Reprogramming of somatic cells to generate induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) has considerable latency and generates epigenetically distinct partially and fully reprogrammed clones. To understand the molecular basis of reprogramming and to distinguish the partially reprogrammed iPSC clones (pre-iPSCs), we analyzed several of these clones for their molecular signatures. Using a combination of markers that are expressed at different stages of reprogramming, we found that the partially reprogrammed stable clones have significant morphological and molecular heterogeneity in their response to transition to the fully pluripotent state. The pre-iPSCs had significant levels of OCT4 expression but exhibited variable levels of mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition. These novel molecular signatures that we identified would help in using these cells to understand the molecular mechanisms in the late of stages of reprogramming. Although morphologically similar mouse iPSC clones showed significant heterogeneity, the human iPSC clones isolated initially on the basis of morphology were highly homogeneous with respect to the levels of pluripotency.
BlellochR., VenereM., YenJ., and Ramalho-SantosM. (2007). Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells in the absence of drug selection. Cell Stem Cell, 1, 245–247.
ChanE.M., RatanasirintrawootS., ParkI.H., ManosP.D., LohY.H., HuoH., MillerJ.D., HartungO., RhoJ., InceT.A., DaleyG.Q., and SchlaegerT.M. (2009). Live cell imaging distinguishes bona fide human iPS cells from partially reprogrammed cells. Nat. Biotechnol., 27, 1033–1037.
5.
ChenJ., LiuH., LiuJ., QiJ., WeiB., YangJ., LiangH., ChenY., WuY., GuoL., ZhuJ., ZhaoX., PengT., ZhangY., ChenS., LiX., LiD., WangT., and PeiD. (2013). H3K9 methylation is a barrier during somatic cell reprogramming into iPSCs. Nat. Genet., 45, 34–42.
6.
ChenT., YuanD., WeiB., JiangJ., KangJ., LingK., GuY., LiJ., XiaoL., and PeiG. (2010). E-cadherin-mediated cell-cell contact is critical for induced pluripotent stem cell generation. Stem Cells, 28, 1315–1325.
7.
ChengJ., DutraA., TakesonoA., Garrett-BealL., and SchwartzbergP.L. (2004). Improved generation of C57BL/6J mouse embryonic stem cells in a defined serum-free media. Genesis, 39, 100–104.
8.
DavidL., and PoloJ.M. (2014). Phases of reprogramming. Stem Cell Res. 12, 754–761.
9.
EstebanM.A., WangT., QinB., YangJ., QinD., CaiJ., LiW., WengZ., ChenJ., NiS., ChenK., LiY., LiuX., XuJ., ZhangS., LiF., HeW., LabudaK., SongY., PeterbauerA., WolbankS., RedlH., ZhongM., CaiD., ZengL., and PeiD. (2010). Vitamin C enhances the generation of mouse and human induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 6, 71–79.
10.
FussnerE., DjuricU., StraussM., HottaA., Perez-IratxetaC., LannerF., DilworthF.J., EllisJ., and Bazett-JonesD.P. (2011). Constitutive heterochromatin reorganization during somatic cell reprogramming. EMBO J. 30, 1778–1789.
11.
HannaJ., SahaK., PandoB., van ZonJ., LengnerC.J., CreyghtonM.P., van OudenaardenA., and JaenischR. (2009). Direct cell reprogramming is a stochastic process amenable to acceleration. Nature, 462, 595–601.
12.
HanssonJ., RafieeM.R., ReilandS., PoloJ.M., GehringJ., OkawaS., HuberW., HochedlingerK., and KrijgsveldJ. (2012). Highly coordinated proteome dynamics during reprogramming of somatic cells to pluripotency. Cell Rep. 2, 1579–1592.
13.
HochedlingerK., and PlathK. (2009). Epigenetic reprogramming and induced pluripotency. Development, 136, 509–523.
14.
HottaA., and EllisJ. (2008). Retroviral vector silencing during iPS cell induction: An epigenetic beacon that signals distinct pluripotent states. J. Cell. Biochem., 105, 940–948.
15.
HottaA., CheungA.Y., FarraN., GarchaK., ChangW.Y., PasceriP., StanfordW.L., and EllisJ. (2009). EOS lentiviral vector selection system for human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Protoc., 4, 1828–1844.
16.
HuangJ., ChenT., LiuX., JiangJ., LiJ., LiD., LiuX.S., LiW., KangJ., and PeiG. (2009). More synergetic cooperation of Yamanaka factors in induced pluripotent stem cells than in embryonic stem cells. Cell Res. 19, 1127–1138.
17.
HuangfuD., MaehrR., GuoW., EijkelenboomA., SnitowM., ChenA.E., and MeltonD.A. (2008a). Induction of pluripotent stem cells by defined factors is greatly improved by small-molecule compounds. Nat. Biotechnol., 26, 795–797.
18.
HuangfuD., OsafuneK., MaehrR., GuoW., EijkelenboomA., ChenS., MuhlesteinW., and MeltonD.A. (2008b). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from primary human fibroblasts with only Oct4 and Sox2. Nat. Biotechnol., 26, 1269–1275.
19.
IchidaJ.K., BlanchardJ., LamK., SonE.Y., ChungJ.E., EgliD., LohK.M., CarterA.C., Di GiorgioF.P., KoszkaK., HuangfuD., AkutsuH., LiuD.R., RubinL.L., and EgganK. (2009). A small-molecule inhibitor of tgf-Beta signaling replaces sox2 in reprogramming by inducing nanog. Cell Stem Cell, 5, 491–503.
20.
KangL., WangJ., ZhangY., KouZ., and GaoS. (2009). iPS cells can support full-term development of tetraploid blastocyst-complemented embryos. Cell Stem Cell, 5, 135–138.
21.
KangL., WuT., TaoY., YuanY., HeJ., ZhangY., LuoT., KouZ., and GaoS. (2010). Viable mice produced from three-factor induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells through tetraploid complementation. Cell Res. 21, 546–549.
22.
KawamuraT., SuzukiJ., WangY.V., MenendezS., MoreraL.B., RayaA., WahlG.M., and BelmonteJ.C. (2009). Linking the p53 tumour suppressor pathway to somatic cell reprogramming. Nature, 460, 1140–1144.
23.
KimJ.S., ChoiH.W., HongY.J., and DoJ.T. (2014). Generation of partially reprogrammed cells and fully reprogrammed iPS cells by plasmid transfection. Methods Mol. Biol., 2014; Dec5. [Epub ahead of print]
LerouP.H., YabuuchiA., HuoH., MillerJ.D., BoyerL.F., SchlaegerT.M., and DaleyG.Q. (2008). Derivation and maintenance of human embryonic stem cells from poor-quality in vitro fertilization embryos. Nat. Protoc., 3, 923–933.
26.
LiR., LiangJ., NiS., ZhouT., QingX., LiH., HeW., ChenJ., LiF., ZhuangQ., QinB., XuJ., LiW., YangJ., GanY., QinD., FengS., SongH., YangD., ZhangB., ZengL., LaiL., EstebanM.A., and PeiD. (2010). A mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition initiates and is required for the nuclear reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts. Cell Stem Cell, 7, 51–63.
27.
LiangG., TaranovaO., XiaK., and ZhangY. (2010). Butyrate promotes induced pluripotent stem cell generation. J. Biol. Chem., 285, 25516–25521.
28.
MacArthurB.D., PleaseC.P., and OreffoR.O. (2008). Stochasticity and the molecular mechanisms of induced pluripotency. PLoS One, 3, e3086.
29.
MaheraliN., and HochedlingerK. (2008). Guidelines and techniques for the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 3, 595–605.
30.
MaheraliN., and HochedlingerK. (2009). Tgfbeta signal inhibition cooperates in the induction of iPSCs and replaces Sox2 and cMyc. Curr. Biol., 19, 1718–1723.
31.
MaheraliN., SridharanR., XieW., UtikalJ., EminliS., ArnoldK., StadtfeldM., YachechkoR., TchieuJ., JaenischR., PlathK., and HochedlingerK. (2007). Directly reprogrammed fibroblasts show global epigenetic remodeling and widespread tissue contribution. Cell Stem Cell, 1, 55–70.
32.
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.
33.
MarkowiczS. (2008). Harnessing stem cells and dendritic cells for novel therapies. Acta Pol. Pharm., 65, 625–632.
34.
MeissnerA., WernigM., and JaenischR. (2007). Direct reprogramming of genetically unmodified fibroblasts into pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol., 25, 1177–1181.
35.
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.
36.
O'MalleyJ., SkylakiS., IwabuchiK.A., ChantzouraE., RuetzT., JohnssonA., TomlinsonS.R., LinnarssonS., and KajiK. (2013). High-resolution analysis with novel cell-surface markers identifies routes to iPS cells. Nature, 499, 88–91.
37.
OkadaM., OkaM., and YonedaY. (2010). Effective culture conditions for the induction of pluripotent stem cells. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1800:, 956–963.
38.
PappB., and PlathK. (2013). Epigenetics of reprogramming to induced pluripotency. Cell, 152, 1324–1343.
39.
PlathK., and LowryW.E. (2011). Progress in understanding reprogramming to the induced pluripotent state. Nat. Rev. Genet., 12, 253–265.
40.
PoloJ.M., LiuS., FigueroaM.E., KulalertW., EminliS., TanK.Y., ApostolouE., StadtfeldM., LiY., ShiodaT., NatesanS., WagersA.J., MelnickA., EvansT., and HochedlingerK. (2010). Cell type of origin influences the molecular and functional properties of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol., 28, 848–855.
41.
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. (2012). A molecular roadmap of reprogramming somatic cells into iPS cells. Cell, 151, 1617–1632.
42.
QuintanillaR.H.Jr., AsprerJ.S., VazC., TanavdeV., and LakshmipathyU. (2014). CD44 is a negative cell surface marker for pluripotent stem cell identification during human fibroblast reprogramming. PLoS One, 9, e85419.
43.
Samavarchi-TehraniP., GolipourA., DavidL., SungH.K., BeyerT.A., DattiA., WoltjenK., NagyA., and WranaJ.L. (2010). Functional genomics reveals a BMP-driven mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition in the initiation of somatic cell reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell, 7, 64–77.
44.
SilvaJ. (2009). Nanog is the gateway to the pluripotent ground state. Cell, 138, 722–738.
45.
SilvaJ., BarrandonO., NicholsJ., KawaguchiJ., TheunissenT.W., and SmithA. (2008). Promotion of reprogramming to ground state pluripotency by signal inhibition. PLoS Biol., 6, e253.
46.
SridharanR., TchieuJ., MasonM.J., YachechkoR., KuoyE., HorvathS., ZhouQ., and PlathK. (2009). Role of the murine reprogramming factors in the induction of pluripotency. Cell, 136, 364–377.
47.
StadtfeldM., MaheraliN., BreaultD.T., and HochedlingerK. (2008). Defining molecular cornerstones during fibroblast to iPS cell reprogramming in mouse. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 230–240.
48.
StadtfeldM., MaheraliN., BorkentM., and HochedlingerK. (2010). A reprogrammable mouse strain from gene-targeted embryonic stem cells. Nat. Methods, 7, 53–55.
49.
TakahashiK., and YamanakaS. (2006). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 126, 663–676.
50.
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.
51.
TchieuJ., KuoyE., ChinM.H., TrinhH., PattersonM., ShermanS.P., AimiuwuO., LindgrenA., HakimianS., ZackJ.A., ClarkA.T., PyleA.D., LowryW.E., and PlathK. (2010). Female human iPSCs retain an inactive X chromosome. Cell Stem Cell, 7, 329–342.
52.
TheunissenT.W., van OostenA.L., Castelo-BrancoG., HallJ., SmithA., and SilvaJ.C. (2011). Nanog overcomes reprogramming barriers and induces pluripotency in minimal conditions. Curr. Biol., 21, 65–71.
53.
TongeP.D., CorsoA.J., MonettiC., HusseinS.M., PuriM.C., MichaelI.P., LiM., LeeD.S., MarJ.C., CloonanN., WoodD.L., GauthierM.E., KornO., ClancyJ.L., PreissT., GrimmondS.M., ShinJ.Y., SeoJ.S., WellsC.A., RogersI.M., and NagyA. (2014). Divergent reprogramming routes lead to alternative stem-cell states. Nature, 516, 192–197.
54.
WangT., ChenK., ZengX., YangJ., WuY., ShiX., QinB., ZengL., EstebanM.A., PanG., and PeiD. (2011). The histone demethylases Jhdm1a/1b enhance somatic cell reprogramming in a vitamin-C-dependent manner. Cell Stem Cell, 9, 575–587.
55.
WernigM., MeissnerA., ForemanR., BrambrinkT., KuM., HochedlingerK., BernsteinB.E., and JaenischR. (2007). In vitro reprogramming of fibroblasts into a pluripotent ES-cell-like state. Nature, 448, 318–324.
56.
WernigM., LengnerC.J., HannaJ., LodatoM.A., SteineE., ForemanR., StaerkJ., MarkoulakiS., and JaenischR. (2008). A drug-inducible transgenic system for direct reprogramming of multiple somatic cell types. Nat. Biotechnol., 26, 916–924.
57.
YamanakaS. (2006). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 126, 663–676.
58.
YamanakaS. (2009). Elite and stochastic models for induced pluripotent stem cell generation. Nature, 460, 49–52.
59.
YuanX., WanH., ZhaoX., ZhuS., ZhouQ., and DingS. (2011). Combined chemical treatment enables Oct4-induced reprogramming from mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Stem Cells, 29, 549–553.
60.
ZhaoX.Y., LiW., LvZ., LiuL., TongM., HaiT., HaoJ., GuoC.L., MaQ.W., WangL., ZengF., and ZhouQ. (2009). iPS cells produce viable mice through tetraploid complementation. Nature, 461, 86–90.
61.
ZhaoX.Y., LiW., LvZ., LiuL., TongM., HaiT., HaoJ., GuoC.L., WangX., WangL., ZengF., and ZhouQ. (2010). Efficient and rapid generation of induced pluripotent stem cells using an alternative culture medium. Cell Res. 20, 383–386.
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.
