Genome instability is a potential limitation to the research and therapeutic application of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Observed genomic variations reflect the combined activities of DNA damage, cellular DNA damage response (DDR), and selection pressure in culture. To understand the contribution of DDR on the distribution of copy number variations (CNVs) in iPSCs, we mapped CNVs of iPSCs with mutations in the central DDR gene ATM onto genome organization landscapes defined by genome-wide replication timing profiles. We show that following reprogramming the early and late replicating genome is differentially affected by CNVs in ATM-deficient iPSCs relative to wild-type iPSCs. Specifically, the early replicating regions had increased CNV losses during retroviral (RV) reprogramming. This differential CNV distribution was not present after later passage or after episomal reprogramming. Comparison of different reprogramming methods in the setting of defective DDR reveals unique vulnerability of early replicating open chromatin to RV vectors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaiQ, RamirezJ-M, BeckerF, PantescoV, Lavabre-BertrandT, HovattaO, LemaîtreJ-M, PellestorF and De VosJ. (2015). Temporal analysis of genome alterations induced by single-cell passaging in human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells Dev, 24:653–662.
2.
GonzálezF, GeorgievaD, VanoliF, ShiZ-D, StadtfeldM, LudwigT, JasinM and HuangfuD. (2013). Homologous recombination DNA repair genes play a critical role in reprogramming to a pluripotent state. Cell Rep, 3:651–660.
3.
GoreA, LiZ, FungH-L, YoungJE, AgarwalS, Antosiewicz-BourgetJ, CantoI, GiorgettiA, IsraelMA, et al. (2011). Somatic coding mutations in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature, 471:63–67.
4.
HusseinSM, BatadaNN, VuoristoS, ChingRW, AutioR, NärväE, NgS, SourourM, HämäläinenR, et al. (2011). Copy number variation and selection during reprogramming to pluripotency. Nature, 471:58–62.
5.
LaurentLC, UlitskyI, SlavinI, TranH, SchorkA, MoreyR, LynchC, HarnessJV, LeeS, et al. (2011). Dynamic changes in the copy number of pluripotency and cell proliferation genes in human ESCs and iPSCs during reprogramming and time in culture. Cell Stem Cell, 8:106–118.
6.
LuJ, LiH, HuM, SasakiT, BacceiA, GilbertDM, LiuJS, CollinsJJ and LerouPH. (2014). The distribution of genomic variations in human iPSCs is related to replication-timing reorganization during reprogramming. Cell Rep, 7:70–78.
7.
MaN, ShanY, LiaoB, KongG, WangC, HuangK, ZhangH, CaiX, ChenS, et al. (2015). Factor-induced reprogramming and zinc finger nuclease-aided gene targeting cause different genome instability in β-thalassemia induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). J Biol Chem, 290:12079–12089.
8.
Martins-TaylorK, NislerBS, TaapkenSM, ComptonT, CrandallL, MontgomeryKD, LalandeM and XuR-H. (2011). Recurrent copy number variations in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol, 29:488–491.
9.
MaysharY, Ben-DavidU, LavonN, BiancottiJ-C, YakirB, ClarkAT, PlathK, LowryWE and BenvenistyN. (2010). Identification and classification of chromosomal aberrations in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 7:521–531.
10.
SchlaegerTM, DaheronL, BricklerTR, EntwisleS, ChanK, CianciA, DeVineA, EttengerA, FitzgeraldK, et al. (2015). A comparison of non-integrating reprogramming methods. Nat Biotechnol, 33:58–63.
11.
WuH, KimKJ, MehtaK, PaxiaS, SundstromA, AnantharamanT, KuraishyAI, DoanT, GhoshJ, et al. (2008). Copy number variant analysis of human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells, 26:1484–1489.
12.
BhutaniK, NazorKL, WilliamsR, TranH, DaiH, Ž Džakula, ChoEH, PangAWC, RaoM, et al. (2016). Whole-genome mutational burden analysis of three pluripotency induction methods. Nat Commun, 7:10536.
QiS, FangZ, WangD, MenendezP, YaoK and JiJ. (2015). Concise review: induced pluripotency by defined factors: prey of oxidative stress. Stem Cells, 33:1371–1376.
15.
KorenA, PolakP, NemeshJ, MichaelsonJJ, SebatJ, SunyaevSR and McCarrollSA. (2012). Differential relationship of DNA replication timing to different forms of human mutation and variation. Am J Hum Genet, 91:1033–1040.
16.
PolakP, KarlićR, KorenA, ThurmanR, SandstromR, LawrenceMS, ReynoldsA, RynesE, VlahovičekK, StamatoyannopoulosJA and SunyaevSR. (2015). Cell-of-origin chromatin organization shapes the mutational landscape of cancer. Nature, 518:360–364.
17.
PopeBD, RybaT, DileepV, YueF, WuW, DenasO, VeraDL, WangY, HansenRS, et al. (2014). Topologically associating domains are stable units of replication-timing regulation. Nature, 515:402–405.
MisteliT. (2010). Higher-order genome organization in human disease. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol, 2:a000794.
20.
KinoshitaT, NagamatsuG, KosakaT, TakuboK, HottaA, EllisJ and SudaT. (2011). Ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) deficiency decreases reprogramming efficiency and leads to genomic instability in iPS cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 407:321–326.
21.
NaylerS, GateiM, KozlovS, GattiR, MarJC, WellsCA, LavinM and WolvetangE. (2012). Induced pluripotent stem cells from ataxia-telangiectasia recapitulate the cellular phenotype. Stem Cells Transl Med, 1:523–535.
22.
FukawataseY, ToyodaM, OkamuraK, NakamuraK, NakabayashiK, TakadaS, Yamazaki-InoueM, MasudaA, NasuM, et al. (2014). Ataxia telangiectasia derived iPS cells show preserved x-ray sensitivity and decreased chromosomal instability. Sci Rep, 4:5421.
23.
LeeP, MartinNT, NakamuraK, AzghadiS, AmiriM, Ben-DavidU, PerlmanS, GattiRA, HuH and LowryWE. (2013). SMRT compounds abrogate cellular phenotypes of ataxia telangiectasia in neural derivatives of patient-specific hiPSCs. Nat Commun, 4:1824.
24.
LinL, SwerdelMR, LazaropoulosMP, HoffmanGS, Toro-RamosAJ, WrightJ, LedermanH, ChenJ, MooreJC and HartRP. (2015). Spontaneous ATM gene reversion in A-T iPSC to produce an isogenic cell line. Stem Cell Rep, 5:1097–1108.
25.
ParkI, LerouP, ZhaoR, HuoH and DaleyG. (2008). Generation of human-induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat Protoc, 3:1180–1186.
26.
LiuP, KaplanA, YuanB, HannaJH, LupskiJR and ReinerO. (2014). Passage number is a major contributor to genomic structural variations in mouse iPSCs. Stem Cells, 32:2657–2667.
27.
KastanMB and LimDS. (2000). The many substrates and functions of ATM. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 1:179–186.
28.
WeissbeinU, BenvenistyN and Ben-DavidU. (2014). Quality control: genome maintenance in pluripotent stem cells. J Cell Biol, 204:153–163.
29.
ZhangY, McCordRP, HoY-J, LajoieBR, HildebrandDG, SimonAC, BeckerMS, AltFW and DekkerJ. (2012). Spatial organization of the mouse genome and its role in recurrent chromosomal translocations. Cell, 148:908–921.
30.
DileepV, Rivera-MuliaJC, SimaJ and GilbertDM. (2015). Large-scale chromatin structure-function relationships during the cell cycle and development: Insights from replication timing. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol [Epub ahead of print]; DOI:10.1101/sqb.2015.80.027284.
31.
HirataniI, RybaT, ItohM, YokochiT, SchwaigerM, ChangCW, LyouY, TownesTM, SchübelerD and GilbertDM. (2008). Global reorganization of replication domains during embryonic stem cell differentiation. PLoS Biol, 6:e245.
32.
RybaT, HirataniI, LuJ, ItohM, KulikM, ZhangJ, SchulzTC, RobinsAJ, DaltonS and GilbertDM. (2010). Evolutionarily conserved replication timing profiles predict long-range chromatin interactions and distinguish closely related cell types. Genome Res, 20:761–770.
33.
HajihosseiniM, IavachevL and PriceJ. (1993). Evidence that retroviruses integrate into post-replication host DNA. EMBO J, 12:4969–4974.
34.
HumphriesEH, GloverC and ReichmannME. (1981). Rous sarcoma virus infection of synchronized cells establishes provirus integration during S-phase DNA synthesis prior to cellular division. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 78:2601–2605.
35.
YantSR, WuX, HuangY, GarrisonB, BurgessSM and KayMA. (2005). High-resolution genome-wide mapping of transposon integration in mammals. Mol Cell Biol, 25:2085–2094.
36.
RuizS, Lopez-ContrerasAJ, GabutM, MarionRM, Gutierrez-MartinezP, BuaS, RamirezO, OlaldeI, Rodrigo-PerezS, et al. (2015). Limiting replication stress during somatic cell reprogramming reduces genomic instability in induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat Commun, 6:8036.
37.
RübeCE, ZhangS, MiebachN, FrickeA and RübeC. (2011). Protecting the heritable genome: DNA damage response mechanisms in spermatogonial stem cells. DNA Repair, 10:159–168.
38.
GoodarziAA, NoonAT, DeckbarD, ZivY, ShilohY, LöbrichM and JeggoPA. (2008). ATM signaling facilitates repair of DNA double-strand breaks associated with heterochromatin. Mol Cell, 31:167–177.
39.
SupekF and LehnerB. (2015). Differential DNA mismatch repair underlies mutation rate variation across the human genome. Nature, 521:81–84.
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.
