepts–boundary concepts, federative experimental strategies and disciplinary growth: the case of immunology. Hist Sci 30:371–395Google Scholar
  22. Marks NJ (2010) Defining stem cells? Scientists and their classifications of nature. Sociol Rev 58(s1):32–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mikkers H, Frisen J (2005) Deconstructing stemness. J Eur Mol Biol Organ 24:2715–2719Google Scholar
  24. Molofsky AV, Pardal R, Morrison SJ (2004) Diverse mechanisms regulate stem cell self-renewal. Curr Opin Cell Biol 16:700–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morgan TH (1901) Regeneration. Macmillan Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Morrison SJ, Kimble J (2006) Asymmetric and symmetric stem-cell divisions in development and cancer. Nature 441(7097):1068–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morrison SJ, Hemmati HD, Wandycz AM, Weissman IL (1995) The purification and characterization of fetal liver hematopoietic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:10302–10306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morrison SJ, Wright DE, Weissman IL (1997) Cyclophosphamide/granulocyte colony-stimulating factor induces hematopoietic stem cells to proliferate prior to mobilization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:1908–1913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poss KD (2010) Advances in understanding tissue regenerative capacity and mechanisms in animals. Nat Rev Genet 11(10):710–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pradeu T (2009) Les limites du soi: Immunologie et identité biologique. Vrin, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  31. Pradeu T (2011) A mixed self: the role of symbiosis in development. Biol Theory 6(1). doi: 10.1007/s13752-011-0011-5
  32. Rheinberger H-J (2000) Gene concepts: fragments from the perspective of molecular biology. In: Beurton PJ, Falk R, Rheinberger H-J (eds) The concept of the gene in development and evolution: historical and epistemological perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 219–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robert JS (2002) How developmental is evolutionary developmental biology. Biol Philos 17:591–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robert JS (2004a) Embryology, epigenesis, and evolution: taking development seriously. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robert JS (2004b) Model systems in stem cell biology. Bioessays 26(9):1005–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salo E (2006) The power of regeneration and the stem-cell kingdom: freshwater planarians (Platyhelminthes). Bioessays 28(5):546–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sánchez Alvarado A (2000) Regeneration in the metazoans: why does it happen? Bioessays 22(6):578–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seaberg RM, van der Kooy D (2003) Stem and progenitor cells: the premature desertion of rigorous definitions. Trends Neurosci 26(3):125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shostak S (2006) (Re)defining stem cells. Bioessays 28(3):301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19(4):387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Théry F (2011) Characterizing animal development with genetic regulatory mechanisms. Biol Theory. doi: 10.1007/s13752-011-0004-4
  42. Vervoort M (2011) Regeneration and development in animals. Biol Theory. doi: 10.1007/s13752-011-0005-3
  43. Wright DE, Cheshier SH, Wagers AJ, Randall TD, Christensen JL, Weissman IL (2001) Cyclophosphamide/granulocyte colony-stimulating factor causes selective mobilization of bone marrow hematopoietic stem cells into the blood after M phase of the cell cycle. Blood 97:2278–2285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Xiong JW (2008) Molecular and developmental biology of the hemangioblast. Dev Dyn 237:1218–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zipori D (2004) The nature of stem cells: state rather than entity. Nat Rev Genet 5(11):873–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zipori D (2005) The stem state: plasticity is essential, whereas self-renewal and hierarchy are optional. Stem Cells 23(6):719–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zipori D (2006) The stem state: mesenchymal plasticity as a paradigm. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther 1(1):95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zipori D (2009) Biology of stem cells and the molecular basis of the stem state. Humana Press, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Konrad Lorenz Institute 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity Paris Ouest Nanterre La DéfenseNanterreFrance
  2. 2.Department of Human SciencesGustave Roussy HospitalVillejuifFrance

Personalised recommendations