SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • induced pluripotent stem cell;
  • disease modeling;
  • reprogramming;
  • neurological diseases

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. PLURIPOTENCY
  4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. LITERATURE CITED
  7. Supporting Information

Human pluripotent stem cells bring promise in regenerative medicine due to their self-renewing ability and the potential to become any cell type in the body. Moreover, pluripotent stem cells can produce specialized cell types that are affected in certain diseases, generating a new way to study cellular and molecular mechanisms involved in the disease pathology under the controlled conditions of a scientific laboratory. Thus, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) are already being used to gain insights into the biological mechanisms of several human disorders. Here we review the use of iPSC as a novel tool for disease modeling in the lab. © 2012 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry


PLURIPOTENCY

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. PLURIPOTENCY
  4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. LITERATURE CITED
  7. Supporting Information

Pluripotency is generally defined by the ability of a stem cell to differentiate into cell types representative of all three germ layers: ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm (1). Pluripotent stem cells are found in the inner cell mass of a blastocyst during embryogenesis, after the process of fertilization. It is also possible to generate a blastocyst in vitro, without going through the process of fertilization by the meeting of two gametes. In 1962, John Gurdon was the first to report the reprogramming of fully differentiated intestinal epithelial cells from Xenopus tadpoles by transferring the nucleus of the somatic cells into Xenopus oocytes and obtaining a blastocyst in vitro (2). However, it took more than 30 years until in 1996, Ian Wilmut demonstrated that a somatic cell nucleus from a mammal could similarly be reprogrammed through transfer to an enucleated oocyte (3). Despite the success of Gurdon's method, this procedure was not very efficient for generating human pluripotent stem cells. The discovery of reprogramming by somatic cell nuclear transfer, together with advances in the culture of pluripotent murine and human embryonic stem cells, has led to a further understanding of the processes of self-renewal and differentiation (4, 5).

Generation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells from Human Somatic Cells

Takahashi and Yamanaka pioneered a method of inducing somatic cells back to the embryonic stage, creating embryonic (ES)-like cells. These cells are called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) (4). For this purpose they used the ectopic expression of 4 transcription factors: Oct-4 (octamer-binding transcription factor 4, also known as POU5F1), Sox-2 (Sex determining region Y box-2), Klf-4 (Kruppel-like factor 4), and c-Myc (proto-oncogene c-Myc).

Oct-4 is a transcription factor initially active in the oocyte and it remains active in embryos throughout the preimplantation period (6). The Oct-4 gene expression is equated with an undifferentiated phenotype in normal as well as malignant tissue (7). Gene knockdown of Oct-4 and Nanog (another transcription factor expressed in pluripotent stem cells) (8) promotes cell differentiation, thus indicating an important role for these factors in human embryonic stem cell self-renewal (9). Sox-2 may act to maintain or preserve a developmental potential (10). Moreover, Oct-4 can form a heterodimer with Sox2, and these two factors together can drive the expression of Nanog (7). Klf4 is a transcription factor that is associated with both tumor suppression and oncogenesis (6). This factor also suppresses the expression of p53, which induces ES differentiation by suppressing Nanog gene expression (11). Myc is a transcription factor that can activate or repress gene expression (10). The Myc gene codes for a transcription factor required for normal embryonic development. In addition, the Myc protein may induce global histone acetylation (12), allowing Oct-4 and Sox2 to bind to their specific target loci (4). Thus, combining the expression of these four factors, it is possible to change the epigenetic state of the cell, leading to pluripotent stage.

Similarities Between ES and iPSC Cells

Since the first iPSC published report, scientists have asked how close iPSC are to Embryonic Stem Cells (ESC) (Table 1). In cell culture, iPSC are difficult to distinguish from ESC, as both express pluripotency genes, form teratomas, differentiate in vitro, elongate telomeres, and lastly, give rise to mouse chimeras (11). Based on the colony or cell morphology, self-renewal capacity, and developmental potential, iPSC are practically indistinguishable from ESC. However, it is at the molecular level that their similarity remains controversial (12, 13, 14, 15). The methylation status of iPSC also shows similarity to that of ES cells. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation, Pan et al. (16) analyzed the histone modification status in human iPSC and revealed the bivalent patterns of development-associated genes characteristic of hES cells, such as Gata6, Msx2, Pax6, and Hand1.

Table 1. Phenotypic markers for ES and iPSC
MarkersiPSCESC
  1. The numbers in parentheses refer to the literature citation.

SSEA-3 X X
 (5, 34, 48, 49, 50)(51, 52, 53, 54)
SSEA-4 X X
 (5, 19, 27, 34, 48, 49, 50)(51, 52, 55)
TRA-1-60 X X
 (5, 27, 34, 48, 49, 50)(51, 52, 55, 56)
TRA-1-81 X X
 (5, 27, 34, 49, 50)(51, 52, 53)
TRA2-49/6E X X
 (5)(5)
NANOG X X
 (27, 33, 34, 48, 38, 49, 50)(49, 53)
Oct3/4 X X
 (5, 27, 33, 34, 38, 48, 49, 50)(49, 52, 53, 57, 58)
Sox-2 X X
 (27, 33, 50)(53, 59, 60)
GDF3 X X
 (5, 61)(5, 61, 62, 63)
Rex-1 X X
 (5, 61)(5, 61)
FGF 4 X X
 (5, 61)(5, 61)
ESG1 X X
 (5, 61)(5, 61)
DPPA-2 X X
 (5, 61)(5, 61)
DPPA-4 X X
 (5, 61)(5, 61)
TERT X X
 (5, 61)(5, 61)
SALL-4 X X
 (5)(5, 61)
E-CADHERIN X X
 (5)(5, 61)
CDy1 X X
 (29)(29)
Klf4 X X
 (40)(58)
c-Myc X
 (33) 

In addition, iPSC derived from different donor cells are apparently more highly similar to each other than to ESC (17). In addition, late-passage iPSC cluster more closely with ESC than with early passage iPSC, indicating that expression differences that occur between early passage iPSC and ESC can be solved upon extended passaging (18, 19). It seems that many of these differences might actually be related to the cell source used to produce iPSC, as a result of residual expression of donor cell-specific genes (18, 20, 21). These differences do not seem to significantly modify cellular function in the pluripotent state, but may potentially interfere during the differentiation process since a specific gene expression program needs to be turned on during tissue development (22).

IPSC Phenotypic Markers

IPSC colony picking, with the aim of isolating reprogrammed cells, is a time consuming and demanding procedure. Eventually, iPSC colonies that are not completely reprogrammed could be selected by mistake. Detecting and isolating true iPSC colonies is crucial to the understanding of the mechanisms of cellular reprogramming. The current methods of isolation and characterization of iPSCs depend on cell morphology in culture, or immunostaining using specific markers. Identification of certain biomarkers could be useful to track cell reprogramming during the process of iPSC colony isolation. However, these methods are also time consuming and involve the use of antibodies that may barely differentiate partially reprogrammed cells. Moreover, the treatment may often turn the cells unsuitable for further study. For example, downregulation of fibroblast markers such as Thy1 is the earliest detectable change in cells undergoing reprogramming, followed by modest upregulation of the mouse ESC marker SSEA-1, and reactivation of endogenous Oct4 and Sox2 (23). The use of Fluorescence-activated cell sorting of subpopulations defined by these markers could contribute significantly to the enrichment of cells with the potential to become true iPSC (23, 24).

SSEA-4 expression is detected on the second day after reprogramming, whereas TRA-1-60 is detected only in a small subset of SSEA-4+ cells around days 6–10 (25). However, FC sorting disrupts individual colonies, precluding lineage tracing. Of particular interest, live staining of iPSC can be done using two keratin sulfate proteoglycan carbohydrate moieties, recognized by the surface epitopes TRA-1-60 and TRA-1-81 antibodies. These antibodies detect a neuraminidase-sensitive epitope, and a neuroaminidase-insensitive epitope, respectively. Both markers have been used successfully in live-cell immunostaining of emerging iPSC colonies (17, 25). During reprogramming, SSEA-4 seems to become upregulated earlier than TRA-1-60 or TRA-1-81, making it useful as an early marker of reprogramming. However, SSEA-4 is also present in incompletely reprogrammed iPSC as well, making it less useful for early identification of potential fully reprogrammed cells (25). In contrast, CD13, an aminopeptidase N (also known as a fibroblast marker), becomes rapidly downregulated during reprogramming and is not expressed by human pluripotent stem cells (25). mCD49e (integrin α5) is expressed by mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs), and can be used to mark MEF feeder cells in human iPSC cocultures (26). Finally, CDy1 (compound of designation yellow 1) selectively marks live ESC and iPSCs without affecting growth rate, morphology, or differentiation capability (27).

One caveat on the use of antibodies for sorting is the possibility that the antibodies may have significant biological effects on the cells, causing unspecific side effects. Nonetheless, it is undoubted that flow cytometry has been increasing its use in stem cell isolation and characterization (28).

Possible iPSC Applications and Challenges

Perhaps the first obvious application of iPSC would be for autologous cell transplantation, avoiding ethical issues related to human ES use, and eventual immunological rejection after transplantation (Fig. 1). However, potential pitfalls regarding the use of iPSC for cellular therapy have been identified, such as the use of reprogramming oncogenes that may induce malignant cell transformation (4, 14, 29).

thumbnail image

Figure 1. Applications for pluripotent stem cells. Pluripotent stem cells have the potential to originate an entire individual or every cell types present in the body. IPSC from a patient can be used as autologous transplant, disease modeling and drug screening. IPS factors could be virus, plasmid, small molecules, or RNA.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Further difficulty hampering the use of iPSC is the relatively low efficiency of reprogramming. The most widely used method for reprogramming utilizes retroviruses for gene delivery, and takes 3–4 weeks for primary colony picking with an efficiency of 0.001–0.1% (3, 30). Beltrão-Braga et al. (2011) (31), using dental pulp stem cells that are more immature than fibroblasts, observed iPSC colonies within 2 weeks (Fig. 2) using the same protocol described by Takahashi and Yamanaka (3). This fast speed of reprogramming could be attributed to a more immature stage of cells, as dental pulp stem cells are defined as mesenchymal stem cells, expressing both mesenchymal and certain pluripotent markers (31). In addition, the finding that immature cells are easier to reprogram was also observed by others, indicating that the time of reprogramming likely depends on the donor cell type (32, 33, 34).

thumbnail image

Figure 2. Human iPSC colonies derived from dental pulp stem cells and neuronal differentiated cells derived from iPSC. A, B: Representative images of iPSC colonies visualized under light microscope. C: Representative image of iPSC colony expressing pluripotent markers Nanog (red) and Lin28 (green). D: Representative image of cells after neuronal differentiation, expressing neuronal markers Map2 (green), islet1 (red), and nucleus in blue (DAPI). Magnifications in A) ×10, scale bar 400 μm, B) ×40, scale bar 100 μm, C) ×40, scale bar 100 μm, and D) ×20 scale bar 200 μm.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Generating human pluripotent stem cell lines from patients affected by several disorders is a powerful strategy that can be used in disease modeling study, drug discovery, and toxicological testing protocols (35). Furthermore, making iPSCs from each patient with a diverse genetic background is important to our understanding of the variations that occur in responses to therapeutics among different patients. If iPSCs are generated from live patients, the information gained studying their differentiation potential may be applied to the patient in the future during his or her lifetime.

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells for Disease Modeling and Drug Testing

The use of the iPSC protocol to generate pluripotent cells derived from patients' cells represents a breakthrough to study biological mechanisms of diseases. Dimos et al. generated iPSCs from a patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) (36). The disease-specific iPSCs were successfully differentiated into motor neurons, the cell type affected in ALS. However, there is no report on a disease phenotype in ALS motor neurons from this publication. In 2009, other investigators reprogrammed cells from others diseases such as Familial Dysautonomia (37), Parkinson's disease (38), and type 1 diabetes (39). Also, Chamberlain et al. suggested that iPSC could be used for studying genomic imprinting disorders, reprograming cells from patients with Angelman and Prader-Willi syndrome (40) (Fig. 3).

thumbnail image

Figure 3. Time line for iPSC disease modeling.

Download figure to PowerPoint

The first comparison between affected and non-affected cells derived from iPSCs was a study published by Ebert et al. in 2009. The researchers reprogrammed fibroblasts from a patient with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), and differentiated these iPSC into motor neurons, the cells affected in this syndrome. Using this strategy, they observed the low survival level of motor neurons in a patient with this disease when comparing with motor neurons derived from iPSC from a non affected relative (41). Through comparison of normal and pathologic cells, and evaluation of the effects of drug treatment in vitro, iPSC lines generated from patients offer an unprecedented opportunity to recapitulate pathologic mechanisms of disease in vitro, a new technology platform for drug screening and customized therapy for each patient.

In 2009, an important contribution in the application of disease-specific iPSC was published by Raya et al. The group generated disease-corrected, patient-specific cells with potential value for cell therapy applications. They first corrected the genetic defect from Fanconi anemia patients, and then reprogrammed to pluripotency to generate patient-specific iPSC. Reprogrammed cells gave rise to haematopoietic progenitors of the phenotypically normal myeloid and erythroid lineages (42).

Another important contribution of the iPSC technology to modeling of neuronal disease was made by Marchetto et al. in 2010, using Rett syndrome (RTT) as a syndromic autistic prototype (43). Using the iPSC strategy, the authors observed that neurons derived from RTT-iPSCs had fewer synapses, reduced spine density, smaller soma size, altered calcium signaling, and electrophysiological defects when compared to controls. In addition, with this “dish-disease” model, they tested the effects of drugs on rescuing synaptic defects (43).

More recently, Pasca et al. studied neurons derived from iPSC of Timothy syndrome patients (44). Using these neurons, they found defects in action potential firing and [Ca2+]i signaling (45). As a result of calcium imbalance, communication between neurons was defective. These imbalanced cells were producing an excess of an enzyme necessary for the production of the catecholamines norepinephrine and dopamine, which have a key role in sensorial neurons and social behavior. They also showed that roscovitine could block the defective calcium channel resulting in reduction of such an enzyme implicated in cathecholamine production. This effect was observed only in human iPSC-Timothy neurons, and not in transgenic mice expressing a point mutation in an alternatively spliced exon of CACNA1C gene, reflecting intrinsic differences from the genetic background of humans and mice.

However, some concerns still need to be addressed for the full impact of iPSC on disease modeling. For example, it seems important to correctly choose the best donor cell type to reprogram in order to model specific diseases. Somatic cells can retain a cellular memory even after reprogramming (33), affecting cellular differentiation and dowstream data interpretation. Our group has recently opted to use human dental pulp stem cells as a source for cellular reprogramming (31), since they have the same embrionic origin as cells from the nervous system, and our interest is to ultimatley produce cells from the nervous system in a plate.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. PLURIPOTENCY
  4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. LITERATURE CITED
  7. Supporting Information

We believe that the iPSC technology can be very useful for modeling human diseases, especially complex neurodevelopmental disorders. Initial results are now emerging from modeling monogenetic diseases (43, 44). Finally, using iPSC technology in combination with genomic approaches will lead to novel molecular and cellular pathways affected in several human diseases, increasing our perpectives on therapeutical targets.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. PLURIPOTENCY
  4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. LITERATURE CITED
  7. Supporting Information

The authors are thankful to Caroline P. Winck, Silvia A.F. Lima, Cassiano Carromeu, and Marianna Yusupova for their critical reading and editing of the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. PLURIPOTENCY
  4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. LITERATURE CITED
  7. Supporting Information
  • 1
    Gurdon JB. The developmental capacity of nuclei taken from intestinal epithelium cells of feeding tadpoles. J Embryol Exp Morphol 1962; 10: 622640.
  • 2
    Campbell KH,McWhir J,Ritchie WA,Wilmut I. Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a cultured cell line. Nature 1996; 380: 6466.
  • 3
    Takahashi K,Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 2006; 126: 652655.
  • 4
    Gonzalez F,Boué S,Belmonte JCI. Methods for making induced pluipotent stem cells: reprogramming à la carte. Nature Reviews Genetics 2011; 12: 231241.
  • 5
    Looijenga LH,Stoop H,de Leeuw HP,de Gouveia Brazao CA,Gillis AJ,van Roozendaal KE,van Zoelen EJ,Weber RF,Wolffenbuttel KP,van Dekken H,Honecker F,Bokemeyer C,Perlman EJ,Schneider DT,Kononen J,Sauter G,Oosterhuis JW. POU5F1 (OCT3/4) identifies cells with pluripotent potential in human germ cell tumors. Cancer Res 2003; 63: 22442250.
  • 6
    Rodda DJ,Chew JL,Lim LH,Loh YH,Wang B,Ng HH,Robson P. Transcriptional regulation of nanog by OCT4 and SOX2. J Biol Chem 2005; 280: 2473124737.
  • 7
    Zaehres H,Lensch MW,Daheron L,Stewart SA,Itskovitz-Eldor J,Daley GQ. High-efficiency RNA interference in human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells 2005; 23: 299305.
  • 8
    Avilion AA,Nicolis SK,Pevny LH,Perez L,Vivian N,Lovell-Badge R. Multipotent cell lineages in early mouse development depend on SOX2 function. Genes Dev 2003; 17: 126140.
  • 9
    Lin T,Chao C,Saito S,Mazur SJ,Murphy ME,Appella E,Xu Y. p53 induces differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells by suppressing Nanog expression. Nat Cell Biol 2005; 7: 165171.
  • 10
    Fernandez PC,Frank SR,Wang L,Schroeder M,Liu S,Greene J,Cocito A,Amati B. Genomic targets of the human c-Myc protein. Genes Dev 2003; 17: 11151129.
  • 11
    Colman A,Dreesen O. Induced pluripotent stem cells and the stability of the differentiated state. Embo Reports 2009; 10: 714721.
  • 12
    Maherali N,Sridharan R,Xie W,Utikal J,Eminli S,Arnold K,Stadtfeld M,Yachechko R,Tchieu J,Jaenisch R,Plath K,Hochedlinger K. Directly reprogrammed fibroblasts show global epigenetic remodeling and widespread tissue contribution. Cell Stem Cell 2007; 1: 5570.
  • 13
    Mikkelsen TS,Hanna J,Zhang X,Ku M,Wernig M,Schorderet P,Bernstein BE,Jaenisch R,Lander ES,Meissner A. Dissecting direct reprogramming through integrative genomic analysis. Nature 2008; 454: 4955.
  • 14
    Okita K,Ichisaka T,Yamanaka S. Generation of germline-competent induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2007; 448: 313317.
  • 15
    Wernig M,Meissner A,Foreman R,Brambrink T,Ku M,Hochedlinger K,Bernstein BE,Jaenisch R. In vitro reprogramming of fibroblasts into a pluripotent ES-cell-like state. Nature 2007; 448: 318324.
  • 16
    Pan G,Tian S,Nie J,Yang C,Ruotti V,Wei H,Jonsdottir GA,Stewart R,Thomson JA. Whole-genome analysis of histone H3 lysine 4 and lysine 27 methylation in human embryonic stem cell. Cell Stem Cell 2007; 1: 299312.
  • 17
    Lowry WE,Richter L,Yachechko R,Pyle AD,Tchieu J,Sridharan R,Clark AT,Plath K. Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cells from dermal fibroblasts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105: 28832888.
  • 18
    Chin MH,Mason MJ,Xie W,Volinia S,Singer M,Peterson C,Ambartsumyan G,Aimiuwu O,Richter L,Zhang J,Khvorostov I,Ott V,Grunstein M,Lavon N,Benvenisty N,Croce CM,Clark AT,Baxter T,Pyle AD,Teitell MA,Pelegrini M,Plath K,Lowry WE. Induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells are distinguished by gene expression signatures. Cell Stem Cell 2009; 5: 111123.
  • 19
    Chin MH,Pellegrini M,Plath K,Lowry WE. Molecular analyses of human induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2010; 7: 263269.
  • 20
    Ghosh Z,Wilson KD,Wu Y,Hu S,Quertermous T,Wu JC. Persistent donor cell gene expression among human induced pluripotent stem cells contributes to differences with human embryonic stem cells. PLoS One 2010; 5: e8975.
  • 21
    Marchetto MC,Yeo GW,Kainohana O,Marsala M,Gage FH,Muotri AR. Transcriptional signature and memory retention of human-induced pluripotent stem cells. PLoS One 2009; 4: e7076.
  • 22
    Phanstiel DH,Brumbaugh J,Wenger CD,Tian S,Probasco MD,Bailey DJ,Swaney DL,Tervo MA,Bolin JM,Ruotti V,Stewart R,Thomson JA,Coon JJ. Proteomic and phosphoproteomic comparison of human ES and iPS cells. Nat Methods 2011; 8: 821827.
  • 23
    Stadtfeld M,Maherali N,Breault DT,Hochedlinger K. Defining molecular cornerstones during fibroblast to iPS cell reprogramming in mouse. Cell Stem Cell 2008; 2: 230240.
  • 24
    Wakao S,Kitada M,Kuroda Y,Shigemoto T,Matsuse D,Akashi H,Tanimura Y,Tsuchiyama K,Kikuchi T,Goda M,Nakahata T,Fujiyoshi Y,Dezawa M. Multilineage-differentiating stress-enduring (Muse) cells are a primary source of induced pluripotent stem cells in human fibroblasts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011; 108: 98759880.
  • 25
    Chan EM,Ratanasirintrawoot S,Park IH,Manos PD,Loh YH,Huo H,Miller JD,Hartung O,Rho J,Ince TA,Daley GQ,Schlaeger TM. Live cell imaging distinguishes bona fide human iPS cells from partially reprogrammed cells. Nat. Biotechnol 2009; 27: 10331037.
  • 26
    Manos PD,Ratanasirintrawoot S,Loewer S,Daley GQ,Schlaeger TM. Live-cell immunofluorescence staining of human pluripotent stem cells. Curr Protoc Stem Cell Biol 2011; Chapter 1: Unit 1C.12.
  • 27
    Kang NY,Yun SW,Ha HH,Park SJ,Chang YT. Embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cell staining and sorting with the live-cell fluorescence imaging probe CDy1. Nat Protoc 2011; 6: 10441052.
  • 28
    Donnenberg AD,Donnenberg VS. Rare-event analysis in flow cytometry. Clin Lab Med 2007; 27: 627652.
  • 29
    Yamanaka S. A fresh look ai iPS cells. Cell 2009; 137: 1317.
  • 30
    Huangfu D,Osafune K,Maehr R,Guo W,Eijkelenboom A,Chen S,Muhlestein W,Melton DA. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from primary human fibroblasts with only Oct4 and Sox2. Nature Biotechnology 2008; 26: 12691275.
  • 31
    Beltrão-Braga PC,Pignatari GC,Maiorka PC,Oliveira NA,Lizier NF,Wenceslau CV,Miglino MA,Muotri AR,Kerkis I. Feeder-free derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells from human immature dental pulp stem cells. Cell Transplant 2011; 20: 17071720.
  • 32
    Aaasen T,Raya A,Barrero MJ,Garreta E,Consiglio A,Gonzalez F,Vassena R,Bili J,Pekarik V,Tiscornia G,Edel M,Boué S,Belmonte JCI. Efficient and rapid generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from human keratinocytes. Nature Biotechnol 2008; 26: 12761284.
  • 33
    Marchetto MC,Yeo GW,Kainohana O,Marsala M,Gage FH,Muotri AR. Transcriptional signature and memory retention of human-induced pluripotent stem cells. PLoS ONE 2009; 4: e7076.
  • 34
    Stadtfeld M,Hochedlinger K. Induced pluripotency: history, mechanisms, and applications. Genes Dev 2010; 24: 22392263.
  • 35
    Inoue H,Yamanaka S. The use of induced pluripotent stem cells in drug development. Clinical Pharmacology &Therapeutics 2011; 89: 655661.
  • 36
    Dimos JT,Rodolfa KT,Niakan KK,Weisenthal LM,Mitsumoto H,Chung W,Croft GF,Saphier G,Leibel R,Goland R,Wichterle H,Henderson CE,Eggan K. Induced pluripotent stem cells generated from patients with ALS can be differentiated into motor neurons. Science 2008; 321: 12181221.
  • 37
    Lee G,Papapetrou EP,Kim H,Chambers SM,Tomshima MJ,Fasano CA,Ganat YM,Menon J,Shimizu F,Viale A,Tabar V,Sadelain M,Studer L. Modelling pathogenesis and treatment of familial dysautonomia using patient-specific iPSCs. Nature 2009; 461: 402406.
  • 38
    Soldner F,Hockemeyer D,Beard C,Gao Q,Bell GW,Cook EG,Hargus G,Blak A,Cooper O,Mitalipova M,Isacson O,Jaenisch R. Parkinson's disease patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells free of viral reprogramming factors. Cell 2009; 136: 964977.
  • 39
    Maehr R,Chen S,Snitow M,Ludwig T,Yagasaki L,Goland R,Leibel RL,Melton DA. Generation of pluripotent stem cells from patients with type 1 diabetes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009; 106: 1576815773.
  • 40
    Chamberlain SJ,Chen PF,Ng KY,Bourgois-Rocha F,Lemtiri-Chlieh F,Levine ES,Lalande M. Induced pluripotent stem cell models of the genomic imprinting disorders Angelman and Prader-Willi syndromes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010; 107: 1766817673.
  • 41
    Ebert AD,Yu J,Rose FFJr,Mattis VB,Lorson CV,Thomson JA,Svendsen CV. Induced pluripotent stem cells from a spinal muscular atrophy patient. Nature 2009;( 457): 277280.
  • 42
    Raya A,Rodriguez-Piza I,Guenechea G,Vassena R,Navarro S,Barrero MJ,Consiglio A,Castella M,Rio P,Sleep E,Gonzalez F,Tiscornia G,Garreta E,Aasen T,Veiga A,Verma IM,Surrallés J,Bueren J,Izpisúa A,Belmonte JC. Disease-corrected haematopoietic progenitors from Fanconi anaemia induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2009; 460: 5359.
  • 43
    Marchetto MC,Carromeu C,Acab A,Yu D,Yeo GW,Mu Y,Chen G,Gage F,Muotri AR. A Model for Neural Development and Treatment of Rett Syndrome Using Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Cell 2010; 143: 527539.
  • 44
    Pasca SP,Portmann T,Voineagu I,Yazawa M,Shcheglovitov A,Paşca AM,Cord B,Palmer TD,Chikahisa S,Nishino S,Bernstein JA,Hallmayer J,Geschwind DH,Dolmetsch RE. Using iPSC-derived neurons to uncover cellular phenotypes associated with Timothy syndrome. Nat Med 2011; 17: 16571662.
  • 45
    Yazawa M,Hsueh B,Jia X,Pasca AM,Bernstein JA,Hallmayer J,Dolmetsch RE. Using induced pluripotent stem cells to investigate cardiac phenotypes in Timothy syndrome. Nature 2011; 471: 230234.
  • 46
    Park IH,Arora N,Huo H,Maherali N,Ahfeldt T,Shimamura A,Lensch MW,Cowan C,Hochedlinger K,Daley GQ. Disease-specific induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell 2008; 134: 877886.
  • 47
    Yu J,Vodyanik MA,Smuga-Otto K,Antosiewicz-Bourget J,Frane JL,Tian S,Nie J,Jonsdottir GA,Ruotti V,Stewart R,Slukvin II,Thomson JA. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science 2007; 318: 19171920.
  • 48
    Takahashi K,Tanabe K,Ohnuki M,Narita M,Ichisaka T,Tomoda K,Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 2007; 131: 861872.
  • 49
    Montserrat N,Ramírez-Bajo MJ,Xia J,Sancho-Martinez I,Moya-Rull D,Miquel-Serra L,Yang S,Nivet E,Cortina C,González F,Belmonte JCI and Campisto JM. Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from human renal proximal tubular cells with only two transcription factors: OCT4 and SOX2. J Biol Chem 2012; 287: 2413124138.
  • 50
    Thomson JA,Itskovitz-Eldor J,Shapiro SS,Waknitz MA,Swiergiel JJ,Marshall VS,Jones JM. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 1998; 282: 11451147.
  • 51
    Heins N,Lindahl A,Karlsson U,Rehnström M,Caisander G,Emanuelsson K,Hanson C,Semb H,Björquist P,Sartipy P,Hyllner J. Clonal derivation and characterization of human embryonic stem cell lines. J Biotechnol 2006; 122: 511520.
  • 52
    Wang Z,Oron E,Nelson B,Razis S,Ivanova N. Distinct Lineage Specification Roles for NANOG, OCT4, and SOX2 in Human Embryonic Stem Cells. Cell Stem Cell 2012; 4: 440454.
  • 53
    Henderson JK,Draper JS,Baillie HS,Fishel S,Thomson JA,Moore H,Andrews PW. Pre-implantation human embryos and embryonic stem cells show comparable expression of stage-specific embryonic antigens. Stem Cells 2002; 20: 329337.
  • 54
    Reubinoff BE,Pera MF,Fong CY,Trounson A,Bongso A. Embryonic stem cell lines from human blastocysts: somatic differentiationin vitro. Nat Biotechnol 2000; 18: 399404.
  • 55
    Schopperle WM,De Wolf WC. The tra-1-60 and tra-1-81 human pluripotent stem cell markers are expressed on podocalyxin in embryonal carcinoma. Stem Cells 2007; 25: 723730.
  • 56
    Pesce MScholer HR. Oct-4: Control of totipotency and germline determination. Mol Reprod Dev 2000; 55: 452457.
  • 57
    Pesce M,Scholer HR. Oct-4: Gatekeeper in the beginnings of mammalian development. Stem Cells 2001; 19: 271278.
  • 58
    Botquin V,Hess H,Fuhrmann G,Anastassiadis C,Gross MK,Vriend G,Scholer HR. New pou dimer configuration mediates antagonistic control of an osteopontin pre-implantation enhancer by oct-4 and sox-2. Genes Dev 1998; 12: 20732090.
  • 59
    Boyer LA,Lee TI,Cole MF,Johnstone SE,Levine SS,Zucker JR,Guenther MG,Kumar RM,Murray HL,Jenner RG, et al. Core transcriptional regulatory circuitry in human embryonic stem cells. Cell 2005; 122: 947956.
  • 60
    Adewumi O,Aflatoonian B,Ahrlund-Richter L,Amit M,Andrews PW,Beighton G,Bello PA,Benvenisty N,Berry LS, Bevan S, et al. Characterization of humam embryonic stm cell by the international stem cell initiative. Nat Biotechnol 2007; 25: 803816.
  • 61
    Gordon S,Akopyan G,Garban H,Bonavida B. Transcription factor yy1: Structure, function, and therapeutic implications in cancer biology. Oncogene 2006; 25: 11251142.
  • 62
    Rogers MB,Hosler BA,Gudas LJ. Specific expression of a retinoic acid-regulated, zinc-finger gene, rex-1, in pre-implantation embryos, trophoblast and spermatocytes. Development 1991; 113: 815824.
  • 63
    Jiang JM,Chan YS,Loh YH,Cai J,Tong GQ,Lim CA,Robson P,Zhong S,Ng HH. A core klf circuitry regulates self-renewal of embryonic stem cells. Nat. Cell Biol 2008; 10: 353360.
  • 64
    Ku S,Soragni E,Campau E,Thomas EA,Altun G,Laurent LC,Loring JF,Napierala M,Joel MG. Friedreich's Ataxia Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Model Intergenerational GAA•TTC Triplet Repeat Instability. Cell Stem Cell 2010; 7: 631637.
  • 65
    Rashid ST,Corbineau S,Hannan N,Marciniak SJ,Miranda E,Alexander G,Huang-Doran I,Griffin J,Ahrlund-Richter L,Skepper J,Semple R,Weber A,Lomas DA,Vallier L. Modeling inherited metabolic disorders of the liver using human induced pluripotent stem cells. J Clin Invest 2010; 120: 31273136.
  • 66
    Carvajal-Vergara X,Sevilla A,D'Souza SL,Ang YS,Schaniel C,Lee DF,Yang L,Kaplan AD,Adler ED,Rozov R,Ge YC,Cohen N,Edelmann NJ,Chang B,Waghray A,Su J,Pardo S,Lichtenbelt KD,Tartaglia M,Gelb B,Lemischka IR. Patient-specific induced pluripotent stem cell derived models of LEOPARD syndrome. Nature 2010; 465: 808812.
  • 67
    Urbach A,Bar-Nur O,Daley GQ,Benvenisty N. Differential Modeling of Fragile X Syndrome by Human Embryonic Stem Cells and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Cell Stem Cell 2010: 407411.
  • 68
    Agarwal S,Loh YH,McLoughlin EM,Huang J,Park IH,Miller JD,Huo H,Okuka M,Reis RM,Loewer S,Ng HH,Keefe DL,Goldman FD,Klingelhutz AJ,Liu L,Daley GQ. Telomere elongation in induced pluripotent stem cells from dyskeratosis congenita patients. Nature 2010; 464: 292296.
  • 69
    Chamberlain SJ,Chen PF,Ng KY,Bourgois-Rocha F,Lemtiri-Chlieh F,Levine ES,Lalande M. Induced pluripotent stem cell models of the genomic imprinting disorders Angelman and Prader–Willi syndromes. PNAS 2010; 107: 1766817673.
  • 70
    Lahti AL,Kujala VJ,Chapman H,Koivisto AP,Pekkanen-Mattila M,Kerkelä E,Hyttinen J,Kontula K,Swan H,Conklin BR,Yamanaka S,Silvennoinen O,Aalto-Setälä K. Human disease model for long QT syndrome type 2 using iPS cells demonstrates arrhythmogenic characteristics in cell culture. Dis Model Mech 2011; 5: 220230.
  • 71
    Brennand KJ,Simone A,Jou J,Gelboin-Burkhart C,Tran N,Sangar S,Li Y,Mu Y,Chen G,Yu D,McCarthy S,Sebat J,Gage FH. Modelling schizophrenia using human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2011; 473: 221225.
  • 72
    Chang T,Zheng W,Tsark W,Bates SE,Huang H,Lin RJ,Yee JK. Phenotypic Rescue of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Motoneurons of a Spinal Muscular Atrophy Patient. Stem Cells 2011; 29: 20902093.
  • 73
    Amenduni M,De Filippis R,Cheung AYL,Disciglio V,Epistolato MC,Ariani F,Mari F,Mencarelli MA,Hayek Y,Renieri A,Ellis J,Meloni I. iPS cells to model CDKL5-related disorders. Eur J Hum Genet 2011; 19: 12461255.
  • 74
    Yahata N,Asai M,Kitaoka S,Takahashi K,Asaka I,Hioki H,Kaneko T,Maruyama K,Saido TC,Nakahata T,Asada T,Yamanaka S,Iwata N,Inoue H. Anti-Ab Drug Screening Platform Using Human iPS Cell-Derived Neurons for the Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: 111.
  • 75
    Itzhaki I,Maizels L,Huber I,Zwi-Dantsis L,Caspi O,Winterstern A,Feldman O,Gepstein A,Arbel G,Hammerman H,Boulos M,Gepstein L. Phenotypic Rescue of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Motoneurons of a Spinal Muscular Atrophy Patient. Stem Cells 2011; 471: 225229.
  • 76
    Jin ZB,Okamoto S,Osakada F,Homma K,Assawachananont J,Hirami Y,Iwata T,Takahashi M. Modeling retinal degeneration using patient-specific induced pluripotent stem cells. PLoS One 2011; 6: e17084.
  • 77
    Ring KL,Tong LM,Balestra ME,Javier R,Andrews-Zwilling Y,Li G,Walker D,Zhang WR,Kreitzer AC,Huang Y. Direct Reprogramming of Mouse and Human Fibroblasts into Multipotent Neural Stem Cells with a Single Factor. Cell Stem Cell 2012; 11: 100109.
  • 78
    Mou X,Wu Y,Cao H,Meng Q,Wang Q,Sun C,Hu S,Ma Y,Zhang H. Generation of disease-specific induced pluripotent stem cells from patients with different karyotypes of Down syndrome. Stem Cell Res Ther 2012; 3: 14.
  • 79
    DeRosa BA,Van Baaren JM,Dubey GK,Lee JM,Cuccaro ML,Vance JM,Pericak-Vance MA,Dykxhoorn DM. Derivation of autism spectrum disorder-specific induced pluripotent stem cells from peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Neurosci Lett 2012; 516: 914.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. PLURIPOTENCY
  4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. LITERATURE CITED
  7. Supporting Information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
CYTO_22231_sm_SuppInfo.doc28KSupporting Information

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.