Literature DB >> 24387163

Continuous passages accelerate the reprogramming of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells.

Zhi-yan Shan1, Yan-shuang Wu, Xue Li, Xing-hui Shen, Zhen-dong Wang, Zhong-hua Liu, Jing-ling Shen, Lei Lei.   

Abstract

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are usually generated by reprogramming somatic cells through transduction with a transcription factor cocktail. However, the low efficiency of this procedure has kept iPSCs away from the study of the clinical application of stem cell biology. Our research shows that continuous passage increases the efficiency of reprogramming. Compared with conventional method of establishment of iPSCs, more embryonic stem cell (ESC)-like clones are generated by continuous passage during early reprogramming. These inchoate clones, indistinguishable from genuine ESC clones, are closer to fully reprogrammed cells compared with those derived from classical iPSC induction, which increased the expression of pluripotent gene markers and the levels of demethylation of Oct4 and Nanog. These results suggested that full reprogramming is a gradual process that does not merely end at the point of the activation of endogenous pluripotency-associated genes. Continuous passage could increase the pluripotency of induced cells and accelerate the process of reprogramming by epigenetic modification. In brief, we have provided an advanced strategy to accelerate the reprogramming and generate more nearly fully reprogrammed iPSCs efficiently and rapidly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24387163      PMCID: PMC3920923          DOI: 10.1089/cell.2013.0067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cell Reprogram        ISSN: 2152-4971            Impact factor:   1.987


  24 in total

Review 1.  Concise review: Induced pluripotent stem cells versus embryonic stem cells: close enough or yet too far apart?

Authors:  Josipa Bilic; Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte
Journal:  Stem Cells       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 6.277

2.  What can pluripotent stem cells teach us about neurodegenerative diseases?

Authors:  Hynek Wichterle; Serge Przedborski
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  iPS cells forgive but do not forget.

Authors:  Maria J Barrero; Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte
Journal:  Nat Cell Biol       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 28.824

Review 4.  Molecular roadblocks for cellular reprogramming.

Authors:  Thomas Vierbuchen; Marius Wernig
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 17.970

5.  Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors.

Authors:  Kazutoshi Takahashi; Shinya Yamanaka
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 41.582

6.  Persistent donor cell gene expression among human induced pluripotent stem cells contributes to differences with human embryonic stem cells.

Authors:  Zhumur Ghosh; Kitchener D Wilson; Yi Wu; Shijun Hu; Thomas Quertermous; Joseph C Wu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Senescence impairs successful reprogramming to pluripotent stem cells.

Authors:  Ana Banito; Sheikh T Rashid; Juan Carlos Acosta; SiDe Li; Carlos F Pereira; Imbisaat Geti; Sandra Pinho; Jose C Silva; Veronique Azuara; Martin Walsh; Ludovic Vallier; Jesús Gil
Journal:  Genes Dev       Date:  2009-08-20       Impact factor: 11.361

Review 8.  Mechanism and method for generating tumor-free iPS cells using intronic microRNA miR-302 induction.

Authors:  Shi-Lung Lin; Shao-Yao Ying
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2013

9.  Dynamic single-cell imaging of direct reprogramming reveals an early specifying event.

Authors:  Zachary D Smith; Iftach Nachman; Aviv Regev; Alexander Meissner
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2010-05-02       Impact factor: 54.908

10.  Direct cell reprogramming is a stochastic process amenable to acceleration.

Authors:  Jacob Hanna; Krishanu Saha; Bernardo Pando; Jeroen van Zon; Christopher J Lengner; Menno P Creyghton; Alexander van Oudenaarden; Rudolf Jaenisch
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-11-08       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  5 in total

1.  Identifying Candidate Reprogramming Genes in Mouse Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells.

Authors:  Fang Gao; Jingyu Li; Heng Zhang; Xu Yang; Tiezhu An
Journal:  Stem Cell Rev Rep       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 5.739

2.  Comparison of reprogramming genes in induced pluripotent stem cells and nuclear transfer cloned embryos.

Authors:  Lian Duan; Zhendong Wang; Jingling Shen; Zhiyan Shan; Xinghui Shen; Yanshuang Wu; Ruizhen Sun; Tong Li; Rui Yuan; Qiaoshi Zhao; Guangyu Bai; Yanli Gu; Lianhong Jin; Lei Lei
Journal:  Stem Cell Rev Rep       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 5.739

3.  Susceptibility of Human Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OSCC) H103 and H376 cell lines to Retroviral OSKM mediated reprogramming.

Authors:  Nalini Devi Verusingam; Swee Keong Yeap; Huynh Ky; Ian C Paterson; Suan Phaik Khoo; Soon Keng Cheong; Alan H K Ong; Tunku Kamarul
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 2.984

4.  Increased Neuronal Differentiation Efficiency in High Cell Density-Derived Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells.

Authors:  Sumitra Srimasorn; Matthias Kirsch; Susanne Hallmeyer-Ellgner; Dirk Lindemann; Alexander Storch; Andreas Hermann
Journal:  Stem Cells Int       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 5.443

Review 5.  Epigenetic Mechanisms of ART-Related Imprinting Disorders: Lessons From iPSC and Mouse Models.

Authors:  Alex Horánszky; Jessica L Becker; Melinda Zana; Anne C Ferguson-Smith; András Dinnyés
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 4.096

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.