Literature DB >> 21311564

Genomic instability in induced stem cells.

C E Pasi1, A Dereli-Öz, S Negrini, M Friedli, G Fragola, A Lombardo, G Van Houwe, L Naldini, S Casola, G Testa, D Trono, P G Pelicci, T D Halazonetis.   

Abstract

The ability to reprogram adult cells into stem cells has raised hopes for novel therapies for many human diseases. Typical stem cell reprogramming protocols involve expression of a small number of genes in differentiated somatic cells with the c-Myc and Klf4 proto-oncogenes typically included in this mix. We have previously shown that expression of oncogenes leads to DNA replication stress and genomic instability, explaining the high frequency of p53 mutations in human cancers. Consequently, we wondered whether stem cell reprogramming also leads to genomic instability. To test this hypothesis, we examined stem cells induced by a variety of protocols. The first protocol, developed specifically for this study, reprogrammed primary mouse mammary cells into mammary stem cells by expressing c-Myc. Two other previously established protocols reprogrammed mouse embryo fibroblasts into induced pluripotent stem cells by expressing either three genes, Oct4, Sox2 and Klf4, or four genes, OSK plus c-Myc. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of stem cells derived by these protocols revealed the presence of genomic deletions and amplifications, whose signature was suggestive of oncogene-induced DNA replication stress. The genomic aberrations were to a significant degree dependent on c-Myc expression and their presence could explain why p53 inactivation facilitates stem cell reprogramming.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21311564      PMCID: PMC3079512          DOI: 10.1038/cdd.2011.9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cell Death Differ        ISSN: 1350-9047            Impact factor:   15.828


  47 in total

1.  Alternative induced pluripotent stem cell characterization criteria for in vitro applications.

Authors:  James Ellis; Benoit G Bruneau; Gordon Keller; Ihor R Lemischka; Andras Nagy; Janet Rossant; Deepak Srivastava; Peter W Zandstra; William L Stanford
Journal:  Cell Stem Cell       Date:  2009-03-06       Impact factor: 24.633

2.  A p53-mediated DNA damage response limits reprogramming to ensure iPS cell genomic integrity.

Authors:  Rosa M Marión; Katerina Strati; Han Li; Matilde Murga; Raquel Blanco; Sagrario Ortega; Oscar Fernandez-Capetillo; Manuel Serrano; Maria A Blasco
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-08-09       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Suppression of induced pluripotent stem cell generation by the p53-p21 pathway.

Authors:  Hyenjong Hong; Kazutoshi Takahashi; Tomoko Ichisaka; Takashi Aoi; Osami Kanagawa; Masato Nakagawa; Keisuke Okita; Shinya Yamanaka
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-08-09       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Immortalization eliminates a roadblock during cellular reprogramming into iPS cells.

Authors:  Jochen Utikal; Jose M Polo; Matthias Stadtfeld; Nimet Maherali; Warakorn Kulalert; Ryan M Walsh; Adam Khalil; James G Rheinwald; Konrad Hochedlinger
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-08-09       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Replication stress induces genome-wide copy number changes in human cells that resemble polymorphic and pathogenic variants.

Authors:  Martin F Arlt; Jennifer G Mulle; Valerie M Schaibley; Ryan L Ragland; Sandra G Durkin; Stephen T Warren; Thomas W Glover
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-02-19       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Linking the p53 tumour suppressor pathway to somatic cell reprogramming.

Authors:  Teruhisa Kawamura; Jotaro Suzuki; Yunyuan V Wang; Sergio Menendez; Laura Batlle Morera; Angel Raya; Geoffrey M Wahl; Juan Carlos Izpisúa Belmonte
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-08-09       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  The tumor suppressor p53 regulates polarity of self-renewing divisions in mammary stem cells.

Authors:  Angelo Cicalese; Giuseppina Bonizzi; Cristina E Pasi; Mario Faretta; Simona Ronzoni; Barbara Giulini; Cathrin Brisken; Saverio Minucci; Pier Paolo Di Fiore; Pier Giuseppe Pelicci
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 41.582

8.  Induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells are distinguished by gene expression signatures.

Authors:  Mark H Chin; Mike J Mason; Wei Xie; Stefano Volinia; Mike Singer; Cory Peterson; Gayane Ambartsumyan; Otaren Aimiuwu; Laura Richter; Jin Zhang; Ivan Khvorostov; Vanessa Ott; Michael Grunstein; Neta Lavon; Nissim Benvenisty; Carlo M Croce; Amander T Clark; Tim Baxter; April D Pyle; Mike A Teitell; Matteo Pelegrini; Kathrin Plath; William E Lowry
Journal:  Cell Stem Cell       Date:  2009-07-02       Impact factor: 24.633

9.  Human induced pluripotent stem cells free of vector and transgene sequences.

Authors:  Junying Yu; Kejin Hu; Kim Smuga-Otto; Shulan Tian; Ron Stewart; Igor I Slukvin; James A Thomson
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-03-26       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  A gene expression signature shared by human mature oocytes and embryonic stem cells.

Authors:  Said Assou; Doris Cerecedo; Sylvie Tondeur; Véronique Pantesco; Outi Hovatta; Bernard Klein; Samir Hamamah; John De Vos
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2009-01-08       Impact factor: 3.969

View more
  68 in total

Review 1.  Induced pluripotent stem cells--opportunities for disease modelling and drug discovery.

Authors:  Marica Grskovic; Ashkan Javaherian; Berta Strulovici; George Q Daley
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 84.694

Review 2.  Amniotic fluid stem cell-based models to study the effects of gene mutations and toxicants on male germ cell formation.

Authors:  Claudia Gundacker; Helmut Dolznig; Mario Mikula; Margit Rosner; Oliver Brandau; Markus Hengstschläger
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 3.  Human induced pluripotent stem cells--from mechanisms to clinical applications.

Authors:  Katharina Drews; Justyna Jozefczuk; Alessandro Prigione; James Adjaye
Journal:  J Mol Med (Berl)       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 4.599

4.  Recurrent trisomy and Robertsonian translocation of chromosome 14 in murine iPS cell lines.

Authors:  Qian Chen; Xiaoyun Shi; Cornelia Rudolph; Yong Yu; Ding Zhang; Xiaoyu Zhao; Sabine Mai; Gang Wang; Brigitte Schlegelberger; Qinghua Shi
Journal:  Chromosome Res       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 5.239

5.  Context-dependent enhancement of induced pluripotent stem cell reprogramming by silencing Puma.

Authors:  Blue B Lake; Jürgen Fink; Liv Klemetsaune; Xuemei Fu; John R Jeffers; Gerard P Zambetti; Yang Xu
Journal:  Stem Cells       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 6.277

6.  Can an iPS cell secure its genomic fidelity?

Authors:  R Sarig; V Rotter
Journal:  Cell Death Differ       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 15.828

Review 7.  Therapeutic opportunities: telomere maintenance in inducible pluripotent stem cells.

Authors:  Francoise A Gourronc; Aloysius J Klingelhutz
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2011-05-13       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 8.  Translating induced pluripotent stem cells from bench to bedside: application to retinal diseases.

Authors:  Alona O Cramer; Robert E MacLaren
Journal:  Curr Gene Ther       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.391

9.  Modified lentiviral LTRs allow Flp recombinase-mediated cassette exchange and in vivo tracing of "factor-free" induced pluripotent stem cells.

Authors:  Johannes Kuehle; Soeren Turan; Tobias Cantz; Dirk Hoffmann; Julia D Suerth; Tobias Maetzig; Daniela Zychlinski; Christoph Klein; Doris Steinemann; Christopher Baum; Juergen Bode; Axel Schambach
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 11.454

Review 10.  Evaluating cell reprogramming, differentiation and conversion technologies in neuroscience.

Authors:  Jerome Mertens; Maria C Marchetto; Cedric Bardy; Fred H Gage
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 34.870

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.