Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are somatic cells that have been reprogrammed to a pluripotent state via introduction of defined transcription factors. iPSCs are a valuable resource for regenerative medicine, but whether iPSCs are identical to embryonic stem cells (ESCs) remains unclear. In this study, we performed comparative proteomic analyses of human somatic cells [human newborn foreskin fibroblasts (hFFs)], human iPSCs (hiPSCs) derived from hFFs, and H9 human ESCs (hESCs). We reprogrammed hFFs to a pluripotent state using 4 core transcription factors: Oct4 (O), Sox2 (S), Klf4 (K), and c-Myc (M). The proteome of hiPSCs induced by 4 core transcription factors was relatively similar to that of hESCs. However, several proteins, including dUTPase, GAPDH, and FUSE binding protein 3, were differentially expressed between hESCs and hiPSCs, implying that hiPSCs are not identical to hESCs at the proteomic level. The proteomes of iPSCs induced by introducing 3, 5, or 6 transcription factors were also analyzed. Our proteomic profiles provide valuable insight into the factors that contribute to the similarities and differences between hESCs and hiPSCs and the mechanisms of reprogramming.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
TakahashiK, YamanakaS. 2006. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 126:663–676.
2.
WinklerJ, SotiriadouI, ChenS, HeschelerJ, SachinidisA. 2009. The potential of embryonic stem cells combined with–omics technologies as model systems for toxicity. Curr Med Chem, 16:4814–4827.
3.
JalvingM, SchepersH. 2009. Induced pluripotent stem cells: will they be safe?Curr Opin Mol Ther, 11:383–393.
4.
SmithKP, LuongMX, SteinGS. 2009. Pluripotency: toward a gold standard for human ES and iPS cells. J Cell Physiol, 220:21–29.
5.
YamanakaS. 2007. Strategies and new developments in the generation of patient-specific pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 1:39–49.
6.
HochedlingerK, PlathK. 2009. Epigenetic reprogramming and induced pluripotency. Development, 136:509–523.
7.
DaleyGQ. 2010. Stem cells: roadmap to the clinic. J Clin Invest, 120:8–10.
8.
BanitoA, GilJ. 2010. Induced pluripotent stem cells and senescence: learning the biology to improve the technology. EMBO Rep, 11:353–359.
9.
HuangfuD, OsafuneK, MaehrR, GuoW, EijkelenboomA, ChenS, MuhlesteinW, MeltonDA. 2008. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from primary human fibroblasts with only Oct4 and Sox2. Nature Biotechnol, 26:1269–1275.
10.
ParkI-H, ZhaoR, WestJA, YabuuchiA, HuoH, InceTA, LerouPH, LenschMW, DaleyGQ. 2008. Reprogramming of human somatic cells to pluripotency with defined factors. Nature, 451:141–146.
11.
KimJB, GreberB, Arauzo-BravoMJ, MeyerJ, ParkK-I, ZaehresH, ScholerHR. Direct reprogramming of human neural stem cells by OCT4. Nature, 461:649–654.
12.
BrambrinkT, ForemanR, WelsteadGG, LengnerCJ, WernigM, SuhH, JaenischR. 2008. Sequential expression of pluripotent markers during direct reprogramming of mouse somatic cells. Cell Stem Cell, 2:151–159.
RigboltKT, ProkhorovaTA, AkimovV, HenningsenJ, JohansenPT, KratchmarovaI, KassemM, MannM, OlsenJV, BlaqoevB. 2011. System-wide temporal characterization of the proteome and phosphoproteome of human embryonic stem cell differentiation. Sci Signal, 4:rs3.
15.
WangS, TianR, FigeysD, WangL. 2011. An enhanced chemically defined SILAC culture system for quantitative proteomics study of human embryonic stem cells. Proteomics10.1002/pmic.201100052.
16.
GraumannJ, HubnerNC, KimJB, KoK, MoserM, KumarC, CoxJ, ScholerH, MannM. 2008. Stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) and proteome quantitation of mouse embryonic stem cells to a depth of 5,111 proteins. Mol Cell Proteomics, 7:672–683.
17.
KimMS, KimJ, HanHW, ChoYS, HanYM, ParkJK. 2007. Microfabricated embryonic stem cell divider for large-scale propagation of human embryonic stem cells. Lab Chip, 7:513–515.
18.
KangTH, BaeK-H, TuMj, KimWK, HwangH-R, JungH, LeePY, KangS, YoonT-Set al.2007. Phosphoproteomic analysis of neuronal cell death by glutamate-induced oxidative stress. Proteomics, 7:2624–2635.
19.
KimS-Y, LeePY, ShinH-J, KimDH, KangS, MoonH-B, KangSW, KimJ-M, ParkSGet al.2009. Proteomic analysis of liver tissue from HBx-transgenic mice at early stages of hepatocarcinogenesis. Proteomics, 9:5056–5066.
20.
KangS, KimEY, ChungJW, YoonT-S, LeeDH, ParkSG, ParkBC, BaeK-H. 2007. Proteomic analysis of effect of MAPK pathway activation on L-glutamate-induced neuronal cell death. Cell Mol Biol Lett, 12:139–147.
21.
CollinsGA, TanseyWP. 2006. The proteasome: a utility tool for transcription?Curr Opin Genet Dev, 16:197–202.
22.
SzutoriszH, GeorgiouA, ToraL, DillonN. 2006. The proteasome restricts permissive transcription at tissue-specific gene loci in embryonic stem cells. Cell, 127:1357–1388.
23.
AyoubN, JeyasekharanAD, BernalJA, VenkitaramanAR. 2008. HP1-β mobilization promotes chromatin changes that initiate the DNA damage response. Nature, 453:682–686.
DjuricU, EllisJ. 2010. Epigenetics of induced pluripotency, the seven-headed dragon. Stem Cell Res, 1:3.
26.
HochedlingerK, PlathK. 2009. Epigenetic reprogramming and induced pluripotency. Development, 136:509–523.
27.
YosidaY, TakahashiK, OkitaK, IchisakaT, YamanakaS. 2009. Hypoxia enhances the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 5:237–241.
28.
ChoYM, KwonS, ParkYK, SeolHW, ChoiYM, ParkDJ, ParkKS, LeeHK. 2006. Dynamic changes in mitochondrial biogenesis and antioxidant enzymes during the spontaneous differentiation of human embryonic stem cells. Biochem Biophys Res Comm, 348:1472–1478.
29.
PrigioneA, FaulerB, LurzR, LehrachH, AdjayeJ. 2010. The senescence-related mitochondrial/oxidative stress pathway is repressed in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cells, 28:721–733.
30.
RehmanJ. 2010. Empowering self-renewal and differentiation: the role of mitochondria in stem cells. J Mol Med, 88:981–986.
31.
HaraMR, AgrawalN, KimSF, CascioMB, FujimuroM, OzekiY, TakahashiM, CheahJH, TankouSKet al.2005. S-nitrosylated GAPDH initiates apoptotic cell death by nuclear translocation following Siah1 binding. Nat Cell Biol, 7:665–674.
32.
TristanC, ShahaniN, SedlakTW, SawaA. 2011. The diverse functions of GAPDH: Views from different subcellular compartments. Cell Signal, 23:317–323.
33.
JangM, KangHJ, LeeSY, ChungSJ, KangS, ChiS-W, ChoS, LeeSC, LeeC-Ket al.2009. Glycerladehyde-3-phosphate, a glycolytic intermediate, plays a key role in controlling cell fate via inhibition of caspase activity. Mol Cells, 28:559–563.
34.
SabriN, RothP, XylourgidisF, SadeghifarF, AdlerJ, SamakovlisC. 2007. Distinct functions of the Drosophila Nup153 and Nup214 FG domains in nuclear protein transport. J Cell Biol, 178:557–565.
35.
TerryL, WenteS. 2007. Nuclear mRNA export requires specific FG nucleoporins for translocation through the nuclear pore complex. J Cell Biol, 178:1121–1132.
36.
LupuF, AlvesA, AndersonK, DoyeV, LacyE. 2008. Nuclear pore composition regulates neural stem/progenitor cell differentiation in the mouse embryo. Dev Cell, 14:831–842.
37.
KaretsouZ, MarticG, SflomosG, PapamarcakiT. 2005. The histone chaperone SET/TAF-Iβ interacts functionally with the CREB-binding protein. Biochem Biophys Res Comm, 335:322–327.
38.
MutoS, SendaM, AkaiY, SatoL, SuzukiT, NagaiR, SendaT, HorikoshiM. 2007. Relationship between the structure of SET/TAF-Iβ/INHAT and its histone chaperone activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 104:4285–4290.
39.
KandilciA, MientjesE, GrosveldG. 2004. Effects of SET and SET-CAN on the differentiation of the human promonocytic cell line U937. Leukemia, 18:337–340.
40.
KatagiriT, HatanoN, AiharaM, KawanoH, OkamotoM, LiuY, IzumiT, MaekawaT, NakamuraSet al.2010. Proteomic analysis of proteins expressing in regions of rat brain by a combination of SDS-PAGE with nano-liquid chromatography-quadrupole-time of flight tandem mass spectrometry. Proteome Sci, 8:41.
41.
OrtizPA, BrunoME, MooreT, NesnowS, WinnikW, GeY. 2010. Proteomic analysis of propiconazole responses in mouse liver: comparison of genomic and proteomic profiles. J Proteome Res, 9:1268–1278.
42.
WierstraI, AlvesJ. 2008. The c-myc promoter: still MysterY and challenge. Adv. Cancer Res, 99:113–333.
43.
JangM, ParkBC, KangS, ChiS-W, ChoS, ChungSJ, LeeSC, BaeK-H, ParkSG. 2009. Far upstream element-binding protein-1, a novel caspase substrate, acts as a cross-talker between apoptosis and the c-myc oncogene. Oncogene, 28:1529–1536.
44.
WernigM, MeissnerA, CassadyJP, JaenischR. 2008. c-Myc is dispensable for direct reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts. Cell Stem Cell, 2:10–12.
45.
OkitaK, NakagawaM, HyenjongH, IchisakaT, YamanakaS. 2008. Generation of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells without viral vectors. Science, 322:949–953.
46.
ChungH-J, LiuJ, DundrM, NieZ, SanfordS, LevensD. 2006. FBPs are calibrated molecular tools to adjust gene expression. Mol Cell Biol, 26:6584–6597.
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.
