Lyndsay L Leach1,2,3, Roxanne H Croze1,2,3, Qirui Hu1,2, Vignesh P Nadar1,4, Tracy N Clevenger1,2,3, Britney O Pennington1,2, David M Gamm5,6,7, Dennis O Clegg1,2,3. 1. 1 Center for Stem Cell Biology and Engineering, University of California , Santa Barbara, California. 2. 2 Neuroscience Research Institute, University of California , Santa Barbara, California. 3. 3 Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of California , Santa Barbara, California. 4. 4 California State University , Channel Islands, Camarillo, California. 5. 5 Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison , Madison, Wisconsin. 6. 6 McPherson Eye Research Institute, University of Wisconsin-Madison , Madison, Wisconsin. 7. 7 Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison , Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The application of induced pluripotent stem cell-derived retinal pigmented epithelium (iPSC-RPE) in patients with retinal degenerative disease is making headway toward the clinic, with clinical trials already underway. Multiple groups have developed methods for RPE differentiation from pluripotent cells, but previous studies have shown variability in iPSC propensity to differentiate into RPE. METHODS: This study provides a comparison between 2 different methods for RPE differentiation: (1) a commonly used spontaneous continuously adherent culture (SCAC) protocol and (2) a more rapid, directed differentiation using growth factors. Integration-free iPSC lines were differentiated to RPE, which were characterized with respect to global gene expression, expression of RPE markers, and cellular function. RESULTS: We found that all 5 iPSC lines (iPSC-1, iPSC-2, iPSC-3, iPSC-4, and iPSC-12) generated RPE using the directed differentiation protocol; however, 2 of the 5 iPSC lines (iPSC-4 and iPSC-12) did not yield RPE using the SCAC method. Both methods can yield bona fide RPE that expresses signature RPE genes and carry out RPE functions, and are similar, but not identical to fetal RPE. No differences between methods were detected in transcript levels, protein localization, or functional analyses between iPSC-1-RPE, iPSC-2-RPE, and iPSC-3-RPE. Directed iPSC-3-RPE showed enhanced transcript levels of RPE65 compared to directed iPSC-2-RPE and increased BEST1 expression and pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF) secretion compared to directed iPSC-1-RPE. In addition, SCAC iPSC-3-RPE secreted more PEDF than SCAC iPSC-1-RPE. CONCLUSIONS: The directed protocol is a more reliable method for differentiating RPE from various pluripotent sources and some iPSC lines are more amenable to RPE differentiation.
PURPOSE: The application of induced pluripotent stem cell-derived retinal pigmented epithelium (iPSC-RPE) in patients with retinal degenerative disease is making headway toward the clinic, with clinical trials already underway. Multiple groups have developed methods for RPE differentiation from pluripotent cells, but previous studies have shown variability in iPSC propensity to differentiate into RPE. METHODS: This study provides a comparison between 2 different methods for RPE differentiation: (1) a commonly used spontaneous continuously adherent culture (SCAC) protocol and (2) a more rapid, directed differentiation using growth factors. Integration-free iPSC lines were differentiated to RPE, which were characterized with respect to global gene expression, expression of RPE markers, and cellular function. RESULTS: We found that all 5 iPSC lines (iPSC-1, iPSC-2, iPSC-3, iPSC-4, and iPSC-12) generated RPE using the directed differentiation protocol; however, 2 of the 5 iPSC lines (iPSC-4 and iPSC-12) did not yield RPE using the SCAC method. Both methods can yield bona fide RPE that expresses signature RPE genes and carry out RPE functions, and are similar, but not identical to fetal RPE. No differences between methods were detected in transcript levels, protein localization, or functional analyses between iPSC-1-RPE, iPSC-2-RPE, and iPSC-3-RPE. Directed iPSC-3-RPE showed enhanced transcript levels of RPE65 compared to directed iPSC-2-RPE and increased BEST1 expression and pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF) secretion compared to directed iPSC-1-RPE. In addition, SCAC iPSC-3-RPE secreted more PEDF than SCAC iPSC-1-RPE. CONCLUSIONS: The directed protocol is a more reliable method for differentiating RPE from various pluripotent sources and some iPSC lines are more amenable to RPE differentiation.
Authors: David E Buchholz; Britney O Pennington; Roxanne H Croze; Cassidy R Hinman; Peter J Coffey; Dennis O Clegg Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 6.940
Authors: Jason S Meyer; Sara E Howden; Kyle A Wallace; Amelia D Verhoeven; Lynda S Wright; Elizabeth E Capowski; Isabel Pinilla; Jessica M Martin; Shulan Tian; Ron Stewart; Bikash Pattnaik; James A Thomson; David M Gamm Journal: Stem Cells Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 6.277
Authors: David E Buchholz; Sherry T Hikita; Teisha J Rowland; Amy M Friedrich; Cassidy R Hinman; Lincoln V Johnson; Dennis O Clegg Journal: Stem Cells Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 6.277
Authors: Ruchira Singh; M Joseph Phillips; David Kuai; Jackelyn Meyer; Jessica M Martin; Molly A Smith; Enio T Perez; Wei Shen; Kyle A Wallace; Elizabeth E Capowski; Lynda S Wright; David M Gamm Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Kongtana Trakarnsanga; Marieangela C Wilson; Rebecca E Griffiths; Ashley M Toye; Lee Carpenter; Kate J Heesom; Steve F Parsons; David J Anstee; Jan Frayne Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jeffrey H Stern; Yangzi Tian; James Funderburgh; Graziella Pellegrini; Kang Zhang; Jeffrey L Goldberg; Robin R Ali; Michael Young; Yubing Xie; Sally Temple Journal: Cell Stem Cell Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 24.633
Authors: A Bennis; J G Jacobs; L A E Catsburg; J B Ten Brink; C Koster; R O Schlingemann; J van Meurs; T G M F Gorgels; P D Moerland; V M Heine; A A Bergen Journal: Stem Cell Rev Rep Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 5.739
Authors: Allison E Songstad; Kristan S Worthington; Kathleen R Chirco; Joseph C Giacalone; S Scott Whitmore; Kristin R Anfinson; Dalyz Ochoa; Cathryn M Cranston; Megan J Riker; Maurine Neiman; Edwin M Stone; Robert F Mullins; Budd A Tucker Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 6.940
Authors: Evgenii Kegeles; Anton Naumov; Evgeny A Karpulevich; Pavel Volchkov; Petr Baranov Journal: Front Cell Neurosci Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 5.505
Authors: Roni A Hazim; Saravanan Karumbayaram; Mei Jiang; Anupama Dimashkie; Vanda S Lopes; Douran Li; Barry L Burgess; Preethi Vijayaraj; Jackelyn A Alva-Ornelas; Jerome A Zack; Donald B Kohn; Brigitte N Gomperts; April D Pyle; William E Lowry; David S Williams Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 6.832