UNLABELLED: Recent advances in induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell research have significantly changed our perspective on regenerative medicine. Patient-specific iPS cells have been derived not only for disease modeling but also as sources for cell replacement therapy. However, there have been insufficient data to prove that iPS cells are functionally equivalent to human embryonic stem (hES) cells or are safer than hES cells. There are several important issues that need to be addressed, and foremost are the safety and efficacy of human iPS cells of different origins. Human iPS cells have been derived mostly from cells originating from mesoderm and in a few cases from ectoderm. So far, there has been no report of endoderm-derived human iPS cells, and this has prevented comprehensive comparative investigations of the quality of human iPS cells of different origins. Here we show for the first time reprogramming of human endoderm-derived cells (i.e., primary hepatocytes) to pluripotency. Hepatocyte-derived iPS cells appear indistinguishable from hES cells with respect to colony morphology, growth properties, expression of pluripotency-associated transcription factors and surface markers, and differentiation potential in embryoid body formation and teratoma assays. In addition, these cells are able to directly differentiate into definitive endoderm, hepatic progenitors, and mature hepatocytes. CONCLUSION: The technology to develop endoderm-derived human iPS cell lines, together with other established cell lines, will provide a foundation for elucidating the mechanisms of cellular reprogramming and for studying the safety and efficacy of differentially originated human iPS cells for cell therapy. For the study of liver disease pathogenesis, this technology also provides a potentially more amenable system for generating liver disease-specific iPS cells.
UNLABELLED: Recent advances in induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell research have significantly changed our perspective on regenerative medicine. Patient-specific iPS cells have been derived not only for disease modeling but also as sources for cell replacement therapy. However, there have been insufficient data to prove that iPS cells are functionally equivalent to human embryonic stem (hES) cells or are safer than hES cells. There are several important issues that need to be addressed, and foremost are the safety and efficacy of humaniPS cells of different origins. HumaniPS cells have been derived mostly from cells originating from mesoderm and in a few cases from ectoderm. So far, there has been no report of endoderm-derived humaniPS cells, and this has prevented comprehensive comparative investigations of the quality of humaniPS cells of different origins. Here we show for the first time reprogramming of human endoderm-derived cells (i.e., primary hepatocytes) to pluripotency. Hepatocyte-derived iPS cells appear indistinguishable from hES cells with respect to colony morphology, growth properties, expression of pluripotency-associated transcription factors and surface markers, and differentiation potential in embryoid body formation and teratoma assays. In addition, these cells are able to directly differentiate into definitive endoderm, hepatic progenitors, and mature hepatocytes. CONCLUSION: The technology to develop endoderm-derived humaniPS cell lines, together with other established cell lines, will provide a foundation for elucidating the mechanisms of cellular reprogramming and for studying the safety and efficacy of differentially originated humaniPS cells for cell therapy. For the study of liver disease pathogenesis, this technology also provides a potentially more amenable system for generating liver disease-specific iPS cells.
Authors: Elayne M Chan; Sutheera Ratanasirintrawoot; In-Hyun Park; Philip D Manos; Yuin-Han Loh; Hongguang Huo; Justine D Miller; Odelya Hartung; Junsung Rho; Tan A Ince; George Q Daley; Thorsten M Schlaeger Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2009-10-11 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Akiko Doi; In-Hyun Park; Bo Wen; Peter Murakami; Martin J Aryee; Rafael Irizarry; Brian Herb; Christine Ladd-Acosta; Junsung Rho; Sabine Loewer; Justine Miller; Thorsten Schlaeger; George Q Daley; Andrew P Feinberg Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2009-11-01 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Gareth J Sullivan; David C Hay; In-Hyun Park; Judy Fletcher; Zara Hannoun; Catherine M Payne; Donna Dalgetty; James R Black; James A Ross; Kay Samuel; Gang Wang; George Q Daley; Je-Hyuk Lee; George M Church; Stuart J Forbes; John P Iredale; Ian Wilmut Journal: Hepatology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Zhaohui Ye; Huichun Zhan; Prashant Mali; Sarah Dowey; Donna M Williams; Yoon-Young Jang; Chi V Dang; Jerry L Spivak; Alison R Moliterno; Linzhao Cheng Journal: Blood Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Erin R Burnight; Luke A Wiley; Robert F Mullins; Edwin M Stone; Budd A Tucker Journal: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 6.915
Authors: Su Mi Choi; Yonghak Kim; Joong Sup Shim; Joon Tae Park; Rui-Hong Wang; Steven D Leach; Jun O Liu; Chuxia Deng; Zhaohui Ye; Yoon-Young Jang Journal: Hepatology Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Xuan Guan; David L Mack; Claudia M Moreno; Jennifer L Strande; Julie Mathieu; Yingai Shi; Chad D Markert; Zejing Wang; Guihua Liu; Michael W Lawlor; Emily C Moorefield; Tara N Jones; James A Fugate; Mark E Furth; Charles E Murry; Hannele Ruohola-Baker; Yuanyuan Zhang; Luis F Santana; Martin K Childers Journal: Stem Cell Res Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 2.020