To model quantitatively embryonic stem cell (ESC) self-renewal and differentiation by computational approaches, we developed a unified mathematical model for gene expression involved in cell fate choices. Our quantitative model comprised ESC master regulators and lineage-specific pivotal genes. It took the factors of multiple pathways as input and computed expression as a function of intrinsic transcription factors, extrinsic cues, epigenetic modifications, and antagonism between ESC master regulators and lineage-specific pivotal genes. In the model, the differential equations of expression of genes involved in cell fate choices from regulation relationship were established according to the transcription and degradation rates. We applied this model to the Murine ESC self-renewal and differentiation commitment and found that it modeled the expression patterns with good accuracy. Our model analysis revealed that Murine ESC was an attractor state in culture and differentiation was predominantly caused by antagonism between ESC master regulators and lineage-specific pivotal genes. Moreover, antagonism among lineages played a critical role in lineage reprogramming. Our results also uncovered that the ordered expression alteration of ESC master regulators over time had a central role in ESC differentiation fates. Our computational framework was generally applicable to most cell-type maintenance and lineage reprogramming.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bar-YamY., HarmonD., and de BivortB. (2009). Attractors and democratic dynamics. Science, 323, 1016–1017.
2.
BibikovaM., LaurentL.C., RenB., LoringJ.F., and FanJ.B. (2008). Unraveling epigenetic regulation in embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 123–134.
3.
BoyerL.A., LeeT.I., ColeM.F., JohnstoneS.E., LevineS.S., ZuckerJ.P., GuentherM.G., KumarR.M., MurrayH.L., JennerR.G., GiffordD.K., MeltonD.A., JaenischR., and YoungR.A. (2005). Core transcriptional regulatory circuitry in human embryonic stem cells. Cell, 122, 947–956.
ChenX., XuH., YuanP., FangF., HussM., VegaV.B., WongE., OrlovY.L., ZhangW., JiangJ., LohY.H., YeoH.C., YeoZ.X., NarangV., GovindarajanK.R., LeongB., ShahabA., RuanY., BourqueG., SungW.K., ClarkeN.D., WeiC.L., and NgH.H. (2008). Integration of external signaling pathways with the core transcriptional network in embryonic stem cells. Cell, 133, 1106–1117.
7.
ChickarmaneV., and PetersonC. (2008). A computational model for understanding stem cell, trophectoderm and endoderm lineage determination. PLoS One, 3, e3478.
DoddI.B., MicheelsenM.A., SneppenK., and ThonG. (2007). Theoretical analysis of epigenetic cell memory by nucleosome modification. Cell, 129, 813–822.
10.
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.
11.
EnverT., PeraM., PetersonC., and AndrewsP.W. (2009). Stem cell states, fates, and the rules of attraction. Cell Stem Cell, 4, 387–397.
12.
Epsztejn-LitmanS., FeldmanN., Abu-RemailehM., ShufaroY., GersonA., UedaJ., DeplusR., FuksF., ShinkaiY., CedarH., and BergmanY. (2008). De novo DNA methylation promoted by G9a prevents reprogramming of embryonically silenced genes. Nat Struct Mol Biol, 15, 1176–1183.
13.
FeldmanN., GersonA., FangJ., LiE., ZhangY., ShinkaiY., CedarH., and BergmanY. (2006). G9a-mediated irreversible epigenetic inactivation of Oct-3/4 during early embryogenesis. Nat Cell Biol, 8, 188–194.
14.
HayashiK., LopesS.M., TangF., and SuraniM.A. (2008). Dynamic equilibrium and heterogeneity of mouse pluripotent stem cells with distinct functional and epigenetic states. Cell Stem Cell, 3, 391–401.
15.
HochedlingerK., and JaenischR. (2009). Epigenetic reprogramming and induced pluripotency. Development, 136, 509–523.
IvanovaN., DobrinR., LuR., KotenkoI., LevorseJ., DeCosteC., SchaferX., LunY., and LemischkaI.R. (2006). Dissecting self-renewal in stem cells with RNA interference. Nature, 442, 533–538.
18.
IwasakiH., MizunoS., ArinobuY., OzawaH., MoriY., ShigematsuH., TakatsuK., TenenD.G., and AkashiK. (2006). The order of expression of transcription factors directs hierarchical specification of hematopoietic lineages. Genes Dev, 20, 3010–3021.
19.
JaenischR., and YoungR. (2008). Stem cells, the molecular circuitry of pluripotency and nuclear reprogramming. Cell, 132, 567–582.
20.
KalmarT., LimC., HaywardP., Muñoz-DescalzoS., NicholsJ., Garcia-OjalvoJ., and Martinez AriasA. (2009). Regulated fluctuations in Nanog expression mediate cell fate decisions in embryonic stem cells. PLoS Biol, 7, e1000149.
21.
KarantzaliE., SchulzH., HummelO., HubnerN., HatzopoulosA.K., and KretsovaliA. (2008). Histone deacetylase inhibition accelerates the early events of stem cell differentiation: transcriptomic and epigenetic analysis. Genome Biol, 9, R65.
22.
KauffmanS. (1969). Homeostasis and differentiation in random genetic control networks. Nature, 224, 177–178.
LosickR., and DesplanC. (2008). Stochasticity and cell fate. Science, 320, 65–68.
25.
LuR., MarkowetzF., UnwinR.D., LeekJ.T., AiroldiE.M., MacArthurB.D., LachmannA., RozovR., Ma'ayanA, BoyerL.A., TroyanskayaO.G., WhettonA.D., and LemischkaI.R. (2009). Systems-level dynamic analyses of fate change in murine embryonic stem cells. Nature, 462, 358–362.
26.
MacArthurB.D., Ma'ayanA., and LemischkaI.R. (2009). Systems biology of stem cell fate and cellular reprogramming. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 10, 672–682.
27.
MatobaR., NiwaH., MasuiS., OhtsukaS., CarterM.G., SharovA.A., and KoM.S. (2006). Dissecting Oct3/4-regulated gene networks in embryonic stem cells by expression profiling. PLoS One, 1, e26.
28.
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.
29.
NiwaH., MiyazakiJ., and SmithA.G. (2000). Quantitative expression of Oct-3/4 defines differentiation, dedifferentiation or self-renewal of ES cells. Nat Genet, 24, 372–376.
30.
NiwaH., ToyookaY., ShimosatoD., StrumpfD., TakahashiK., YagiR., and RossantJ. (2005). Interaction between Oct3/4 and Cdx2 determines trophectoderm differentiation. Cell, 123, 917–929.
31.
Pérez-OrtínJ.E., AlepuzP.M., and MorenoJ. (2007). Genomics and gene transcription kinetics in yeast. Trends Genet, 23, 250–257.
32.
SelvarajV., PlaneJ.M., WilliamsA.J., and DengW. (2010). Switching cell fate: the remarkable rise of induced pluripotent stem cells and lineage reprogramming technologies. Trends Biotechnol, 28, 214–223.
33.
SilvaJ., NicholsJ., TheunissenT.W., GuoG., van OostenA.L., BarrandonO., WrayJ., YamanakaS., ChambersI., and SmithA. (2009). Nanog is the gateway to the pluripotent ground state. Cell, 138, 722–737.
34.
SneppenK., MicheelsenM.A., and DoddI.B. (2008). Ultrasensitive gene regulation by positive feedback loops in nucleosome modification. Mol Syst Biol, 4, Article number 182.
35.
SüelG.M., KulkarniR.P., DworkinJ., Garcia-OjalvoJ., and ElowitzM.B. (2007). Tunability and noise dependence in differentiation dynamics. Science, 315, 1716–1719.
36.
TurcotteM., Garcia-OjalvoJ., and SüelG.M. (2008). A genetic timer through noise-induced stabilization of an unstable state. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 105, 15732–15737.
37.
WalkerE., OhishiM., DaveyR.E., ZhangW., CassarP.A., TanakaT.S., DerS.D., MorrisQ., HughesT.R., ZandstraP.W., and StanfordW.L. (2007). Prediction and testing of novel transcriptional networks regulating embryonic stem cell self-renewal and commitment. Cell Stem Cell, 1, 71–86.
38.
YingQ.L., NicholsJ., ChambersI., and SmithA. (2003). BMP induction of Id proteins suppresses differentiation and sustains embryonic stem cell self-renewal in collaboration with STAT3. Cell, 115, 281–292.
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.
