Literature DB >> 23028448

Transcriptional differences between rhesus embryonic stem cells generated from in vitro and in vivo derived embryos.

Alexandra J Harvey1, Shihong Mao, Claudia Lalancette, Stephen A Krawetz, Carol A Brenner.   

Abstract

Numerous studies have focused on the transcriptional signatures that underlie the maintenance of embryonic stem cell (ESC) pluripotency. However, it remains unclear whether ESC retain transcriptional aberrations seen in in vitro cultured embryos. Here we report the first global transcriptional profile comparison between ESC generated from either in vitro cultured or in vivo derived primate embryos by microarray analysis. Genes involved in pluripotency, oxygen regulation and the cell cycle were downregulated in rhesus ESC generated from in vitro cultured embryos (in vitro ESC). Significantly, several gene differences are similarly downregulated in preimplantation embryos cultured in vitro, which have been associated with long term developmental consequences and disease predisposition. This data indicates that prior to derivation, embryo quality may influence the molecular signature of ESC lines, and may differentially impact the physiology of cells prior to or following differentiation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23028448      PMCID: PMC3445581          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043239

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


Introduction

Embryonic stem cells (ESC) derived from the inner cell mass (ICM) of preimplantation embryos have the potential to differentiate into any cell type of the three embryonic germ layers. ESC retain the ability to proliferate indefinitely, and maintain pluripotency through conserved regulatory networks; however require the provision of various extrinsic factors within the culture environment for continued growth and self-renewal capacity [1], [2]. Loss of pluripotency results in changes in gene expression that include down-regulation of key pluripotency and repressive markers and the up-regulation of regulators of differentiation [3]. Recent studies have documented the transcriptional profiles of various embryonic stem cell lines [4]–[7], establishing a common stem cell regulatory program underlying pluripotency. However, ESC exhibit significant heterogeneity between and within lines, displaying differences in gene expression and differentiation capacity, as well as changes with increasing passage number and culture environment [8]–[11], largely attributed to adaptation with long term culture [12], [13]. Significant differences have also been observed between human ESC lines attributed to differences in derivation techniques [14] and culture conditions [15]–[17]. Very little attention has been paid to other factors which may contribute to the overall normalcy of these cell lines, particularly the quality of the embryo from which a line is derived. Preimplantation embryo development in vitro is associated with a number of perturbations in ultrastructure [18], [19], gene expression [20]–[25] and post-transfer development [26]–[30], when compared with embryos derived in vivo. These differences likely underlie the significant variation between ESC lines. There is also considerable evidence that the environment to which the preimplantation embryo is exposed, particularly the in vitro culture environment, predisposes the resulting fetus to increased risk of adult onset diseases and imprinting disorders [28], [31]–[36]. Recently, Horii et al [37] reported retention of epigenetic differences in mouse ESC dependent on the in vivo or in vitro origin of the embryo from which they were derived. While ESC transcriptional profiles are known to differ from that of the ICM [38], [39], these data raise the question as to whether ESC retain transcriptional memory of the embryos from which they were derived. Significantly, it is not clear whether current ESC models are similarly predisposed to developing disease characteristics post-transplantation, or whether they exhibit low levels of perturbation that are not easily distinguishable. To explore the hypothesis that differences exist between ESC derived from in vitro and in vivo embryos, gene expression profiles of rhesus macaque ESC generated from either in vitro cultured (Ormes series [40]) or in vivo derived (R series [41]) embryos were compared.

Results

Expression Profiling of rhesus ESC generated from in vitro or in vivo derived embryos

The transcriptional profiles of undifferentiated ESC generated from either in vivo derived or in vitro produced rhesus embryos were compared using the Affymetrix GeneChip Rhesus Macaque Genome Array, enabling large scale gene expression profiling of 52,865 probe sets, representing over 20,000 genes. Initial data analysis using dChip software identified a total of 2537 transcripts as significantly different between in vitro and in vivo ESC, by a twofold or greater fold change (). Comparison between groups revealed 592 probe sets upregulated in rhesus ESC of in vitro origin. The reciprocal analysis identified 1945 probe sets upregulated in rhesus ESC of in vivo origin. Of the 2537, 1803 had known Entrez Gene IDs. As dChip is a model-based approach that only allows probe-level analysis, we undertook ChipInspector (Genomatix) analysis to assess differences at the level of each gene. ChipInspector identified a total of 3881 transcripts with differential expression of twofold or greater, of which 2706 were unique to the Genomatix analysis (), while 1175 transcripts overlapped with the dChip analysis. Of the 3881 transcripts, 560 genes were upregulated and 3321 were downregulated in in vitro ESC. Further classification of the 3881 differentially expressed transcripts by biological function was undertaken using NetAffx (Affymetrix). Several significant (P<0.05) functional biological categories were represented including apoptosis, cell cycle, development and regulation of transcription ( ). Of the 3321 downregulated genes and 560 upregulated genes, 797 and 129 were specific to in vitro ESC respectively ( ). Hierarchical clustering demonstrated that gene expression profiles of in vivo ESC samples clustered together, separately from in vitro ESC samples ( ), indicating that gene expression differences observed between in vivo and in vitro ESC were greater than differences within the experimental groups.
Figure 1

Functional classification and hierarchical clustering of 3881 significantly different transcripts in rhesus ESC.

A: Pie charts representing up- and down-regulated biological functions of 3881 differentially expression genes in ESC. Numbers represent percentages of 560 up- and 3321 down-regulated genes in ESC generated from in vitro cultured embryos, compared with ESC generated from in vivo derived embryos. B: Combination Venn diagram of shared and specific genes expressed in ESC originating from in vitro or in vivo derived embryos. The region of overlap between all areas represents the number of genes expressed in ESC from either origin. Regions not overlapping reflect genes expressed specifically in in vitro or in vivo ESC. There are 11521 genes categorized as present (dChip). Of the 3881 genes identified as significant genes from ChipInspector, 2955 genes are considered as present by dChip, the remaining 926 genes as absent. Of the 2955 genes, 2,524 are down-regulated and 431 are up-regulated; on the 926 absent genes, 797 are down-regulated, 129 are up-regulated. C: Dendrogram representing 3881 significantly different transcripts and hierarchical clustering of biological replicates. Colors indicate relative expression level of each gene in all analyzed samples, with red indicating higher expression and green indicating lower expression.

Functional classification and hierarchical clustering of 3881 significantly different transcripts in rhesus ESC.

A: Pie charts representing up- and down-regulated biological functions of 3881 differentially expression genes in ESC. Numbers represent percentages of 560 up- and 3321 down-regulated genes in ESC generated from in vitro cultured embryos, compared with ESC generated from in vivo derived embryos. B: Combination Venn diagram of shared and specific genes expressed in ESC originating from in vitro or in vivo derived embryos. The region of overlap between all areas represents the number of genes expressed in ESC from either origin. Regions not overlapping reflect genes expressed specifically in in vitro or in vivo ESC. There are 11521 genes categorized as present (dChip). Of the 3881 genes identified as significant genes from ChipInspector, 2955 genes are considered as present by dChip, the remaining 926 genes as absent. Of the 2955 genes, 2,524 are down-regulated and 431 are up-regulated; on the 926 absent genes, 797 are down-regulated, 129 are up-regulated. C: Dendrogram representing 3881 significantly different transcripts and hierarchical clustering of biological replicates. Colors indicate relative expression level of each gene in all analyzed samples, with red indicating higher expression and green indicating lower expression. To identify functional relationships between transcripts, 3881 differentially expressed rhesus transcripts were uploaded into Bibliosphere (Genomatix) for literature based gene connection analysis. Bibliosphere identified 1388 transcripts significantly up- or downregulated in rhesus ESC. Further analysis of the 1388 genes, identified 202 transcription factors ( ), and 40 significantly enriched pathways ( ), involving a total of 544 genes.
Table 1

Transcription factor expression significantly altered by ESC origin.

Gene symbolGene nameq-value
PAX8paired box 82.16
NR6A1nuclear receptor subfamily 6, group A, member 12.07
HIVEP3human immunodeficiency virus type I enhancer binding protein 32.02
TAF1TBP-associated factor 11.82
NFATC1nuclear factor of activated T-cells, cytoplasmic, calcineurin-dependent 11.68
ZNF219zinc finger protein 2191.62
ARID2AT rich interactive domain 2 (ARID, RFX-like)1.617
SHOX2short stature homeobox 21.56
ETV5ets variant 51.56
FOXJ3forkhead box J31.55
SMAD2SMAD family member 21.5
ZNF292zinc finger protein 2921.5
RBPJrecombination signal binding protein for immunoglobulin kappa J region1.49
E2F7E2F transcription factor 71.46
ZFXzinc finger protein, X-linked1.45
ZNF280Bzinc finger protein 280B1.39
KLF3Kruppel-like factor 3 (basic)1.36
BAZ2Bbromodomain adjacent to zinc finger domain, 2B1.36
ZNF24zinc finger protein 241.36
TBPTATA box binding protein1.34
UBN1ubinuclein 11.31
RFX7regulatory factor X, 71.26
TIAM1T-cell lymphoma invasion and metastasis 11.25
MTF2metal response element binding transcription factor 21.242
SLC30A9solute carrier family 30 (zinc transporter), member 91.11
SETDB1SET domain, bifurcated 11.1
CDCA7cell division cycle associated 71.01
ZNF148zinc finger protein 1480.41
GTF2H2general transcription factor IIH, polypeptide 2, 44 kDa0.27
NCOA3nuclear receptor coactivator 30.259
PYGO2pygopus homolog 2 (Drosophila)0.055
RBM4RNA binding motif protein 40.02
CDK8cyclin-dependent kinase 80.005
ATRXalpha thalassemia/mental retardation syndrome X-linked (RAD54 homolog, S. cerevisiae)−0.14
PUF60poly-U binding splicing factor 60 KDa−0.175
SP3Sp3 transcription factor−0.297
NPATnuclear protein, ataxia-telangiectasia locus−0.56
SMARCA1SWI/SNF related, matrix associated, actin dependent regulator of chromatin, subfamily a, member 1−0.586
SMAD3SMAD family member 3−0.629
ASH2Lash2 (absent, small, or homeotic)-like−0.923
ZMYM2zinc finger, MYM-type 2−0.94
IRF3interferon regulatory factor 3−1.01
MED12mediator complex subunit 12−1.01
ZNF215zinc finger protein 215−1.01
HIPK3homeodomain interacting protein kinase 3−1.02
TAF6LTAF6-like RNA polymerase II−1.02
PHF19PHD finger protein 19−1.02
ING1inhibitor of growth family, member 1−1.02
MLLmyeloid/lymphoid or mixed-lineage leukemia (trithorax homolog, Drosophila)−1.03
ZNF192zinc finger protein 192−1.03
NCOA2nuclear receptor coactivator 2−1.04
TP53tumor protein p53−1.04
MEF2Amyocyte enhancer factor 2A−1.04
SATB1SATB homeobox 1−1.04
PHTF2putative homeodomain transcription factor 2−1.046
HOXB1homeobox B1−1.05
ZNF76zinc finger protein 76 (expressed in testis)−1.05
MED1mediator complex subunit 1−1.05
MYBL1v-myb myeloblastosis viral oncogene homolog (avian)-like 1−1.05
TRIP11thyroid hormone receptor interactor 11−1.05
HSF1heat shock transcription factor 1−1.05
MYCNv-myc myelocytomatosis viral related oncogene, neuroblastoma derived (avian)−1.06
ZEB1zinc finger E-box binding homeobox 1−1.06
MAML2mastermind-like 2 (Drosophila)−1.06
MYST1MYST histone acetyltransferase 1−1.06
SCML1sex comb on midleg-like 1 (Drosophila)−1.06
TLE4transducin-like enhancer of split 4 (E(sp1) homolog, Drosophila)−1.065
CNOT3CCR4-NOT transcription complex, subunit 3−1.07
SP1Sp1 transcription factor−1.07
DEAF1deformed epidermal autoregulatory factor 1−1.08
TARBP2TAR (HIV-1) RNA binding protein 2−1.08
SIX4SIX homeobox 4−1.08
CDK9cyclin-dependent kinase 9−1.08
CREBL2cAMP responsive element binding protein-like 2−1.08
TRIM33tripartite motif-containing 33−1.09
RNF14ring finger protein 14−1.09
PRIC285PPAR-alpha interacting complex protein 285−1.1
TMF1TATA element modulatory factor 1−1.1
PURAsimilar to Transcriptional activator protein Pur-alpha (Purine-rich single-stranded DNA-binding protein alpha)−1.1
NCOR2nuclear receptor co-repressor 2−1.102
YAF2YY1 associated factor 2−1.103
HESX1HESX homeobox 1−1.12
ELF2similar to E74-like factor 2 (ets domain transcription factor) isoform 2−1.12
FOXN3forkhead box N3−1.13
HSF2heat shock transcription factor 2−1.14
ZFP36L2zinc finger protein 36, C3H type-like 2−1.14
ACTR5ARP5 actin-related protein 5 homolog (yeast)−1.15
SMAD4SMAD family member 4−1.17
DDX54DEAD (Asp-Glu-Ala-Asp) box polypeptide 54−1.17
POU5F1POU class 5 homeobox 1−1.17
ZSCAN21zinc finger and SCAN domain containing 21−1.176
ERCC3excision repair cross-complementing rodent repair deficiency, complementation group 3−1.18
STAT1signal transducer and activator of transcription 1−1.185
ZNF81zinc finger protein 81−1.2
HMGA2high mobility group AT-hook 2−1.205
INGXinhibitor of growth family, X-linked, pseudogene−1.21
ZNF140zinc finger protein 140−1.21
DIDO1death inducer-obliterator 1−1.22
ARNTLaryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator-like−1.226
NAB2NGFI-A binding protein 2−1.228
BAZ1Abromodomain adjacent to zinc finger domain, 1A−1.23
SSBP1single-stranded DNA binding protein 1−1.23
CREG1cellular repressor of E1A-stimulated genes 1−1.24
HCFC1host cell factor C1 (VP16-accessory protein)−1.25
MYBBP1AMYB binding protein (P160) 1a−1.25
MLXMAX-like protein X−1.262
KLF5similar to Krueppel-like factor 5−1.28
TAF2TAF2 RNA polymerase II, TATA box binding protein (TBP)-associated factor, 150 kDa−1.285
PIAS2protein inhibitor of activated STAT, 2−1.285
PHF10PHD finger protein 10−1.29
SMAD1SMAD family member 1−1.297
ELL2elongation factor, RNA polymerase II, 2−1.31
ETV6ets variant 6−1.313
ETS1v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog 1 (avian)−1.317
TP53BP2tumor protein p53 binding protein, 2−1.33
ZNF143zinc finger protein 143−1.33
MED7mediator complex subunit 7−1.33
BTF3basic transcription factor 3−1.34
ZNF410zinc finger protein 410−1.34
FOXO1forkhead box O1−1.34
STAT3signal transducer and activator of transcription−1.345
DR1down-regulator of transcription 1, TBP-binding (negative cofactor 2)−1.35
CTCFsimilar to Transcriptional repressor CTCF (CCCTC-binding factor) (CTCFL paralog) (11-zinc finger protein)−1.35
GTF2H4general transcription factor IIH, polypeptide 4, 52 kDa−1.35
SAP18Sin3A-associated protein, 18 kDa−1.35
ACTL6Aactin-like 6A−1.36
TFDP2transcription factor Dp-2 (E2F dimerization partner 2)−1.366
CNOT2CCR4-NOT transcription complex, subunit 2−1.37
BHLHE40basic helix-loop-helix family, member e40−1.38
KDM3Alysine (K)-specific demethylase 3A−1.38
BRD7bromodomain containing 7−1.38
GTF2F1general transcription factor IIF, polypeptide 1, 74 kDa−1.39
BCORBCL6 co-repressor−1.39
ZNF281zinc finger protein 281−1.39
TFAP2Ctranscription factor AP-2 gamma−1.39
SAP30Sin3A-associated protein, 30 kDa−1.4
MED17mediator complex subunit 17−1.4
ZNF451zinc finger protein 451−1.42
TCF7L2transcription factor 7-like 2 (T-cell specific, HMG-box)−1.44
SMAD5SMAD family member 5−1.44
RB1retinoblastoma 1−1.45
JMJD1Cjumonji domain containing 1C−1.451
ATF1activating transcription factor 1−1.47
CREB1cAMP responsive element binding protein 1−1.48
THRAP3thyroid hormone receptor associated protein 3−1.49
YBX1Y box binding protein 1−1.5
GTF2H1general transcription factor IIH, polypeptide 1, 62 kDa−1.508
MECP2methyl CpG binding protein 2 (Rett syndrome)−1.51
TAF12TAF12 RNA polymerase II, TATA box binding protein (TBP)-associated factor, 20 kDa−1.51
CBFBcore-binding factor, beta subunit−1.52
MED20mediator complex subunit 20−1.52
DDX20DEAD (Asp-Glu-Ala-Asp) box polypeptide 20−1.53
WDR77WD repeat domain 77−1.545
BTAF1BTAF1 RNA polymerase II, B-TFIID transcription factor-associated, 170 kDa−1.55
TAF9TAF9 RNA polymerase II, TATA box binding protein (TBP)-associated factor, 32 kDa−1.56
MED19mediator complex subunit 19−1.578
PIAS1protein inhibitor of activated STAT, 1−1.587
CNOT8CCR4-NOT transcription complex, subunit 8−1.59
NRIP1nuclear receptor interacting protein 1−1.61
TSG101tumor susceptibility gene 101−1.62
MED10mediator complex subunit 10−1.62
KAT5K(lysine) acetyltransferase 5−1.63
SMARCA4SWI/SNF-related matrix-associated actin-dependent regulator of chromatin a4−1.65
ABT1activator of basal transcription 1−1.67
SMARCC1SWI/SNF-related matrix-associated actin-dependent regulator of chromatin c1−1.67
ETS2v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog 2−1.68
ZNF462zinc finger protein 462−1.7
SOX2SRY (sex determining region Y)-box 2−1.71
ZNF423zinc finger protein 423−1.72
CTNNB1catenin (cadherin-associated protein), beta 1, 88 kDa−1.76
FUBP1far upstream element (FUSE) binding protein 1−1.77
HBP1HMG-box transcription factor 1−1.78
CREMcAMP responsive element modulator−1.8
TFAMtranscription factor A, mitochondrial−1.8
PTTG1pituitary tumor-transforming 1−1.81
CCND1cyclin D1−1.81
ATF4activating transcription factor 4 (tax-responsive enhancer element B67)−1.83
TRRAPtransformation/transcription domain-associated protein−1.885
HIVEP1human immunodeficiency virus type I enhancer binding protein 1−1.9
CALRcalreticulin−1.92
ADNPactivity-dependent neuroprotector homeobox−1.93
MYCv-myc myelocytomatosis viral oncogene homolog (avian)−1.94
TCEA1transcription elongation factor A (SII), 1−2.01
CITED2similar to Cbp/p300-interacting transactivator, with Glu/Asp-rich carboxy-terminal−2.06
ID4inhibitor of DNA binding 4, dominant negative helix-loop-helix protein−2.075
TCEB3transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 3 (110 kDa, elongin A)−2.08
YWHAHtyrosine 3-monooxygenase/tryptophan 5-monooxygenase activation protein, eta polypeptide−2.12
DDX5DEAD (Asp-Glu-Ala-Asp) box polypeptide 5−2.13
ANKRD1ankyrin repeat domain 1 (cardiac muscle)−2.18
GTF3Ageneral transcription factor IIIA−2.27
COPS5COP9 constitutive photomorphogenic homolog subunit 5 (Arabidopsis)−2.295
HTATSF1HIV-1 Tat specific factor 1−2.3
NFYBnuclear transcription factor Y, beta−2.342
STRAPserine/threonine kinase receptor associated protein−2.457
HIF1Ahypoxia inducible factor 1, alpha subunit (basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor)−2.462
BCLAF1BCL2-associated transcription factor 1−2.49
GTF2Igeneral transcription factor II−2.56
MORF4L2similar to Mortality factor 4-like protein 2 (MORF-related gene X protein) (Transcription factor-like protein MRGX) (MSL3-2 protein)−2.8
PFN1profilin 1−2.82
TARDBPTAR DNA binding protein−2.89
DDX17DEAD (Asp-Glu-Ala-Asp) box polypeptide 17−2.96
HELLShelicase, lymphoid-specific−2.965

Higher ratios represent genes upregulated in in vitro ESC, lower ratios are upregulated in in vivo ESC. As ChipInspector considers one probe as significant if the fold-change is greater than 2, the final FC for each gene represents the average of all probes that overlap the gene. The q-value is calculated as log2 fold change.

Table 2

Canonical signal transduction pathways represented by the 1388 differentially expressed transcripts from ESC generated from either in vivo derived or in vitro cultured embryos.

Canonical pathwayP-value# Genes (observed)# Genes (expected)Total genes in pathwayList of observed genes
Androgen Receptor1.01E-062810.9444487STUB1, CTNNB1, AKT1, HIPK3, CALR, PXN, SVIL, MAPK1, STAT3, SP1, TMF1, NCOA3, CDK9, CDC37, CDC2, RB1, MDM2, SMAD3, PIAS1, RNF14, CCNH, NCOR2, GTF2F1, PTEN, NCOA2, CAV1, NRIP1, GTF2H4
HIV-1 NEF: negative effector of FAS and TNF1.4E-05196.79310354NUMA1, LMNB1, PSEN1, CASP8, GSN, LMNA, MAP3K1, BIRC2, RB1, PAK2, MDM2, CFLAR, RASA1, FAS, CHUK, PTK2, CASP3, PSEN2, BAG4
Osteopontin-mediated events0.000137123.77394630PIK3R1, MMP2, VAV3, GSN, SPP1, MAPK1, MAP3K1, CD44, ROCK2, CHUK, PLAU, MAPK3
Integrins in angiogenesis0.000243166.28991150PIK3R1, VEGFA, AKT1, CASP8, VAV3, PXN, TLN1, SPP1, MAPK1, FGF2, SDC1, IGF1R, HSP90AA1, PI4KB, PTK2, MAPK3
VEGFR1 specific signals0.000315113.5223528PLCG1, PIK3R1, VEGFA, AKT1, NRP2, HIF1A, MAPK1, HSP90AA1, RASA1, CAV1, MAPK3
FAS signaling pathway (cd95)0.00033892.51596420CASP8, MAP3K1, FAF1, RB1, PAK2, CFLAR, FAS, MAP3K7, CASP3
Mechanism of gene regulation by peroxisome proliferators via ppara0.00037145.28352542DUSP1, MYC, CITED2, MED1, MAPK1, SP1, DUT, RB1, HSD17B4, HSP90AA1, ME1, NCOR2, NRIP1, MAPK3
Rb tumor suppressor/checkpoint signaling in response to dna damage0.00041171.63537713YWHAH, CDK4, TP53, WEE1, CDC2, RB1, CDK2
HIF-1-alpha transcription factor network0.000469198.55427868VEGFA, AKT1, HIF1A, CITED2, SP1, MCL1, HMOX1, BHLHE40, ETS1, PGK1, SMAD3, TFRC, CREB1, NCOA2, EDN1, ADM, COPS5, CXCL12
Human cytomegalovirus and map kinase pathways0.00050582.1385717PIK3R1, AKT1, MAPK1, SP1, MAP3K1, RB1, CREB1, MAPK3
TGFBR0.0005933217.98914143SNX1, SMAD2, PIK3R1, CTNNB1, CDK4, TP53, STRAP, CUL1, SNX4, MYC, NFYB, UBE2D1, CAMK2D, SP1, TGFB1, CDK6, TFDP2, CDC16, ETS1, CDC2, CTCF, RB1, SMAD3, CD44, CAMK2G, SNX2, PIAS1, CDK2, MAP3K7, CAV1, MEF2A, COPS5
Angiopoietin receptor Tie2-mediated signaling0.000648156.16411249PLG, PIK3R1, FOXO1, AKT1, ITGA5, MMP2, PXN, MAPK1, ELF2, FGF2, ETS1, RASA1, FYN, PTK2, MAPK3
FAS signaling pathway (CD95)0.000729124.40293735CASP8, GSN, LMNA, MAP3K1, FAF1, RB1, PAK2, CFLAR, FAS, CHUK, MAP3K7, CASP3
Co-regulation of Androgen receptor activity0.000779177.54789360CTNNB1, CTDSP2, AKT1, XRCC5, CASP8, MED1, VAV3, SVIL, GSN, CDK6, TMF1, TCF4, PIAS1, FKBP4, KDM3A, NCOA2, NRIP1
EGF receptor proximal signaling0.001023103.39655227PLCG1, PTPN1, GSN, WASL, MAPK1, STAT3, GNAI3, RASA1, PTK2, MAPK3
Estrogen responsive protein eEFP controls cell cycle and breast tumors growth0.00122971.88697315CDK4, TP53, CDK8, CDK6, CDC2, CCNB1, CDK2
Cell cycle: G1/S check point0.001415103.5223528CDK4, TP53, SKP2, TGFB1, CDK6, TK1, CDC2, RB1, SMAD3, CDK2
Transcription factor CREBb and its extracellular signals0.001415103.5223528PRKAR2B, PIK3R1, AKT1, CAMK2D, PRKAR1A, MAPK1, ASAH1, CAMK2G, CREB1, MAPK3
NOTCH0.002404199.68646277SMAD1, HIVEP3, PIK3R1, JAG1, SKP2, MAML2, RBPJ, ADAM10, CUL1, PSEN1, SAP30, MAPK1, STAT3, APP, FHL1, SMAD3, NCOR2, PSEN2, MAPK3
Migration0.0024243622.64368180PRKAR2B, PLCG1, MAPKAPK3, PIK3R1, CDK4, VEGFA, AKT1, ZAP70, CAMK2D, PRKAR1A, RYK, PRKCI, MAPK1, CDK8, WEE1, CDK6, MAP3K12, CDK9, ITPR1, MAP3K1, CDC2, IGF1R, PAK2, MAPKAPK2, CSNK1A1, CAMK2G, PIK3CB, AKT2, CDK2, CHUK, CCNH, FYN, MAP3K7, PTK2, NGFR, MAPK3
Signaling events mediated by VEGFR1 and VEGFR20.002466178.30268266PLCG1, HSPB1, PIK3R1, CTNNB1, VEGFA, AKT1, NRP2, HIF1A, PXN, MAPK1, HSP90AA1, IQGAP1, FYN, GRB10, PTK2, CAV1, MAPK3
E-cadherin signaling in keratinocytes0.00267682.64176221PLCG1, PIK3R1, CTNNB1, AKT1, CTNNA1, CTNND1, AKT2, FYN
Regulation of glucocorticoid receptor0.002693114.40293735YWHAH, TP53, AKT1, SMARCC1, SMARCA4, MAPK1, MDM2, HSP90AA1, FKBP4, NCOA2, MAPK3
Platelet amyloid precursor protein pathway0.00300761.63537713PLG, COL4A6, PLAT, COL4A5, APP, PLAU
p53 signaling pathway0.00300761.63537713CDK4, TP53, TIMP3, RB1, MDM2, CDK2
FOXM1 transcription factor network0.004236125.28352542CDK4, SKP2, MYC, MMP2, CENPA, SP1, NEK2, CDC2, RB1, CCNB1, AURKB, CDK2
ERK and PI-3 kinase necessary for collagen binding in corneal epithelia0.004374104.02554332PLCG1, PIK3R1, PXN, GSN, TLN1, MAPK1, PFN1, PTK2, DIAPH1, MAPK3
TNF alpha/NF-kB0.0044563321.0083167HSPB1, POLR2L, YWHAH, AKT1, CUL1, ALPL, TRAF6, CASP8, CASP8AP2, SMARCC1, SMARCA4, KPNA3, TNIP1, MCM5, MAP3K1, BCL7A, LRPPRC, FAF1, BIRC2, CDC37, KPNA6, PSMD3, HSP90AA1, AKT2, CFLAR, COPS3, CHUK, CASP3, CAV1, ACTL6A, BAG4, AZI2, MAP3K7IP2
How progesterone initiates oocyte maturation0.00513282.89335923PRKAR2B, PRKAR1A, CAP1, CDC25C, MAPK1, CDC2, CCNB1, MAPK3
Cyclins and cell cycle regulation0.00513282.89335923CDK4, CCND2, CDK6, CDC2, RB1, CCNB1, CDK2, CCNH
CTCF: first multivalent nuclear factor0.00513282.89335923SMAD1, PIK3R1, MYC, TGFB1, CTCF, MDM2, SMAD5, PTEN
IFN-gamma pathway0.00523125.40932343PIK3R1, AKT1, DAPK1, CAMK2D, MAPK1, STAT3, MAP3K1, IFNGR1, CAMK2G, PIAS1, CRKL, MAPK3
Akt signaling pathway0.00613772.39016619GHR, PIK3R1, YWHAH, FOXO1, AKT1, HSP90AA1, CHUK
Overview of telomerase RNA component gene hTERC transcriptional regulation0.00629640.8805877NFYB, SP1, SP3, RB1
AKT(PKB)-Bad signaling0.0068183422.39208178PRKAR2B, MAPKAPK3, PIK3R1, CDK4, AKT1, ZAP70, CAMK2D, PRKAR1A, RYK, PRKCI, MAPK1, STAT3, CDK8, WEE1, CDK6, MAP3K12, CDK9, MAP3K1, CDC2, IGF1R, PAK2, MAPKAPK2, CSNK1A1, CAMK2G, PIK3CB, AKT2, CDK2, CHUK, CCNH, FYN, MAP3K7, PTK2, NGFR, MAPK3
Generation of amyloid b-peptide by ps10.00692230.5031934ADAM10, PSEN1, APP
Influence of ras and rho proteins on g1 to s transition0.00712593.64814829PIK3R1, CDK4, AKT1, MAPK1, CDK6, RB1, CDK2, CHUK, MAPK3
p75(NTR)-mediated signaling0.007285168.4284867PLG, PIK3R1, TP53, AKT1, PSEN1, BCL2L11, TRAF6, PRKCI, APP, BIRC2, CHUK, RTN4, CASP3, NGFR, ARHGDIA, SORT1
VEGF hypoxia and angiogenesis0.00907793.77394630PLCG1, PIK3R1, VEGFA, AKT1, HIF1A, PXN, HSP90AA1, PTK2, CAV1
TNF receptor signaling pathway0.009336125.78671846MAP4K5, CASP8, PRKCI, SMPD1, MAP3K1, BIRC2, CHUK, MAP3K7, CAV1, BAG4, MAP3K7IP2, TNIK
Higher ratios represent genes upregulated in in vitro ESC, lower ratios are upregulated in in vivo ESC. As ChipInspector considers one probe as significant if the fold-change is greater than 2, the final FC for each gene represents the average of all probes that overlap the gene. The q-value is calculated as log2 fold change. Of the 202 transcription factors identified in Bibliosphere four known to be involved in the transcriptional control of pluripotency, POU5F1, Akt, SMAD2 and HIF1A, were further analyzed to establish literature based gene networks. The interactions of HIF1A and SMAD2 with other genes are presented in . Regulatory mechanisms of the transcription factors HIF1A (Matrix family HIFF) and SMAD2 (Matrix family SMAD)'s were further studied as shown in . The promoter regions of eleven genes were found to have HIFF binding sites. Likewise, the promoter regions of five genes contained SMAD binding sites.
Figure 2

Bibliosphere analysis of transcripts where two genes are co-cited and restricted to sentences with gene+function word+gene.

sentences with expert curated information. Each rectangle depicts a single gene. Red indicates the gene is unregulated, blue downregulated. Arrows between two genes shows regulatory mechanisms: green indicates a transcription factor binding site match in the target promoter; open arrowhead indicates regulation; filled arrowhead indicates activation; blocked arrowhead indicates inhibition; blue dot on the edge indicates that the connection has been annotated by experts; A: Associations present between HIF1A and other genes at the expert level; B: Associations present between SMAD2 and other genes at the expert level. IN: gene is an input gene; TF: gene's product is a transcription factor; ST: gene product is part of signal transduction pathway.

Bibliosphere analysis of transcripts where two genes are co-cited and restricted to sentences with gene+function word+gene.

sentences with expert curated information. Each rectangle depicts a single gene. Red indicates the gene is unregulated, blue downregulated. Arrows between two genes shows regulatory mechanisms: green indicates a transcription factor binding site match in the target promoter; open arrowhead indicates regulation; filled arrowhead indicates activation; blocked arrowhead indicates inhibition; blue dot on the edge indicates that the connection has been annotated by experts; A: Associations present between HIF1A and other genes at the expert level; B: Associations present between SMAD2 and other genes at the expert level. IN: gene is an input gene; TF: gene's product is a transcription factor; ST: gene product is part of signal transduction pathway. Common framework, a pattern of transcription factor binding sites defined by a set of physical parameters such as order, distance, and strand orientation on the promoter region, is a promoter module that participates in transcription regulation in a certain context. The common frameworks were mined from the eleven genes' and five genes' promoter regions identified above. Frameworks CTCF-HIFF, ETSF-HIFF and SMAD-E2FF were identified in these two gene groups respectively and suggest that transcription factors CTCF and ETSF may work with HIFF, and that E2FF may work with SMAD, to regulate transcription ().

Expression of markers of pluripotency

Comparison of the 1388 significant differentially expressed genes with previous microarray data examining regulators of pluripotency [4]–[6], [16], [42]–[47] identified 225 significantly different genes documented by at least one publication, with 68 of these genes documented by at least two or more publications ( ). Among these genes FGF2 (basic FGF) and FGFR1 were significantly downregulated (2-fold) in in vitro ESC. Similarly, SOX2 expression was decreased more than 3-fold in in vitro ESC, while POU5F1 was reduced by 2-fold. Other genes, including those involved in transcriptional repression and TGFß signaling, were also identified. In particular TGFß1, FST, SMAD1, 4 and 5 and ID4 were downregulated in in vitro ES, while SMAD3 was upregulated ().
Table 3

Altered expression pattern of known markers of pluripotency.

Gene SymbolGene Nameq-valueReferences
ADSLadenylosuccinate lyase−1.56 [4], [6], [47]
ALDH3A2aldehyde dehydrogenase 3 family, member A2−1.402 [6], [45]
ALPLalkaline phosphatase, liver/bone/kidney−1.25 [6], [47]
ASPMasp (abnormal spindle) homolog, microcephaly associated (Drosophila)−1.1 [16], [45]
BST2bone marrow stromal cell antigen 2−2.215 [16], [45]
CBR1carbonyl reductase 1−1.3 [6], [45]
CCNB1cyclin B11.582 [4], [6], [47]
CCNCcyclin C−1.43 [4], [44], [47]
CCND1cyclin D1−1.81 [6], [44], [45]
CCNFcyclin F2.17 [16], [44]
CDC2cell division cycle 2, G1 to S and G2 to M−1.773 [4], [6], [43], [44], [47]
CDKN3cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 3−1.1 [6], [45]
COMMD3COMM domain containing 3−1.2 [5], [42]
CRABP1cellular retinoic acid binding protein 1−2.43 [4], [6], [44], [47]
CTSCcathepsin C−2.135 [6], [45]
CUL1cullin 1−1.775 [16], [44]
DKC1dyskeratosis congenita 1, dyskerin−0.09 [6], [47]
DSG2desmoglein 2−1.87 [4], [47]
ECT2epithelial cell transforming sequence 2 oncogene−1.82 [6], [43]
EEF1B2eukaryotic translation elongation factor 1 beta 2−1.35 [6], [47]
EPRSglutamyl-prolyl-tRNA synthetase−1.71 [4], [43], [47]
FABP5fatty acid binding protein 5 (psoriasis-associated)−2.28 [4], [6], [47]
FGF2fibroblast growth factor 2 (basic)−1.465 [5], [6], [45]
FGFR1fibroblast growth factor receptor 1−1.024 [5], [6]
FKBP4FK506 binding protein 4, 59 kDa−1.26 [6], [44]
GABRB3gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, beta 3−1.643 [16], [42], [45]
GARTphosphoribosylglycinamide formyltransferase, phosphoribosylglycinamide synthetase, phosphoribosylaminoimidazole synthetase−1.5 [6], [16], [47]
GPC4glypican 4−2.04 [6], [43], [47]
GPM6Bglycoprotein M6B−1.03 [6], [45]
HELLShelicase, lymphoid-specific−2.965 [6], [16], [44], [45]
HNRNPA2B1heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A2/B1−3.238 [6], [44]
HNRNPABheterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A/B−2.91 [43], [47]
IDH1isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (NADP+), soluble−2.32 [4], [6], [47]
IMPDH2IMP (inosine monophosphate) dehydrogenase 2−1.85 [4], [47]
KIF5Ckinesin family member 5C−1.25 [6], [45]
LTA4Hleukotriene A4 hydrolase−1.46 [6], [45]
MAD2L2MAD2 mitotic arrest deficient-like 2 (yeast)−1.52 [4], [47]
MCM7minichromosome maintenance complex component 7−1.705 [6], [47]
MGST1microsomal glutathione S-transferase 1−2.38 [4], [47]
MKRN1makorin ring finger protein 11.38 [6], [44]
MPHOSPH9M-phase phosphoprotein 9−1.15 [6], [16]
MSH2mutS homolog 2−1.94 [6], [44], [46]
NEK2NIMA (never in mitosis gene a)-related kinase 2−1.822 [6], [44]
NFYBnuclear transcription factor Y, beta−2.342 [6], [44], [45]
PGK1phosphoglycerate kinase 1−1.462 [6], [47]
PIM1pim-1 oncogene1.63 [6], [47]
POU5F1POU class 5 homeobox 1−1.17 [4][6], [16], [44][47]
PPATphosphoribosyl pyrophosphate amidotransferase−1.345 [4], [6], [43], [45], [47]
PSMA2proteasome (prosome, macropain) subunit, alpha type, 2−2.03 [4], [6], [44], [47]
PSMD14proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit, non-ATPase, 14−1.42 [46], [47]
PTPRZ1protein tyrosine phosphatase, receptor-type, Z polypeptide 1−2.602 [4], [6], [45]
PTTG1pituitary tumor-transforming 1−1.81 [6], [47]
SCG3secretogranin III−1.115 [7], [16]
SERPINH1serpin peptidase inhibitor, clade H (heat shock protein 47), member 1, (collagen binding protein 1)−4.02 [4], [47]
SLC16A1solute carrier family 16, member 1−2.693 [4], [6], [47]
SLC29A1solute carrier family 29 (nucleoside transporters), member 1−1.53 [6], [45]
SNRPA1small nuclear ribonucleoprotein polypeptide A′−1.52 [6], [47]
SNX5sorting nexin 5−1.416 [6], [16]
SOD1superoxide dismutase 1, soluble−1.57 [6], [44]
SOX2SRY (sex determining region Y)-box 2−1.71 [5], [45]
TCEA1transcription elongation factor A (SII), 1−2.01 [43], [46]
TFAP2Ctranscription factor AP-2 gamma−1.39 [5], [43], [44]
THY1Thy-1 cell surface antigen−1.815 [6], [45]
TK1thymidine kinase 1, soluble−1.2 [4], [43], [47]
TKTsimilar to Transketolase (TK)−1.947 [6], [43], [47]
UGP2UDP-glucose pyrophosphorylase 2−1.25 [6], [16], [43], [47]
USP9Xubiquitin specific peptidase 9, X-linked−2.178 [6], [43], [44]
XRCC5X-ray repair complementing defective repair in Chinese hamster cells 5 (double-strand-break rejoining)−2.527 [6], [47]

Comparison of results of differentially expressed genes between rhesus ESC generated from in vitro or in vivo derived embryos, with previously documented microarray results of human ESC, identified 68 genes reported by at least two publications as markers of pluripotency. The q-value is calculated as log2 fold change.

Comparison of results of differentially expressed genes between rhesus ESC generated from in vitro or in vivo derived embryos, with previously documented microarray results of human ESC, identified 68 genes reported by at least two publications as markers of pluripotency. The q-value is calculated as log2 fold change.

Differentially expressed genes correlate with differences observed in preimplantation embryos

Analysis was undertaken to determine whether ESC generated from in vitro cultured rhesus embryos displayed perturbations in gene expression reported in the literature as differentially expressed in in vitro and in vivo preimplantation embryos [19], [23], [26], [28], [31], [48]–[52], results of which are summarized in . These differences included significantly decreased expression of insulin-like growth factor receptor 1 and 2 (IGF-I, IGF-II), glucose transporters 3 and 5 (SLC2A3, SLCA2A5), activating transcription factor 1 (ATF1), cyclin D1, secreted phosphoprotein 1, and the antioxidant enzymes superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1), peroxiredoxin 2 (PDX2) and glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4) was seen in in vitro ESC. Alterations in gene expression observed in mouse embryos as a result of the use of serum during embryo culture [52] were also detected, and included downregulation of platelet derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), the metabolic genes pyruvate dehydrogenase isoenxyme 1, aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (ADH2) and aldehyde dehydrogenase family 6 subfamily A1, and upregulation of solute carrier family 25 (mitochondrial carrier, citrate transporter) member 1.
Table 4

Differentially expressed transcripts that display altered expression patterns following in vitro embryo culture.

Gene IDGene SymbolGene NameUnigeneIDGene Bank Accessionq-value
693644ATF1activating transcription factor 1Mmu.12123XM_001083228−1.47
713451ALDH2mitochondrial aldehydeMmu.9621XR_012809−2.25
dehydrogenase 2AANU01210495
AANU01210500
AANU01210496
AANU01210497
AANU01210498
AANU01210499
698755ALDH6A1aldehyde dehydrogenase 6Mmu.11793XM_001093055−1.50
family, member A1XM_001093276
717809ALPLalkaline phosphatase, liver/bone/kidney#N/AXM_001109717−1.25
574320CCND1cyclin D1Mmu.3863AY950561−1.81
XM_001101029
707479F2RL1coagulation factor II#N/AXM_001106201−2.78
(thrombin) receptor-like 1XM_001106263
574136FGF2fibroblast growth factor 2Mmu.3766XM_001099284−1.47
(basic)AF251270
697986GHRgrowth hormone receptorMmu.3595XM_001088963−1.16
XM_001088858
U85396
U84589
NM_001042667
705333GPX4glutathione peroxidase 4Mmu.9752AANU01110880−2.07
CB552751
NM_001118889
CN643832
XR_011424
697821HEBP1heme binding protein 1Mmu.11875XM_001086941−1.29
708227IGF1Rinsulin-like growth factor 1 receptor#N/AXM_001100407−1.07
703220IGF2Rinsulin-like growth factorMmu.7995XR_012149−1.11
2 receptorAANU01296649
AANU01296648
AANU01296647
AANU01296646
AANU01296645
AANU01296643
AANU01296644
AANU01296641
AANU01296642
AANU01296640
708601LOC708601similar to GULP,Mmu.11298XM_001105327−2.15
engulfment adaptor PTBAANU01249499
domain containing 1AANU01249498
XM_001105119
AANU01249495
XM_001105477
AANU01249497
AANU01249496
AANU01249507
AANU01249506
XM_001105193
AANU01249509
AANU01249508
AANU01249503
AANU01249502
AANU01249505
XM_001105407
AANU01249504
AANU01249510
AANU01249501
AANU01249500
721477OAZ1ornithine decarboxylaseMmu.3213CO644742−1.06
antizyme 1CB553280
NM_001134900
XM_001117645
CB310088
AANU01111056
693317PAIP2poly(A) binding protein interacting protein 2Mmu.2927XM_001082025−2.77
XM_001082151
707725PDGFAplatelet-derived growth factor alpha polypeptide#N/AXM_001096150−1.46
697772PDK1pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase, isozyme 1Mmu.2590XM_001086316−1.52
706325PGK1phosphoglycerate kinase 1Mmu.4126XM_001100787−1.46
XM_001100332
XM_001100617
XM_001100701
DQ147960
716665PRDX2peroxiredoxin 2Mmu.2032XM_001108992−2.34
XM_001109106
XM_001109159
XM_001109216
XM_001109048
696171SERPINH1serpin peptidase inhibitor, clade H (heat shock protein 47), member 1, (collagen binding protein 1)Mmu.3117XM_001084827−4.02
706593SLC16A1solute carrier family 16,Mmu.10117XM_001108968−2.69
member 1DQ147927
XM_001109027
XM_001109083
XM_001109138
XM_001108877
715915SLC2A3solute carrier family 2Mmu.2873XM_001113093−3.13
(facilitated glucoseMmu.16589XM_001113033
transporter), member 3XM_001113127
XM_001113065
XM_001113218
XM_001112912
XM_001112821
722154SLC2A5solute carrier family 2 (facilitated glucose/fructose transporter), member 5Mmu.11703XM_001118341−1.4
719075SLC25A1solute carrier family 25 (mitochondrial carrier; citrate transporter), member 1Mmu.10146XM_0011126971.59
574096SOD1superoxide dismutase 1,Mmu.882NM_001032804−1.57
solubleAB087271
704930SPP1secreted phosphoprotein 1Mmu.225XM_001093307−2.9

The q-value is calculated as log2 fold change.

The q-value is calculated as log2 fold change.

Differential expression of oxygen-regulated and metabolic genes

Oxygen-regulated gene expression is known to be important for preimplantation embryo development [21]. The oxygen concentration in which the rhesus preimplantation embryo develops in vivo is reduced [53], [54] compared with in vitro culture. The HIF1A pathway was identified as over-represented in the significantly downregulated gene list by Bibliosphere, the 3881 significant gene list was further interrogated for HIF-regulated genes. Significantly, HIF1A transcript levels were 5.5 fold lower in in vitro ESC (q-value −2.462) than in in vivo ESC. In addition to the 18 genes identified in the HIF1A canonical pathway by Bibliosphere ( ), a further 17 genes known to be regulated by oxygen, including SLC2A3 (glucose transporter 3), ALDOA (aldehyde dehydrogenase A) and ENO1 (enolase 1), were identified in the 3881 differentially expressed gene list ( ). A comparison of the 3881 output with that of Rinaudo et al 2006 [55], examining the effect of oxygen on preimplantation mouse embryos, resulted in the identification of an additional 23 genes that appear to be regulated by oxygen during early development [55] ( ).
Table 5

Oxygen-regulated genes displaying differential expression between rhesus ESC generated from in vivo derived or in vitro cultured embryos compared with published data.

Gene SymbolGene NameUniGene IDAccession Number(s)q-value
ADMAdrenomedullinMmu.1495XM_001100827−2.23
XM_001100373
XM_001100748
AKT1v-akt murine thymoma viralMmu.1599XM_0010857461.70
oncogene homolog 1XM_001085495
XM_001085265
XM_001085623
XM_001085152
ALDOCaldolase C, fructose-Mmu.2882XM_001107579−1.10
bisphosphateXM_001107637
BHLHE40basic helix-loop-helix family, member e40Mmu.2936XM_001095506−1.38
BNIP3LBCL2/adenovirus E1BMmu.4295NM_001037284−1.15
19 kDa interacting protein 3-AY680445
likeCN641767
CITED2similar to Cbp/p300-Mmu.12809XM_001096152−2.06
interacting transactivator,AANU01207265
with Glu/Asp-rich carboxy-terminalAANU01207264
COPS5COP9 constitutiveMmu.4188XM_001097450−2.30
photomorphogenic homologXM_001097856
subunit 5 (Arabidopsis)XM_001097650
XM_001097549
XM_001097759
XM_001098042
CREB1cAMP responsive element binding protein 1Mmu.13784XM_001107192−1.48
CTGFconnective tissue growth factorMmu.3969XM_001104316−2.11
CTSDcathepsin DMmu.2920XM_001091374−1.18
XM_001091495
XM_001091601
CXCL12chemokine (C-X-C motif)Mmu.3714AF449283−2.44
ligand 12 (stromal cell-derived factor 1)NM_001032934
EDN1endothelin 1Mmu.13776XM_001089874−1.88
ENO1enolase 1Mmu.4213XM_001098675−1.13
XM_001098378
XM_001098480
XM_001098286
XM_001098980
XM_001098778
XM_001098572
XM_001099088
XM_001097982
XM_001098883
ETS1v-ets erythroblastosis virusMmu.13289XM_001113071−1.32
E26 oncogene homolog 1XM_001113198
(avian)XM_001113164
XM_001113134
HIF1Ahypoxia inducible factor 1,Mmu.4843XM_001098939−2.46
alpha subunit (basic helix-XM_001098836
loop-helix transcriptionXM_001099043
factor)XM_001098731
XM_001098338
XM_001099149
XM_001098630
HMOX1heme oxygenase (decycling) 1Mmu.10024XM_001113241−1.56
HSP90B1tumor rejection antigenMmu.1931XM_001095189−2.50
(gp96) 1DQ147987
IGFBP2insulin-like growth factor binding protein 2, 36 kDaMmu.10509XM_00108707−3.25
KRT18similar to Keratin, type IMmu.7989AANU01283678−1.77
cytoskeletal 18 (Cytokeratin-18) (CK-18) (Keratin-18) (K18)XR_011513
LGALS1lectin, galactoside-binding,Mmu.3924EU152916−2.28
soluble, 1XR_010795
NM_001168627
LRP1low density lipoprotein-related protein 1Mmu.14648XM_001099776−1.19
MCL1myeloid cell leukemiaMmu.4052XM_001102110−1.99
sequence 1 (BCL2-related)XM_001102283
XM_001102191
XM_001101929
MMP2matrix metallopeptidase 2Mmu.1027XM_001087696−1.50
(gelatinase A, 72 kDaXM_001087939
gelatinase, 72 kDa type IVXM_001087814
collagenase)XM_001087335
NCOA2nuclear receptor coactivator 2Mmu.14283XM_001082161−1.04
PDGFAplatelet-derived growth factor alpha polypeptideN/AXM_001096150−1.46
PDK1pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase, isozyme 1Mmu.2590XM_001086316−1.52
PGK1phosphoglycerate kinase 1Mmu.4126XM_001100787−1.46
XM_001100332
XM_001100617
XM_001100701
DQ147960
PKM2pyruvate kinase, muscleMmu.9617XM_001090817−3.33
XM_001090466
XM_001090930
XM_001091054
XM_001091297
XM_001091178
XM_001090238
XM_001090703
XM_001091427
PPP5Cprotein phosphatase 5,Mmu.11271XM_001111636−1.79
catalytic subunitXM_001111674
XM_001111749
XM_001111714
SLC2A3solute carrier family 2Mmu.2873XM_001113093−3.13
(facilitated glucoseMmu.16589XM_001113033
transporter), member 3XM_001113127
XM_001113065
XM_001113218
XM_001112912
XM_001112821
SMAD2SMAD family member 2Mmu.2352XM_0010863771.50
XM_001086616
XM_001086488
SMAD3SMAD family member 3Mmu.14537XM_001111078−0.63
XM_001111111
XM_001111262
XM_001111149
XM_001111187
XM_001111230
SP1Sp1 transcription factorMmu.3203XM_001104877−1.07
XM_001104803
XM_001104948
TFRCtransferrin receptorMmu.861XM_001101412−1.56
XM_001101316
XM_001101222
TXNIPthioredoxin interactingMmu.3252XM_001092636−1.83
proteinXM_001092517
XM_001092409
VEGFAvascular endothelial growthMmu.3550AF339737−1.14
factor AXM_001089925
VIMvimentinMmu.2647XM_001093658−2.22

The q-value is calculated as log2 fold change.

Table 6

Genes displaying differential expression between rhesus ESC generated from in vivo derived or in vitro cultured embryos and altered by oxygen in in vitro cultured preimplantation mouse embryos [55].

Gene SymbolGene NameUniGene IDAccession Number(s)q-value
ARHGDIARho GDP dissociationMmu.11137XM_001112043−1.29
inhibitor (GDI) alphaXM_001112147
XM_001112008
CALRcalreticulinMmu.4315XM_001110217−1.92
XM_001110174
DHCR77-dehydrocholesterolMmu.15814XM_001099101−1.70
reductaseXM_001099313
XM_001099202
DHX9DEAH (Asp-Glu-Ala-His)Mmu.11214XM_001114405−2.75
box polypeptide 9XM_001114384
GCDHglutaryl-Coenzyme AMmu.15435XM_0011104301.340
dehydrogenaseXM_001110384
XM_001110300
GORASP2golgi reassembly stackingMmu.1213XM_001083589−1.37
protein 2, 55 kDaXM_001083476
XM_001083797
XM_001083692
HELLShelicase, lymphoid-specificMmu.13556XM_001094687−2.97
XM_001094310
XM_001095492
XM_001094077
XM_001095376
XM_001095601
XM_001094924
XM_001094189
XM_001095267
XM_001094806
XM_001095039
XM_001095698
XM_001095147
HNRNPA2B1heterogeneous nuclearMmu.2765AANU01289359−3.24
ribonucleoprotein A2/B1XM_001094282
IDH1isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (NADP+), solubleMmu.2453XM_001107875−2.32
XM_001107934
XM_001107627
XM_001107992
XM_001107810
INPP5Binositol polyphosphate-5-Mmu.5966AANU010088281.35
phosphatase, 75 kDaAANU01008826
AANU01008827
AANU01008824
AANU01008825
XR_013480
AANU01008823
KIF22kinesin family member 22Mmu.14637XM_001104522−2.02
XM_001104446
XM_001104204
XM_001104365
XM_001104124
LOC694662similar to HistoneMmu.9710XR_009889−1.72
deacetylase 2 (HD2)AANU01296236
AANU01296235
AANU01296234
AANU01296233
LOC695512similar to RAB10, memberMmu.9734AANU01117583−1.87
RAS oncogene familyAANU01117585
AANU01117584
AANU01117587
AANU01117586
AANU01117595
AANU01117589
AANU01117594
AANU01117588
AANU01117593
XR_010252
AANU01117590
AANU01117591
AANU01117592
LOC700557similar to elongation of veryMmu.14382AANU01266409−1.19
long chain fatty acidsXM_001093537
(FEN1/Elo2, SUR4/Elo3,XM_001093419
yeast)-like 1XM_001093310
LOC709018similar to radixinMmu.12960AANU01119660−1.37
AANU01119659
AANU01119658
XM_001104955
AANU01119657
LOC711873similar to eukaryotic#N/AAANU01107246−1.69
translation initiation factorAANU01107245
2C, 2XM_001100725
LOC713958similar to splicing factor,Mmu.16625XM_001103473−1.72
arginine/serine-rich 1AANU01173069
(ASF/SF2)AANU01173068
AANU01173071
AANU01173070
AANU01173072
LOC714627similar to basic leucineMmu.4082AANU01288919−2.01
zipper and W2 domains 2XM_001104484
AANU01288918
AANU01288921
AANU01288920
LOC715977similar to coactivator-Mmu.4947AANU01122653−1.20
associated arginineAANU01122640
methyltransferase 1AANU01122652
AANU01122642
AANU01122651
AANU01122641
AANU01122650
AANU01122644
AANU01122643
XR_013318
AANU01122646
AANU01122645
AANU01122647
AANU01122648
AANU01122649
NDUFS4NADH dehydrogenaseMmu.2486XM_001096222−1.50
(ubiquinone) Fe-S protein 4, 18 kDa (NADH-coenzyme Q reductase)XM_001096347
SCARB2scavenger receptor class B,Mmu.2325XM_001096458−1.25
member 2XM_001096341
STK3serine/threonine kinase 3 (STE20 homolog, yeast)Mmu.976XM_001095834−1.22
UGP2UDP-glucoseMmu.466XM_001085803−1.25
pyrophosphorylase 2XM_001086473
XM_001086132
XM_001086361
XM_001086598
XM_001086015

The q-value is calculated as log2 fold change.

The q-value is calculated as log2 fold change. The q-value is calculated as log2 fold change. In addition to perturbed expression of metabolic genes previously reported in preimplantation embryos, including SLC2A1, SLC2A3, ALD2 and PDK1, regulatory genes controlling mitochondrial biogenesis were also identified as being downregulated in in vitro ESC, including mtSSB, POLG and TFAM, along with genes regulating mitochondrial dynamics (MFN1, KIF5C and OPA1; ).

Confirmation of gene expression by RT-PCR

To confirm the fidelity of our results, we assessed the expression of 13 genes identified in the data analyses. Genes involved in metabolism and mitochondrial function (ATP5B, KIF5C, MFN1, PKM2, SLC2A3, UCP2), pluripotency (FGF2, POU5F1, SOX2, NANOG), transcriptional repression (PCGF2), aging (LMNA) and embryo development (FGF1R, IGF1R, IGFBP2) were examined in pooled ESC RNA from available cultures (Ormes 7 and R466) grown under the same conditions as the samples used for transcriptional profiling. Expression of these genes was confirmed by RT-PCR, with all transcripts detected in both in vitro and in vivo ESC ().

Discussion

It is often overlooked that human ESC are generated from in vitro cultured, often surplus/‘discard’, embryos considered unsuitable for transfer in infertility clinics. While the classification of a good quality embryo is based largely on subjective criteria, it is well known that in vitro culture significantly perturbs embryo development, particularly in terms of gene expression, metabolism and subsequent development. With this in mind, we hypothesized that in vitro culture conditions would compromise gene expression in resulting ESC. To achieve this, we examined the transcriptional profiles of four different lines generated from in vivo derived embryos (R series) with that of four lines generated from in vitro derived embryos (Ormes series). Multiple passage numbers were analyzed to minimize passage related cell culture adaptation, with cells maintained under equivalent conditions known to support high quality ESC [56]. The data reported here represent selected passages between 8 and 37 for both in vitro and in vivo ESC. Transcriptional profiling of in vitro ESC and in vivo ESC identified a total of 3881 transcripts with twofold or greater differential expression, of which the majority were downregulated in in vitro ESC. Hierarchical clustering of ESC according to origin, irrespective of passage number, suggests that the differences in gene expression detected are stably maintained during long-term culture. It is important to consider that derivation of the R series (in vivo), and Ormes series (in vitro) carried out by different laboratories may contribute to some of the differences observed in the present study. However, as transcriptional profiles were compared over a range of early passage numbers, with all cell lines maintained under the same conditions by the same laboratory for each passage assessed, this contribution is likely to be minimal.

In vitro ESC and in vivo ESC differ in the expression of imprinted and cell cycle genes, a potential legacy of embryo culture

Aberrant imprinting has been reported in a number of species following preimplantation embryo culture in vitro [57], [58], including the rhesus macaque [59], with long-term consequences for fetal growth and adult health [29], [33]. Bertolini et al [26] and Yaseen et al [60] have reported significantly decreased expression of IGF1R and IGF2R following in vitro culture of bovine embryos, conditions also associated with altered fetal and placental development and large offspring syndrome [27]. The expression of these genes was significantly lower in in vitro ESC when compared with in vivo ESC, suggesting that the altered expression of these genes in cultured embryos is preserved during ESC isolation. In support of this, a number of other genes involved in epigenetic regulation, including histones, histone deactylases and lysine-specific demethylase 3A were identified as differentially expressed between in vitro ESC and in vivo ESC (). Studies have also reported aberrations in imprinted genes in mouse [61], monkey [62], [63] and human ESC [64]–[67], particularly that of IGF2 and IGF2R. Frost et al [68] reported genomic instability in human ESC, and suggested that derivation and ESC culture contributed to atypical methylation patterns, however it is possible that aberrant imprinting was inherent to the embryo from which the line was derived, in addition to any derivation and culture induced alterations. Significantly, epigenetic differences have been observed between mouse ESC generated from in vitro versus in vivo embryos [37], although these differences were lost by passage 5. Bioinformatic analysis of significantly different transcripts between in vitro and in vivo ESC also highlighted dysregulation of canonical pathways, particularly those regulating cyclins, cell cycle checkpoints and chromosomal stability ( ), including genes involved in the G1 to S phase known to be important in ESC [69], [70]. Mtango and Latham [71] have reported altered expression of cell cycle machinery in in vitro cultured rhesus embryos, suggesting that cell cycle control mechanisms may also be heritable from the embryo to resulting ESC. Misregulation of imprinted and cell cycle genes, previously documented following in vitro embryo culture, may therefore be preserved in resulting ESC, and may compromise the cells functionality during and/or following differentiation.

In vitro culture perturbs the expression of key pluripotency regulators

Among the genes identified as significantly altered between ESC of different origin were known pluripotency markers, including POU5F1 (OCT4), basic FGF and SOX2. Basic FGF (FGF2) is an important component of primate ESC culture media required for propagation and colony maintenance. FGFs play several roles in vivo during early development [72] and are known to mediate IGF expression [73], representing a positive feedback loop. Sato et al [6] reported that FGF2 and FGFR1 were important genes enriched in the undifferentiated state, regulated by OCT4, SOX2 and NANOG. Activation of SMAD2/3 signaling is required for human ESC pluripotency [74] as both SMAD2/3 and FGF2 regulate NANOG gene expression. While NANOG is not significantly different between in vivo and in vitro ESC, in vitro ESC displayed significantly increased SMAD2 expression. Upregulation of SMAD2 may support ongoing culture in reduced levels of other pluripotency regulators. A reduction in the expression of OCT4 and SOX2, in addition to a reduction in FGF2 and FGF receptor expression, suggests that in vitro ESC may be more prone to spontaneous differentiation. Indeed, Byrne et al [55] reported significant variability in OCT4 expression across the same Ormes lines examined in the present study. Less than a two-fold difference in the level of OCT4 expression has been shown to have significant effects on ESC maintenance [75]. In support of this, Mtango et al [76] documented changes in pluripotency and differentiation marker expression during the early stages of rhesus macaque blastocyst outgrowth, and in Ormes 6 ESC, when compared with gene expression profiles of rhesus inner cell mass cells. Data therefore suggests that ESC derived from in vitro cultured embryos display alterations in pluripotency markers, however cells have potentially compensated by modulating other pathways to maintain self-renewal.

The effects of oxygen on in vitro cultured embryos are sustained in ESCs

A significant difference between in vivo derived embryos and in vitro cultured embryos is the oxygen environment in which they develop. In vivo the oxygen concentration approximates 2–7% [52], [53], with an oxygen concentration of 2% reported in rhesus macaque uteri, considerably lower than the atmospheric conditions commonly used for in vitro embryo culture, and lower than the 5% oxygen concentration used to generate the embryos from which the in vitro ESC were derived. The oxygen environment is known to alter blastocyst gene expression and embryo development [21], [77]. Hypoxia-inducible factors (HIFs) are oxygen-sensitive transcription factors that mediate cellular adaptation to reduced oxygen conditions. HIF1 protein levels increase exponentially at oxygen concentrations lower than 6% [78]. The response to hypoxia leads to the activation of signaling pathways involved in the regulation of mitochondrial function, glycolytic metabolism and cell survival. In the present study, HIF1 alpha was significantly reduced in in vitro ESC ( ). Further analysis demonstrated enrichment (P = 0.0004) of HIF1 alpha regulated genes ( ). Physiological oxygen concentrations also regulate human ESC pluripotency, proliferation, karyotypic stability and differentiation [15], [79]–[82], mediated by HIFs [83]. Consistent with our findings, significant differences in OCT4 levels [83], [84] and SOX2 mRNA expression [83] have been reported in human ESC lines derived under 5% and 20% oxygen, or following transfer to reduced oxygen culture conditions. Significantly reduced expression of FGFR1 and FGFR2 [80] and SLC2A3, PKM2, ALDOC, and LGALS1 [17] have also been reported in human ESC in response to atmospheric oxygen conditions, and differences in SLC2A1, SLC2A3 and PGK1 have been reported between in vivo derived and in vitro produced rhesus macaque blastocysts [85]. These results suggest that underlying alterations in metabolism may exist. This is further supported by downregulation of regulatory genes controlling mitochondrial biogenesis and dynamics in in vitro ESC, including mtSSB, POLG and TFAM, as well as MFN1, KIF5C and OPA1 (). Differences in the expression of genes regulating mitochondrial biogenesis has also been reported between in vivo and in vitro rhesus blastocysts [86]. Significantly, Wale and Gardner [87] demonstrated that developmental perturbations observed following culture of preimplantation mouse embryo under atmospheric conditions were not restored by transferring cultures to a low oxygen environment, suggesting that adaptation of ESC will likewise not resolve underlying differences in ESC physiology. ESC properties may therefore be dependent on reduced oxygen conditions not only during derivation and subsequent expansion, but also during embryo culture prior to derivation.

Conclusions

Results of the present study document significant differences at the transcriptional level between embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro cultured embryos, and those derived from in vivo derived embryos. Data suggests that embryonic stem cells may retain a transcriptional memory representative of the environment of the preimplantation embryo from which the cells were derived. In vitro ESC exhibit transcriptional perturbations seen in in vitro cultured embryos, including alterations in markers of pluripotency and differences impacted by oxygen concentration. These differences may impact cell physiology, although it is unclear whether these differences will contribute to long-term functionality following ESC differentiation and transplantation. Further investigation into the differences between in vitro and in vivo ESCs, particularly in terms of imprinting, metabolism and functionality following differentiation, is warranted to ensure their therapeutic potential. Attention needs to be directed towards physiological measures of functionality, coupled with transcriptional, epigenetic and proteomic characterizations of pluripotency, to assess the impact the culture environment has throughout stem cell isolation, maintenance and differentiation. As methods become more refined and more efficient, and xeno-free isolation becomes routine, the examination of not only embryonic stem cells, but also induced pluripotent stem cells will be pivotal in establishing fundamental properties necessary to supply normal, safe and efficient cells for therapeutic translation.

Materials and Methods

Embryonic Stem Cell culture

Four rhesus (Macaca mulatta) ESC lines generated from in vitro cultured embryos cultured up to day 9 (Ormes 6, 7, 10 and 13, [40]; referred to as ‘in vitro ESC’) and four lines generated from in vivo derived embryos flushed from uteri 6 days post ovulation (R-series 278, 366, 394 and 511, [41]; referred to as ‘in vivo ESC’) were cultured as previously described [56] and were generously provided by Dr Shoukhrat Mitalipov. Briefly, ESC were grown on mitotically inactivated mouse embryonic fibroblast feeder cells (MEF; cell line isolation was approved by the Oregon Health and Sciences University's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee issued to S. Mitalipov) in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM/F12) (Invitrogen, Grand Island, NY) supplemented with 15% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (Hyclone, Logan, UT), 0.1 mM ß-mercaptoethanol, 1% nonessential amino acids (Invitrogen), 2 mM L-glutamine (Invitrogen), and 4 ng/ml FGF2 (Sigma), at 37°C under a 5% CO2-balance air atmosphere, and were passaged by manual scraping. To account for variability between derivation conditions, cultures were sampled from varying passage numbers (range 8–37) and cultures characterized to ensure that pluripotent ESC morphology, marker expression and karyotype were maintained.

RNA extraction, microarray probe preparation and hybridisation

ESC colonies were collected following manual removal of MEFs and careful dissection to ensure no feeder cell transfer prior to lysis. Total RNA was isolated from cultures for each respective ESC line using TRIZOL reagent (Invitrogen), followed by further purification with a RNeasy MinElute Cleanup Kit (Qiagen). The RNA samples were quantified using a NanoDrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer (NanoDrop Technologies, Wilmington, DE) and the quality of the RNA was assessed using Lab-on-a-Chip RNA Pico Chips and a 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA). Samples with electropherograms showing a size distribution pattern predictive of acceptable microarray assay performance were considered to be of good quality. Twenty nanograms of total RNA from each line was amplified and labeled using a two-cycle cDNA synthesis and an in vitro transcription cRNA-RNA labeling system (GeneChip One-Cycle Target Labeling and Control Reagents; Affymetrix, Inc., Santa Clara, CA). Following successful cRNA amplification, 10 µg of labeled target cRNA was hybridized to Rhesus Macaque Genome Arrays (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA) using standard protocols, as described in the Affymetrix GeneChip Expression Analysis manual. Arrays were scanned using the GeneChip laser scanner (Affymetrix).

Bioinformatic analysis

All microarray data complies with MIAME guidelines, and all microarray information and individual cell intensity (CEL) files are available online at the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO; GSE25198). Analysis of Affymetrix output files was performed with DNA-Chip Analyzer (dChip; Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA) and Genomatix (www.genomatix.de) software. In vivo ESC samples were used as the baseline for comparison. For dChip analysis, data normalization and model expression was undertaken using default dChip settings, with analysis of the False Discovery Rate (FDR) also performed. A gene was defined as significantly up- or down-regulated if the signal fold-change between the target samples was greater than 2, at a significance level of alpha = 0.05. For Genomatix data analysis, statistical significance of differential gene expression was assessed by computing a q-value (logarithm) for each gene. Genes were considered to be up- or down-regulated when the logarithm of the gene expression ratio was more than 1 or less than -1, that is, a 2-fold or greater difference in expression, where alpha<0.05. Bibliosphere Pathway Edition (Genomatix), which combines literature analysis with genome annotation and promoter analysis, was used to create a directed regulatory network from transcripts identified by ChipInspector. To establish pathway and common framework information for significantly different transcripts, data was uploaded into GePS (www.genomatix.de). To further classify differentially expressed genes, Entrez gene IDs from the Genomatix analyses were used to search for over-represented biological processes against the rhesus and human genomes. Gene Ontology was performed using NetAffx (www.affymetrix.com).

RT- PCR validation

To validate the microarray results, RT-PCR was carried out on representative rhesus ESC samples (Ormes 7 in vitro and R475 in vivo) for 13 genes identified as significantly altered by the microarray analyses. RNA was extracted using an Absolutely RNA Nanoprep Kit (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA, USA), from which 1 µg was reverse transcribed into cDNA using SuperScript III reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen) and random primers (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Resulting cDNA was amplified with 1U Taq polymerase (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) in a final volume of 50 µl containing 1× buffer, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 10 pmol of each sequence-specific primer and 10 mM of each dNTP. The mixture was amplified for 40 cycles in a BioRad DNA Engine thermal cycler (BioRad, Hercules, CA), where each cycle included denaturation at 94°C for 1 min, reannealing for 30 sec at 60°C, and primer extension at 72°C for 30 sec, followed by a final extension at 72°C for 7 min. PCR products were analyzed by electrophoresis through 2% agarose gels containing 0.5 mg/ml ethidium bromide and were photographed using a Kodak GL100 Imaging System equipped with Kodak Molecular Imaging software (Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY). Primers were designed using Primer Express software (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) and are listed in . RT-PCR analysis of undifferentiated rhesus ESC generated from in vitro (A) or in vivo (B) derived embryos. (TIF) Click here for additional data file. PCR primer sequences used for validation of microarray results. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file. dChip output generated from CEL files (GEO: GSE25198; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE25198). (XLSX) Click here for additional data file. Genomatix output generated from CEL files (GEO: GSE25198; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE25198). (XLSX) Click here for additional data file. Transcripts identified within common frameworks CTCF-HIFF, ETSF-HIFF and SMAD-E2FF. (XLSX) Click here for additional data file.
  87 in total

Review 1.  A review of gene expression profiling of human embryonic stem cell lines and their differentiated progeny.

Authors:  Bhaskar Bhattacharya; Sachin Puri; Raj K Puri
Journal:  Curr Stem Cell Res Ther       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 3.828

2.  Derivation of pre-X inactivation human embryonic stem cells under physiological oxygen concentrations.

Authors:  Christopher J Lengner; Alexander A Gimelbrant; Jennifer A Erwin; Albert Wu Cheng; Matthew G Guenther; G Grant Welstead; Raaji Alagappan; Garrett M Frampton; Ping Xu; Julien Muffat; Sandro Santagata; Doug Powers; C Brent Barrett; Richard A Young; Jeannie T Lee; Rudolf Jaenisch; Maisam Mitalipova
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2010-05-13       Impact factor: 41.582

3.  Adaptation to oxygen deprivation in cultures of human pluripotent stem cells, endothelial progenitor cells, and umbilical vein endothelial cells.

Authors:  Hasan Erbil Abaci; Rachel Truitt; Eli Luong; German Drazer; Sharon Gerecht
Journal:  Am J Physiol Cell Physiol       Date:  2010-02-24       Impact factor: 4.249

4.  Self-renewal and differentiation capabilities are variable between human embryonic stem cell lines I3, I6 and BG01V.

Authors:  Tahereh Tavakoli; Xiangru Xu; Eric Derby; Yevgeniya Serebryakova; Yvonne Reid; Mahendra S Rao; Mark P Mattson; Wu Ma
Journal:  BMC Cell Biol       Date:  2009-06-05       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  Comparison of defined culture systems for feeder cell free propagation of human embryonic stem cells.

Authors:  Veronika Akopian; Peter W Andrews; Stephen Beil; Nissim Benvenisty; Jennifer Brehm; Megan Christie; Angela Ford; Victoria Fox; Paul J Gokhale; Lyn Healy; Frida Holm; Outi Hovatta; Barbara B Knowles; Tenneille E Ludwig; Ronald D G McKay; Takamichi Miyazaki; Norio Nakatsuji; Steve K W Oh; Martin F Pera; Janet Rossant; Glyn N Stacey; Hirofumi Suemori
Journal:  In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim       Date:  2010-02-26       Impact factor: 2.416

6.  Gene expression profiles of human inner cell mass cells and embryonic stem cells.

Authors:  Renee A Reijo Pera; Christopher DeJonge; Nancy Bossert; Mylene Yao; Jean Yee Hwa Yang; Narges Bani Asadi; Wing Wong; Connie Wong; Meri T Firpo
Journal:  Differentiation       Date:  2009-04-23       Impact factor: 3.880

7.  Transcriptome alterations due to physiological normoxic (2% O2) culture of human embryonic stem cells.

Authors:  Nicholas R Forsyth; Alasdair Kay; Karen Hampson; Alison Downing; Richard Talbot; Jim McWhir
Journal:  Regen Med       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.806

8.  Analysis of gene transcription alterations at the blastocyst stage related to the long-term consequences of in vitro culture in mice.

Authors:  Raúl Fernández-González; Juan de Dios Hourcade; Irene López-Vidriero; Alberto Benguría; Fernando Rodríguez De Fonseca; Alfonso Gutiérrez-Adán
Journal:  Reproduction       Date:  2008-11-18       Impact factor: 3.906

9.  bFGF enhances the IGFs-mediated pluripotent and differentiation potentials in multipotent stem cells.

Authors:  Sang-Bum Park; Kyung-Rok Yu; Ji-Won Jung; Sae-Rom Lee; Kyoung-Hwan Roh; Min-Soo Seo; Jeong-Ran Park; Soo-Kyung Kang; Yong-Soon Lee; Kyung-Sun Kang
Journal:  Growth Factors       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.511

10.  Hypoxia inducible factors regulate pluripotency and proliferation in human embryonic stem cells cultured at reduced oxygen tensions.

Authors:  Catherine E Forristal; Kate L Wright; Neil A Hanley; Richard O C Oreffo; Franchesca D Houghton
Journal:  Reproduction       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.906

View more
  2 in total

1.  Lost miRNA surveillance of Notch, IGFR pathway--road to sarcomagenesis.

Authors:  K Galoian; T Guettouche; B Issac; L Navarro; H T Temple
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-01

2.  Identification of molecular markers distinguishing adult neural stem cells in the subventricular and subcallosal zones.

Authors:  Joo Yeon Kim; Mohammed R Shaker; Ju-Hyun Lee; Boram Lee; Hyun Kim; Woong Sun
Journal:  Anim Cells Syst (Seoul)       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 1.815

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.