Pluripotent stem cells hold the potential to form the basis of novel approaches to treatment of disease in vivo as well as to facilitate the generation of models for human disease, providing powerful avenues to discovery of novel diagnostic biomarkers and/or innovative drug regimens in vitro. However, this will require extensive maintenance, expansion, and manipulation of these cells in culture, which raises a concern regarding the extent to which genetic integrity will be preserved throughout these manipulations. We used a mutation reporter (lacI) transgene approach to conduct direct comparisons of mutation frequencies in cell populations that shared a common origin and genetic identity, but were induced to undergo transitions in cell fate between pluripotent and differentiated states, or vice versa. We confirm that pluripotent cells normally maintain enhanced genetic integrity relative to that in differentiated cells, and we extend this finding to show that dynamic transformations in the relative stringency at which genetic integrity is maintained are associated with transitions between pluripotent and differentiated cellular states. These results provide insight into basic biological distinctions between pluripotent and differentiated cell types that impact genetic integrity in a manner that is directly relevant to the potential clinical use of these cell types.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmbartsumyanG and ClarkAT. (2008). Aneuploidy and early human embryo development. Hum Mol Genet, 17(R1):R10–R15.
2.
MomcilovićO, ChoiS, VarumS, BakkenistC, SchattenG and NavaraC. (2009). Ionizing radiation induces ataxia telangiectasia mutated-dependent checkpoint signaling and G (2) but not G (1) cell cycle arrest in pluripotent human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells, 27:1822–1835.
3.
CrowJF. (2000). The origins, patterns and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nat Rev Genet, 1:40–47.
4.
TichyED PJ and Stambrook. (2008). DNA repair in murine embryonic stem cells and differentiated cells. Exp Cell Res, 314:1929–1936.
5.
CooperDJ, WalterCA and McCarreyJR. (2014). Co-regulation of pluripotency and genetic integrity at the genomic level. Stem Cell Res, 13:508–519.
6.
VanOudenhoveJJ, GrandyRA, GhulePN, LianJB, SteinJL, ZaidiSK, and SteinGS. (2016). Unique regulatory mechanisms for the human embryonic stem cell cycle. J Cell Physiol [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1002/jcp.25567.
7.
KapinasK, GrandyR, GhuleP, medinaR, BeckerK, PardeeA, ZaidiSK, LianJ, steinJ, van WijnenA, and SteinG. (2013) The abbreviated pluripotent cell cycle. J Cell Physiol, 228:9–20.
8.
KirkwoodTB. (1977). Evolution of ageing. Nature, 270:301–304.
9.
EhlingUH and NeuhäuserA. (1979). Procarbazine-induced specificlocus mutations in male mice. Mutat Res, 59:245–256.
10.
RussellLB. (2004). Effects of male germ-cell stage on the frequency, nature, and spectrum of induced specific-locus mutations in the mouse. Genetica, 122:25–36.
11.
RussellWL, BanghamJW and RussellLB. (1998). Differential response of mouse male germ-cell stages to radiation-induced specific-locus and dominant mutations. Genetics, 148:1567–1578.
12.
RussellLB, HunsickerPR and RussellWL. (2007). Comparison of the genetic effects of equimolar doses of ENU and MNU: while the chemicals differ dramatically in their mutagenicity in stem-cell spermatogonia, both elicit very high mutation rates in differentiating spermatogonia. Mutat Res, 616:181–195.
13.
RussellLB and RussellWL. (1992). Frequency and nature of specific-locus mutations induced in female mice by radiations and chemicals: a review. Mutat Res, 296:107–127.
14.
RussellLB and RussellWL. (1996). Spontaneous mutations recovered as mosaics in the mouse specific-locus test. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA), 93:13072–13077.
15.
RussellLB, RussellWL and KellyEM. (1979). Analysis of the albino locus region of the mouse. I. Origin and viability. Genetics, 91:127–139.
16.
SelbyPB. (1998). Discovery of numerous clusters of spontaneous mutations in the specific-locus test in mice necessitates major increases in estimates of doubling doses. Genetica, 102–103:463–487.
17.
KohlerSW, ProvostGS, FieckA, KretzPL, BullockWO, PutmanDL, SorgeJA and ShortJM. (1991). Analysis of spontaneous and induced mutations in transgenic mice using a lambda ZAP/lacI shuttle vector. Environ Mol Mutagen, 18:316–321.
18.
MurpheyP, McLeanDJ, McMahanCA, WalterCA and McCarreyJR. (2013). Enhanced genetic integrity in mouse germ cells. Biol Reprod, 88:1–8.
19.
WalterCA, IntanoGW, McCarreyJR, McMahanCA and WalterRB. (1998). Mutation frequency declines during spermatogenesis in young mice but increases in old mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA), 95:10015–10019.
20.
CoucouvanisEC, SherwoodSW, Carswell-CrumptonC, SpackEG and JonesPP. (1993). Evidence that the mechanism of prenatal germ cell death in the mouse is apoptosis. Exp Cell Res, 209:238–247.
21.
HuamaniJ, McMahanCA, HerbertDC, ReddickR, McCarreyJR, MacInnesMI, ChenDJ and WalterCA. (2004). Spontaneous mutagenesis is enhanced in apex heterozygous mice. Mol Cell Biol, 24:8145–8153.
22.
IntanoGW, McMahanCA, McCarreyJR, WalterRB, McKennaAE, MatsumotoY, MacInnesMA, ChenDJ and WalterCA. (2002). Base excision repair is limited by different proteins in male germ cell nuclear extracts prepared from young and old mice. Mol Cell Biol, 22:2410–2418.
23.
IntanoGW, McMahanCA, WalterRB, McCarreyJR and WalterCA. (2001). Mixed spermatogenic germ cell nuclear extracts exhibit high base excision repair activity. Nucleic Acids Res, 29:1366–1372.
24.
WalterCA, LuJ, BhaktaM, ZhouZQ, ThompsonLH and McCarreyJR. (1994). Testis and somatic Xrcc-1 DNA repair gene expression. Somat Cell Mol Genet, 20:451–461.
25.
CervantesRB, StringerJR, ShaoC, TischfieldJA and StambrookPJ. (2002). Embryonic stem cells and somatic cells differ in mutation frequency and type. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA), 99:3586–3590.
26.
de WaardH, SonneveldE, de WitJ, Esveldt-van LangeR, HoeijmakersJHJ, Vrielin andH, van der HorstGTJ. (2008). Cell-type-specific consequences of nucleotide excision repair deficiencies: embryonic stem cells versus fibroblasts. DNA Repair (Amst), 7:1659–1669.
27.
MaynardS, SwistowskaAM, LeeJW, LiuY, LiuST, Da CruzAB, RaoM, de Souza-PintoNC, ZengX and BohrVA. (2008). Human embryonic stem cells have enhanced repair of multiple forms of DNA damage. Stem Cells, 26:2266–2274.
28.
StambrookPJ. (2007). An ageing question: do embryonic stem cells protect their genomes?. Mech Ageing Dev, 128:31–35.
29.
MurpheyP, YamazakiY, McMahanCA, WalterCA, YanagimachiR and McCarreyJR. (2009). Epigenetic regulation of genetic integrity is reprogrammed during cloning. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA), 106:4731–4735.
30.
KalkanT and SmithA. (2014). Mapping the route from naïve pluripotency to lineage specification. Philos. Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 369: pii: 20130540.
31.
LindvallO, KokaiaZ and Martinez-SerranoA. (2004). Stem cell therapy for human neurodegenerative disorders–how to make it work. Nat Med, Suppl:S42–S50.
32.
StrauerBE and KornowskiR. (2003). Stem cell therapy in perspective. Circulation, 107:929–934.
33.
DraperJS, SmithK, GokhaleP, MooreHD, MaltbyE, JohnsonJ, MeisnerL, ZwakaTP, ThomsonJA and AndrewsPW. (2004). Recurrent gain of chromosomes 17q and 12 in cultured human embryonic stem cells. Nat Biotechnol, 22:53–54.
34.
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.
35.
BhutaniK, NazorKL, WilliamsR, TranH, DaiH, DzakulaZ, ChoEH, PangAWC, RaoM, et al. (2016). Whole-genome mutational burden analysis of three pluripotency induction methods. Nat Comms, 7:10536.
36.
ListerR, PelizzolaM, KidaYS, HawkinsRD, NeryJR, HonG, Antosiewicz-BourgetJ, O'MalleyR, CastanonR, et al. (2011). Hotspots of aberrant epigenetic reprogramming in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature, 471:68–73.
37.
International Stem Cell Initiative, AmpsK, AndrewsPW, AnyfantisG, ArmstrongL, AveryS, BaharvandH, BakerJ, BakerD, et al. (2011). Screening ethnically diverse human embryonic stem cells identifies a chromosome 20 minimal amplicon conferring growth advantage. Nat Biotechnol, 29:1132–1144.
38.
GoreA, LiZ, FungHL, YoungJE, AgarwalS, Antosiewicz-BourgetJ, CantoI, GiorgettiA, IsraelMA, et al. (2011). Somatic coding mutations in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature, 471:63–67.
39.
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.
40.
MaysharY, Ben-DavidU, LavonN, BiancottiJC, YakirB, ClarkAT, PlathK, LowryWE and BenenistyN. (2010). Identification and classification of chromosomal aberrations in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 7:521–531.
41.
PetersonSE and LoringJF. (2014). Genomic instability in pluripotent stem cells: implications for clinical applications. J Biol Chem, 289:4578–4584.
42.
TaapkenSM, NislerBS, NewtonMA, Sampsell-BarronTL, LeonhardKA, McIntireEM and MontgomeryKD. (2011). Karotypic abnormalities in human induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Nat Biotechnol, 29:313–314.
43.
RipponHJ and BishopAE. (2004). Cell Proliferation in Basic and Clinical Sciences. Cell Proliferation, 37:23–34.
44.
TakahashiK and YamanakaS. (2006). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 126:663–676.
45.
KohlerSW, ProvostGS, FieckA, KretzPL, BullockWO, SorgeJA, PutmanDL and ShortJM. (1991). Spectra of spontaneous and mutagen-induced mutations in the lacI gene in transgenic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA), 88:7958–7962.
46.
CareyBW, MarkoulakiS, BeardC, HannaJ and JaenischR. (2010). Single-gene transgenic mouse strains for reprogramming adult somatic cells. Nat Methods, 7:56–59.
47.
BehringerR, GertsensteinM, NagyKV and NagyA. (2014). Manipulating the Mouse Embryo: A Laboratory Manual. 4th Ed. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.
48.
FrancioliLC, PolakPP, KorenA, MenelaouA, ChunS, RenkensI; Genome of the Netherlands Consortium, van DuijnCM, SwertzM, et al. (2015). Genome-wide patterns and properties of de novo mutations in humans. Nat Genet, 47:822–826.
49.
CapertonL, MurpheyP, YamazakiY, McMahanCA, WalterCA, YanagimachiR and McCarreyJR. (2007). Assisted reproductive technologies do not alter mutation frequency or spectrum. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA), 104:5085–5090.
50.
AgrestiA. (2002). Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley.
51.
FayMP. (2010). Two-sided exact tests and matching confidence intervals for discrete data. R J, 2:53–58.
52.
HirjiKF. (2006). Exact Analysis of Discrete Data. Chapman and Hall/CRC: New York.
53.
EboreimeJ, ChoiS-K, YoonS-R, ArnheimN, Calabrese. (2016) Estimating exceptionally rare germline and somatic mutation frequencies via next generation sequencing. Plos One, 11:e0158340.
54.
BorgdorffV. PauwB, van Hees-StuivenbergS and de WindN. (2006). DNA mismatch repair mediates protection from mutagenesis induced by short-wave ultraviolet light. DNA Repair (Amst), 5:1364–1372.
55.
DuvalD, TrouillasM, ThibaultC, DembeléD, DiemunschF, ReinhardtB, MertzAL, DierichA and BoeufH. (2005). Apoptosis and differentiation commitment: novel insights revealed by gene profiling studies in mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Death Differ, 13:564–575.
56.
FanJ, RobertC, JangYY, LiuH, SharkisS, BaylinSB and RassoolFV. (2011). Human induced pluripotent cells resemble embryonic stem cells demonstrating enhanced levels of DNA repair and efficacy of nonhomologous end-joining. Mutat Res, 713:8–17.
57.
NouspikelT and HanawaltPC. (2000). Terminally differentiated human neurons repair transcribed genes but display attenuated global DNA repair and modulation of repair gene expression. Mol Cell Biol, 20:1562–1570.
58.
TichyED. (2011). Mechanisms maintaining genomic integrity in embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells. Exp Biol Med, 236:987–996.
59.
BellinM, MarchettoMC, GageFH and MummeryCL. (2012). Induced pluripotent stem cells: the new patient?. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 13:713–726.
60.
HoffmanAM and DowSW. (2016). Concise review: stem cell trials using companion animal disease models. Stem Cells, 34:1709–1729.
61.
JonesJR and ZhangSC. (2016). Engineering human cells and tissues through pluripotent stem cells. Curr Opin Biotechnol, 40:133–138.
62.
LancasterMA and KnoblichJA. (2014). Organogenesis in a dish: modeling development and disease using organoid technologies. Science, 345, 1247125.
63.
TrounsonA and DeWittND. (2016). Pluripotent stem cells progressing to the clinic. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 17:194–200.
64.
ZeltnerN and StuderL. (2015). Pluripotent stem cell-based disease modeling: current hurdles and future promise. Curr Opin Cell Biol, 37:102–110.
65.
RouhaniFJ, Nik-ZainalS, WusterA, LiY, ConteN, Koike-YusaH, KumasakaN, VallierL, YusaK and BradleyA. (2016). Mutational history of a human cell lineage from somatic to induced pluripotent stem cells. Plos Genet, 12:e1005932.
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.
