Induced pluripotent stem cell

Induced pluripotent stem cells (also known as iPS cells or iPSCs) are a type of pluripotent stem cell that can be generated directly from a somatic cell. The iPSC technology was pioneered by Shinya Yamanaka and Kazutoshi Takahashi in Kyoto, Japan, who together showed in 2006 that the introduction of four specific genes (named Myc, Oct3/4, Sox2 and Klf4), collectively known as Yamanaka factors, encoding transcription factors could convert somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells.^[1] Shinya Yamanaka was awarded the 2012 Nobel Prize along with Sir John Gurdon "for the discovery that mature cells can be reprogrammed to become pluripotent."^[2]

Pluripotent stem cells hold promise in the field of regenerative medicine.^[3] Because they can propagate indefinitely, as well as give rise to every other cell type in the body (such as neurons, heart, pancreatic, and liver cells), they represent a single source of cells that could be used to replace those lost to damage or disease.

The most well-known type of pluripotent stem cell is the embryonic stem cell. However, since the generation of embryonic stem cells involves destruction (or at least manipulation)^[4] of the pre-implantation stage embryo, there has been much controversy surrounding their use. Patient-matched embryonic stem cell lines can now be derived using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).

Since iPSCs can be derived directly from adult tissues, they not only bypass the need for embryos, but can be made in a patient-matched manner, which means that each individual could have their own pluripotent stem cell line. These unlimited supplies of autologous cells could be used to generate transplants without the risk of immune rejection. While the iPSC technology has not yet advanced to a stage where therapeutic transplants have been deemed safe, iPSCs are readily being used in personalized drug discovery efforts and understanding the patient-specific basis of disease.^[5]

Yamanaka named iPSCs with a lower case "i" due to the popularity of the iPod and other products.^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]

In his Nobel seminar, Yamanaka cited the earlier seminal work of Harold Weintraub on the role of myoblast determination protein 1 (MyoD) in reprogramming cell fate to a muscle lineage as an important precursor to the discovery of iPSCs.^[11]

(Pou5f1) Oct-3/4 is one of the family of octamer ("Oct") transcription factors, and plays a crucial role in maintaining pluripotency. The absence of Oct-3/4 in Oct-3/4⁺ cells, such as blastomeres and embryonic stem cells, leads to spontaneous trophoblast differentiation, and presence of Oct-3/4 thus gives rise to the pluripotency and differentiation potential of embryonic stem cells. Various other genes in the "Oct" family, including Oct-3/4's close relatives, Oct1 and Oct6, fail to elicit induction, thus demonstrating the exclusiveness of Oct-3/4 to the induction process. Schöler showed that Oct4 overexpression during reprogramming causes epigenetic changes deteriorating the quality of iPSCs. Comparing to OSKM (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc) new SKM (Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc) reprogramming generates iPSCs with developmental potential equivalent to embryonic stem cell, as determined by their ability to generate all-iPSC mice through tetraploid embryo complementation.^[28]^[29] iPSCs with higher developmental potential could also be generated by enhancing dimerization between Oct4 and Sox2 using a chimeric Sox factor.^[30]

Oct-3/4

: The Sox family of transcription factors is associated with maintaining pluripotency similar to Oct-3/4, although it is associated with multipotent and unipotent stem cells in contrast with Oct-3/4, which is exclusively expressed in pluripotent stem cells. While Sox2 was the initial gene used for induction by Yamanaka et al., Jaenisch et al., and Thomson et al., other transcription factors in the Sox family have been found to work as well in the induction process. Sox1 yields iPSCs with a similar efficiency as Sox2, and genes Sox3, Sox15, and Sox18 also generate iPSCs, although with decreased efficiency. Velychko et al. engineered a chimeric super-reprogramming factor, Sox2-17 or "super-Sox", which enhanced or allowed generation of mouse, human, cynomolgus monkey, porcine and bovine iPSCs.^[30]

Sox family

: Klf4 of the Klf family of transcription factors was initially identified by Yamanaka et al. and confirmed by Jaenisch et al. As a factor for the generation of mouse iPS cells and was demonstrated by Yamanaka et al. as a factor for generation of human iPS cells. However, Thomson et al. reported that Klf4 was unnecessary for generation of human iPS cells and in fact failed to generate human iPS cells. Klf2 and Klf4 were found to be factors capable of generating iPS cells, and related genes Klf1 and Klf5 did as well, although with reduced efficiency.

Klf family

: The Myc family of transcription factors are proto-oncogenes implicated in cancer. Yamanaka et al. and Jaenisch et al. demonstrated that c-myc is a factor implicated in the generation of mouse iPS cells and Yamanaka et al. demonstrated it was a factor implicated in the generation of human iPS cells. However, Thomson et al., Yamanaka et al. usage of the "myc" family of genes in induction of iPS cells is troubling for the eventuality of iPS cells as clinical therapies, as 25% of mice transplanted with c-myc-induced iPS cells developed lethal teratomas. N-myc and L-myc have been identified to induce instead of c-myc with similar efficiency.

Myc family

: In embryonic stem cells, Nanog, along with Oct-3/4 and Sox2, is necessary in promoting pluripotency. Therefore, it was surprising when Yamanaka et al. reported that Nanog was unnecessary for induction although Thomson et al. has reported it is possible to generate iPS cells with Nanog as one of the factors.

Nanog

: LIN28 is an mRNA binding protein^[31] expressed in embryonic stem cells and embryonic carcinoma cells associated with differentiation and proliferation. Thomson et al. demonstrated that LIN28 is a factor in iPSC generation in combination with OCT4, SOX2, and NANOG.^[19]

LIN28

: Glis1 is transcription factor that can be used with Oct-3/4, Sox2 and Klf4 to induce pluripotency. It poses numerous advantages when used instead of C-myc.^[32]

Glis1

nucleolus

neurons

CpG site

Induced pluripotent stem cells are similar to natural pluripotent stem cells, such as embryonic stem cells, in many aspects, such as the expression of certain stem cell genes and proteins, chromatin methylation patterns, doubling time, embryoid body formation, teratoma formation, viable chimera formation, and potency and differentiability, but the full extent of their relation to natural pluripotent stem cells is still being assessed.^[1]

Gene expression and genome-wide H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 were found to be extremely similar between ES and iPS cells.^[57] The generated iPSCs were remarkably similar to naturally isolated pluripotent stem cells (such as mouse and human embryonic stem cells, mESCs and hESCs, respectively) in the following respects, thus confirming the identity, authenticity, and pluripotency of iPSCs to naturally isolated pluripotent stem cells:

The major concern with the potential clinical application of iPSCs is their propensity to form tumors. Much the same as ESC, iPSCs readily form teratoma when injected into immunodeficient mice. Teratoma formation is considered a major obstacle to stem-cell based regenerative medicine by the FDA.

[61]

A more recent study on motor functional recovery after spinal cord injuries in mice showed that after human-induced pluripotent stem cells were transplanted into the mice, the cells differentiated into three neural lineages in the spinal cord. The cells stimulated regrowth of the damaged spinal cord, maintained myelination, and formed synapses. These positive outcomes were observed for over 112 days after the spinal cord injury, without tumor formation. Nevertheless, a follow-up study by the same group showed distinct clones of human-induced pluripotent stem cells eventually formed tumors.^[63]

[62]

Since iPSCs can only be produced with high efficiency at this time using modifications, they are generally predicted to be less safe and more tumorigenic than hESC. All the genes that have been shown to promote iPSC formation have also been linked to cancer in one way or another. Some of the genes are known oncogenes, including the members of the Myc family. While omitting Myc still allows for iPSC formation, the efficiency is reduced up to 100 fold.

A non-genetic method of producing iPSCs has been demonstrated using recombinant proteins, but its efficiency was quite low. However, refinements to this methodology yielding higher efficiency may lead to production of safer iPSCs. Other approaches such as using adenoviruses or plasmids are generally thought to be safer than retroviral methods.

[49]

An important area for future studies in the iPSC field is directly testing iPSC tumorigenicity using methods that mimic the approaches that would be used for regenerative medicine therapies. Such studies are crucial since iPSCs not only form teratoma, but also mice derived from iPSCs have a high incidence of death from malignant cancer. A 2010 paper was published in the journal Stem Cells indicating that iPS cells are far more tumorigenic than ESC, supporting the notion that iPS cell safety is a serious concern.^[65]

[64]

Concern regarding the immunogenicity of IPS cells arose in 2011 when Zhou et al. performed a study involving a teratoma formation assay and demonstrated that IPS cells produced an immune response strong enough to cause rejection of the cells. When a similar procedure was performed on genetically equivalent ES cells however, Zhou et al. found , which indicated that the cells were tolerated by the immune system.^[66] In 2013, Araki et al. attempted to reproduce the conclusion obtained by Zhou et al. using a different procedure. They took cells from a chimera that had been grown from IPSC clones and a mouse embryo, this tissue was then transplanted into syngenic mice. They conducted a similar trial using ES cells instead of IPSC clone and compared the results. Findings indicate that there was no significant difference in the immunogenic response produced by the IPS cells and the ES cells. Furthermore, Araki et al. reported little or no immunogenic response for both cell lines.^[67] Thus, Araki et al. was unable to come to the same conclusion as Zhou et al.

teratomas

Induced stem cells

Stem cell treatments

a now-discredited claim of pluripotent stem cell generation by immersing cells in an acid

Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency cell

Induced pluripotent stem cells vs embryonic stem cells lines obtained by SCNT (discussion)

Dedifferentiation

Directed differentiation

Pluripotency

Center for iPS Cell Research and Application, Kyoto University

With few factors, adult cells take on character of embryonic stem cells

Generating iPS Cells from MEFS through Forced Expression of Sox-2, Oct-4, c-Myc, and Klf4

Archived 18 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine

2 Minute Video from BSCRF about Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

January 8, 2008

20Minute Video / The Discovery and Future of Induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) Cells by Yamanaka

Fact sheet on reprogramming

Archived 8 April 2016 at the Wayback Machine

University of Oxford practical workshop on pluripotent stem cell technology

Allen Cell Explorer – realistic, data-driven 3D visualization of a living hiPSC in its pluri-potent state

Archived 23 April 2019 at the Wayback Machine