| Literature DB >> 29270863 |
Jose Meseguer-Ripolles1, Salman R Khetani2, Javier G Blanco3, Mairi Iredale1, David C Hay4.
Abstract
Despite the improvements in drug screening, high levels of drug attrition persist. Although high-throughput screening platforms permit the testing of compound libraries, poor compound efficacy or unexpected organ toxicity are major causes of attrition. Part of the reason for drug failure resides in the models employed, most of which are not representative of normal organ biology. This same problem affects all the major organs during drug development. Hepatotoxicity and cardiotoxicity are two interesting examples of organ disease and can present in the late stages of drug development, resulting in major cost and increased risk to the patient. Currently, cell-based systems used within industry rely on immortalized or primary cell lines from donated tissue. These models possess significant advantages and disadvantages, but in general display limited relevance to the organ of interest. Recently, stem cell technology has shown promise in drug development and has been proposed as an alternative to current industrial systems. These offerings will provide the field with exciting new models to study human organ biology at scale and in detail. We believe that the recent advances in production of stem cell-derived hepatocytes and cardiomyocytes combined with cutting-edge engineering technologies make them an attractive alternative to current screening models for drug discovery. This will lead to fast failing of poor drugs earlier in the process, delivering safer and more efficacious medicines for the patient.Entities:
Keywords: drug development; heart; liver; pluripotent stem cell; toxicity
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29270863 PMCID: PMC5804345 DOI: 10.1208/s12248-017-0171-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AAPS J ISSN: 1550-7416 Impact factor: 4.009
A summary of the differentiation methodologies developed for hepatocyte like cell production from pluripotent stem cells
| Substrate | Definitive endoderm induction | Days | Hepatic specification | Days | Hepatic maturation | Days | % Albumin + HNFa expression | CYP450 activity | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEFs | AA | 3 | FGF4, BMP2 | 5 | OSM, HGF | 5 | 70 (ALB) | CYP 2B1/2 | Cai et al. 2007 ( |
| BSA, FGF4, HGF, OSM, Dex | 2 | ||||||||
| MEFs/Collagen I | AA, FBS, KOSR | 5 | FGF4, HGF, KOSR | 3 | + | 67.4 | NT | Agarwal et al. 2008 ( | |
| FGF4, HGF, OSM, Dex | 9 | ||||||||
| Matrigel | AA, Wnt3A | 3 | 1% DMSO, 20% KOSR | 5 | HGF, OSM, HC | 9 | 90 | CYP 1A2 | Hay et al. 2008 ( |
| CYP 3A4 | |||||||||
| MEFs | AA, FGF2 | 3 | 1% DMSO, HGF | 8 | Dex | 3 | 55.5 | CYP 1A2 | Basma et al. 2009 ( |
| CYP 3A | |||||||||
| HGF | 5 | ||||||||
| MEFs | AA | 5 | FGF4, BMP2 | 5 | + | 80 | NT | Si-Tayeb et al. 2010 ( | |
| OSM | 5 | ||||||||
| AA, Wnt3A | 3 | CYP 1A2 | |||||||
| Matrigel | + | 1% DMSO, 20% KOSR | 5 | HGF, OSM, HC | 5 | 70–90 | CYP 3A4 | Sullivan et al. 2010 ( | |
| AA | 2 | ||||||||
| Matrigel | AA, BMP4, FGF2 | 3 | FGF10 | 3 | FGF4, HGF, EGF | 8 | NQ | CYP 3A | Touboul et al. 2010 ( |
| AA, FGF2, BMP4, Ly294002 | 3 | ||||||||
| + | |||||||||
| Fibronectin | AA, FGF2, CHIR99021 | 1 | AA | 5 | HGF, OSM | 17 | 83 | CYP 3A4 | Rashid et al. 2010 ( |
| + | |||||||||
| AA, FGF2 | 1 | ||||||||
| MEFs | AA, Wnt3a, HGF | 3 | 1% DMSO, 20% KOSR | 5 | HGF, OSM | 7 | NQ | CYP 3A4 | Chen et al. 2012 ( |
| Matrigel | AA, Wnt3a | 3 | 1% DMSO, 20% KOSR | 5 | HGF, OSM, HC | 9 | 90 | CYP 1A2 | Szkolnicka et al. 2014 |
| CYP 3A4 | Rashidi et al. 2016 ( | ||||||||
| FGF4, BMP2 | 4 | ||||||||
| Matrigel | AA | 3 | + | OSM, Dex | 8 | NQ | CYP 2B6 | Song et al. 2009 ( | |
| HGF, KGF | 6 | ||||||||
| Laminin | AA, Wnt3a | 3 | 1% DMSO, 20% KOSR | 5 | HGF, OSM, HC | 9 | 90 | CYP 1A2 | Cameron et al. 2015 |
| CYP 3A4 | Wang et al. 2017 ( |
MEFs mouse embryonic fibroblasts, AA activin A, Dex dexamethasone, OSM oncostatin M, FGF2 fibroblast growth factor 2, FGF4 fibroblast growth factor 4, FGF10 fibroblast growth factor 10, BSA bovine serum albumin, EGF epidermal growth factor, BMP2 bone morphogenic protein 2, BMP4 bone morphogenic protein 4, KGF keratinocyte growth factor, HGF hepatocyte growth factor, DMSO dimethyl sulfoxide, KOSR knockout serum replacement, FBS fetal bovine serum, HC hydrocortisone, CHIR99021–6-[[2-[[4-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-5-(5-methyl-1 h-imidazol-2-yl)-2-pyrimidinyl]amino]ethyl]amino]-3-pyridinecarbonitrile, LY294002–2-(Morpholin-4-yl)-8-phenyl-4H-chromen-4-one, NQ expressed but not quantified, NT not tested
Fig. 1Stagewise differentiation of pluripotent stem cells to hepatocyte-like cells. Pluripotent stem cells are differentiated to definitive endoderm, then primed to the hepatoblast stage. Following this, the progenitors are matured to hepatocyte-like cells. A panel of markers can be employed to assess successful differentiation at each stage of the process. Those include; OCT3/4 - octamer-binding transcription factor 4, SSEA-4—stage-specific embryonic antigen 4, SSEA-3—stage-specific embryonic antigen 3, GATA2 - GATA binding protein 2, GATA4—GATA binding protein 4, GATA6—GATA binding protein 6, FOXA2—forkhead box protein A2, FOXA1—forkhead box protein A1, FGF17—fibroblast growth factor 17, hHex—hematopoietically-expressed homeobox, HNF4α—hepatocyte nuclear factor 4 alpha, HNF1α—hepatocyte nuclear factor 1 alpha, AFP—alpha-fetoprotein, CK8—cytokeratin 8, CK18—cytokeratin 18, CK19—cytokeratin 19, GSTA1—glutathione S-transferase A1, APOA1—apolipoprotein A1, MRP2—multidrug resistance-associated protein 2, CYP1A2—cytochrome P450 1A2, CYP2A6—cytochrome P450 2A6, CYP2B6—cytochrome P450 2B6, CYP2C9—cytochrome P450 2C9, CYP3A4—cytochrome P450 3A4, CYP3A7—cytochrome P450 3A7