| Literature DB >> 32053740 |
Zhenbo Han1,2, Zihang Xu1,2, Lei Chen3, Danyu Ye1,2, Yang Yu1,2, Ying Zhang1,2, Yang Cao1,2, Bamba Djibril1,2, Xiaofei Guo1,2, Xinlu Gao1,2, Wenwen Zhang1,2, Meixi Yu1,2, Shenzhen Liu1,2, Gege Yan1,2, Mengyu Jin1,2, Qi Huang1,2, Xiuxiu Wang1,2, Bingjie Hua1,2, Chao Feng1,2, Fan Yang1,2, Wenya Ma1,2, Yu Liu4.
Abstract
Iron overload affects the cell cycle of various cell types, but the effect of iron overload on human pluripotent stem cells has not yet been reported. Here, we show that the proliferation capacities of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) and human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) were significantly inhibited by ferric ammonium citrate (FAC) in a concentration-dependent manner. In addition, deferoxamine protected hESCs/hiPSCs against FAC-induced cell-cycle arrest. However, iron overload did not affect pluripotency in hESCs/hiPSCs. Further, treatment of hiPSCs with FAC resulted in excess reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage. Collectively, our findings provide new insights into the role of iron homeostasis in the maintenance of self-renewal in human pluripotent stem cells.Entities:
Keywords: DNA damage; ROS; cell cycle; human embryonic stem cells; human induced pluripotent stem cells; iron overload
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32053740 PMCID: PMC7193162 DOI: 10.1002/2211-5463.12811
Source DB: PubMed Journal: FEBS Open Bio ISSN: 2211-5463 Impact factor: 2.693
Fig. 1(A) Phase images of hiPSCs treated with 10, 20, 50 or 100 μm FAC or 50 μm FAC + 50 μm DFO. Scale bar: 100 μm. (B) The cellular iron content of AC‐iPSCs and H1‐ESCs treated with different concentrations of FAC for 16 h. Data are shown as mean ± SEM (n = 3). One‐way ANOVA was applied. ***P < 0.001 compared with the control. (C) Morphology and ALP staining of hiPSCs/hESCs treated with different concentrations of FAC or 50 μm DFO supplemented with 50 μm FAC for 16 h. Scale bars: 100 μm. (D) Cell counting assay of AC‐iPSCs and H1‐ESCs supplemented with 10, 20 or 50 μm FAC or 50 μm FAC + 50 μm DFO. (E) EdU assay of hiPSCs/hESCs treated with different concentrations of FAC or 50 μm DFO supplemented with 50 μm FAC for 16 h. Scale bar, 50 μm. Data are shown as mean ± SEM (n = 3). One‐way ANOVA was applied. ***P < 0.001.
Fig. 2(A) Quantitative RT‐PCR analysis of NANOG, SOX2 and OCT‐4 expression in AC‐iPSCs treated with different concentrations of FAC for 16 h. Data are shown as mean ± SEM (n = 3). One‐way ANOVA was applied. (B) Western blot analysis of OCT‐4 expression in AC‐iPSCs treated with different concentrations of FAC for 16 h. (C) Western blot analysis of OCT‐4 expression in H1‐ESCs treated with different concentrations of FAC for 16 h.
Fig. 3DCFH‐DA staining of AC‐iPSCs and H1‐ESCs treated with 50 μm FAC, 50 μm FAC + 50 μm DFO and 50 μm FAC + 5 mm NAC. Scale bar, 100 μm.
Fig. 4(A) Immunofluorescence analysis of DNA damage in AC‐iPSCs and H1‐ESCs treated with 50 μm FAC, 50 μm FAC + 50 μm DFO and 50 μm FAC + 5 mm NAC. Scale bars, 50 μm. Data are shown as mean ± SEM (n = 4). One‐way ANOVA was applied. ***P < 0.001. (B) Western blot analysis of γ‐H2A.X expression in H1‐ESCs treated with different concentrations of FAC for 16 h.