Positive Correlation Between the Efficiency of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells and the Development Rate of Nuclear Transfer Embryos When the Same Porcine Embryonic Fibroblast Lines Are Used As Donor Cells
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2014
Positive Correlation Between the Efficiency of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells and the Development Rate of Nuclear Transfer Embryos When the Same Porcine Embryonic Fibroblast Lines Are Used As Donor Cells
Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and nuclear transfer (NT) are two of the primary routes to reprogram differentiated cells back to the pluripotent state. However, it is still unknown whether there is any correlation between the reprogramming efficiency of iPSCs and NT if the same donor cells are employed. In this study, six porcine embryonic fibroblast (PEF) lines from Landrace (L1, L6, L9) or Congjiang local pigs (C4, C5, C6) were used for iPSC induction and NT. Furthermore, the resultant iPSCs from four PEF lines (L1, L6, C4, and C5) were used for NT (iPSC-NT), and the expression of exogenous genes was detected in iPSC-NT embryos by real-time PCR. The results showed that the efficiency of iPSC lines established from different PEF lines were significantly different. When the same PEF lines were used as donor cells for NT, the blastocysts rates were also different among different PEF lines and positively related with iPSCs induction efficiency. When the iPSCs were used as donor cells for NT, compared with the source PEFs, the blastocysts rates were significantly decreased. Real-time PCR results indicated that exogenous genes (Oct4, c-Myc) continued to be expressed in iPSC-NT embryos. In summary, our results demonstrate that there was a positive correlation between iPSCs and NT reprogramming efficiency, although the mechanism of these two routes is different. This may provide a new method to select the appropriate donor cells for inducing iPSCs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BonkA.J., CheongH.T., LiR., LaiL., HaoY., LiuZ., SamuelM., FergasonE.A., WhitworthK.M., MurphyC.N., AntoniouE., and PratherR.S. (2007). Correlation of developmental differences of nuclear transfer embryos cells to the methylation profiles of nuclear transfer donor cells in Swine. Epigenetics, 2, 179–186.
DingX., WangY., ZhangD., WangY., GuoZ., and ZhangY. (2008). Increased pre-implantation development of cloned bovine embryos treated with 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine and trichostatin A. Theriogenology, 70, 622–630.
4.
EminliS., FoudiA., StadtfeldM., MaheraliN., AhfeldtT., MostoslavskyG., HockH., and HochedlingerK. (2009). Differentiation stage determines potential of hematopoietic cells for reprogramming into induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Genet., 41, 968–976.
GurdonJ.B. (1962). Adult frogs derived from the nuclei of single somatic cells. Dev. Biol., 4, 256–273.
7.
HeymanY., ZhouQ., LebourhisD., Chavatte-PalmerP., RenardJ.P., and VignonX. (2002). Novel approaches and hurdles to somatic cloning in cattle. Cloning Stem Cells, 4, 47–55.
8.
HochedlingerK., and PlathK. (2009). Epigenetic reprogramming and induced pluripotency. Development, 136, 509–523.
9.
HongH., TakahashiK., IchisakaT., AoiT., KanagawaO., NakagawaM., OkitaK., and YamanakaS. (2009). Suppression of induced pluripotent stem cell generation by the p53-p21 pathway. Nature, 460, 1132–1135.
10.
HuangL., FanN., CaiJ., YangD., ZhaoB., OuyangZ., GuW., and LaiL. (2011). Establishment of a porcine Oct-4 promoter-driven EGFP reporter system for monitoring pluripotency of porcine stem cells. Cell. Reprogram., 13, 93–98.
11.
HuangfuD., OsafuneK., MaehrR., GuoW., EijkelenboomA., ChenS., MuhlesteinW., and MeltonD.A. (2008). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from primary human fibroblasts with only Oct4 and Sox2. Nat. Biotechnol., 26, 1269–1275.
12.
InoueK., OgonukiN., MochidaK., YamamotoY., TakanoK., KohdaT., IshinoF., and OguraA. (2003). Effects of donor cell type and genotype on the efficiency of mouse somatic cell cloning. Biol. Reprod., 69, 1394–1400.
13.
KishigamiS., MizutaniE., OhtaH., HikichiT., ThuanN.V., WakayamaS., BuiH.T., and WakayamaT. (2006). Significant improvement of mouse cloning technique by treatment with trichostatin A after somatic nuclear transfer. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 340, 183–189.
14.
KlegerA., MahaddalkarP.U., KatzS.F., LechelA., JooJ.Y., LoyaK., LinQ., HartmannD., LiebauS., KrausJ.M., CantzT., KestlerH.A., ZaehresH., ScholerH., and RudolphK.L. (2012). Increased reprogramming capacity of mouse liver progenitor cells, compared with differentiated liver cells, requires the BAF complex. Gastroenterology, 142, 907–917.
15.
KongQ.R., ZhuJ., HuangB., HuanY.J., WangF., ShiY.Q., LiuZ.F., WuM.L., and LiuZ.H. (2011). [TSA improve transgenic porcine cloned embryo development and transgene expression]. Yi chuan=Hereditas / Zhongguo yi chuan xue hui bian ji, 33, 749–756.
16.
LiuZ., WanH., WangE., ZhaoX., DingC., ZhouS., LiT., ShuaiL., FengC., YuY., ZhouQ., and BeaujeanN. (2012). Induced pluripotent stem-induced cells show better constitutive heterochromatin remodeling and developmental potential after nuclear transfer than their parental cells. Stem Cells Dev., 21, 3001–3009.
17.
LiuZ.H., SongJ., WangZ.K., TianJ.T., KongQ.R., ZhengZ., YinZ., GaoL., MaH.K., SunS., LiY.T., WangH.B., and PratherR.S. (2008). Green fluorescent protein (GFP) transgenic pig produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Chinese Science Bulletin, 53, 1035–1039.
18.
MaliP., ChouB.K., YenJ., YeZ., ZouJ., DoweyS., BrodskyR.A., OhmJ.E., YuW., BaylinS.B., YusaK., BradleyA., MeyersD.J., MukherjeeC., ColeP.A., and ChengL. (2010). Butyrate greatly enhances derivation of human induced pluripotent stem cells by promoting epigenetic remodeling and the expression of pluripotency-associated genes. Stem Cells, 28, 713–720.
19.
MasonK., LiuZ., Aguirre-LavinT., and BeaujeanN. (2012). Chromatin and epigenetic modifications during early mammalian development. Anim. Reprod. Sci., 134, 45–55.
20.
MikkelsenT.S., HannaJ., ZhangX., KuM., WernigM., SchorderetP., BernsteinB.E., JaenischR., LanderE.S., and MeissnerA. (2008). Dissecting direct reprogramming through integrative genomic analysis. Nature, 454, 49–55.
21.
MiyazakiK., TomiiR., KuromeM., UedaH., HirakawaK., UenoS., HirumaK., and NagashimaH. (2005). Evaluation of the quality of porcine somatic cell nuclear transfer embryo by gene transcription profiles. J. Reprod. Dev., 51, 123–131.
22.
NakagawaM., KoyanagiM., TanabeK., TakahashiK., IchisakaT., AoiT., OkitaK., MochidukiY., TakizawaN., and YamanakaS. (2008). Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells without Myc from mouse and human fibroblasts. Nat. Biotechnol., 26, 101–106.
23.
ObackB., and WellsD.N. (2007). Donor cell differentiation, reprogramming, and cloning efficiency: Elusive or illusive correlation? Mol. Reprod. Dev., 74, 646–654.
24.
OkitaK., IchisakaT., and YamanakaS. (2007). Generation of germline-competent induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature, 448, 313–317.
25.
PoloJ.M., AnderssenE., WalshR.M., SchwarzB.A., NefzgerC.M., LimS.M., BorkentM., ApostolouE., AlaeiS., CloutierJ., Bar-NurO., CheloufiS., StadtfeldM., FigueroaM.E., RobintonD., NatesanS., MelnickA., ZhuJ., RamaswamyS., and HochedlingerK. (2012a). A molecular roadmap of reprogramming somatic cells into iPS cells. Cell, 151, 1617–1632.
26.
PoloJ.M., AnderssenE., WalshR.M., SchwarzB.A., NefzgerC.M., LimS.M., BorkentM., ApostolouE., AlaeiS., CloutierJ., Bar-NurO., CheloufiS., StadtfeldM., FigueroaM.E., RobintonD., NatesanS., MelnickA., ZhuJ.F., RamaswamyS., and HochedlingerK. (2012b). A molecular roadmap of reprogramming somatic cells into iPS cells. Cell, 151, 1617–1632.
27.
SuR.J., BaylinkD.J., NeisesA., KiroyanJ.B., MengX., PayneK.J., Tschudy-SeneyB., DuanY., ApplebyN., Kearns-JonkerM., GridleyD.S., WangJ., LauK.H., and ZhangX.B. (2013). Efficient generation of integration-free ips cells from human adult peripheral blood using BCL-XL together with Yamanaka factors. PloS One, 8, e64496.
28.
TakahashiK., TanabeK., OhnukiM., NaritaM., IchisakaT., TomodaK., and YamanakaS. (2007). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell, 131, 861–872.
29.
TanK.Y., EminliS., HettmerS., HochedlingerK., and WagersA.J. (2011). Efficient generation of iPS cells from skeletal muscle stem cells. PloS One, 6, e26406.
30.
WakaoS., KitadaM., KurodaY., ShigemotoT., MatsuseD., AkashiH., TanimuraY., TsuchiyamaK., KikuchiT., GodaM., NakahataT., FujiyoshiY., and DezawaM. (2011). Multilineage-differentiating stress-enduring (Muse) cells are a primary source of induced pluripotent stem cells in human fibroblasts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 9875–9880.
31.
WakayamaT., and YanagimachiR. (2001). Mouse cloning with nucleus donor cells of different age and type. Mol. Reprod. Dev., 58, 376–383.
32.
WakayamaT., TabarV., RodriguezI., PerryA.C., StuderL., and MombaertsP. (2001). Differentiation of embryonic stem cell lines generated from adult somatic cells by nuclear transfer. Science, 292, 740–743.
33.
WangJ., GuQ., HaoJ., JiaY., XueB., JinH., MaJ., WeiR., HaiT., KongQ., BouG., XiaP., ZhouQ., WangL., and LiuZ. (2013). Tbx3 and Nr5alpha2 play important roles in pig pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Rev., 9, 700–708.
34.
WhitworthK.M., and PratherR.S. (2010). Somatic cell nuclear transfer efficiency: How can it be improved through nuclear remodeling and reprogramming? Mol. Reprod. Dev., 77, 1001–1015.
35.
WilmutI., SchniekeA.E., McWhirJ., KindA.J., and CampbellK.H. (1997). Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature, 385, 810–813.
36.
XuY., WeiX., WangM., ZhangR., FuY., XingM., HuaQ., and XieX. (2013). Proliferation rate of somatic cells affects reprogramming efficiency. J. Biol. Chem., 288, 9767–9778.
37.
XueY., CaiX., WangL., LiaoB., ZhangH., ShanY., ChenQ., ZhouT., LiX., HouJ., ChenS., LuoR., QinD., PeiD., and PanG. (2013). Generating a non-integrating human induced pluripotent stem cell bank from urine-derived cells. PloS One, 8, e70573.
38.
ZakhartchenkoV., Durcova-HillsG., StojkovicM., SchernthanerW., PrelleK., SteinbornR., MullerM., BremG., and WolfE. (1999). Effects of serum starvation and re-cloning on the efficiency of nuclear transfer using bovine fetal fibroblasts. J. Reprod. Fertil., 115, 325–331.
39.
ZhaoX.Y., LiW., LvZ., LiuL., TongM., HaiT., HaoJ., GuoC.L., MaQ.W., WangL., ZengF.Y., and ZhouQ. (2009). iPS cells produce viable mice through tetraploid complementation. Nature, 461, 86–90.
40.
ZhouS., DingC., ZhaoX., WangE., DaiX., LiuL., LiW., LiuZ., WanH., and FengC. (2010). Successful generation of cloned mice using nuclear transfer from induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Res., 20, 850–853.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
