These two stories just remind me the Limbo stage described in the movie "Inception"

Anyway, the two papers are...
Nature. 2010 Jul 19. [Epub ahead of print]Epigenetic memory in induced pluripotent stem cells.
Kim K, Doi A, Wen B, Ng K, Zhao R, Cahan P, Kim J, Aryee MJ, Ji H, Ehrlich LI, Yabuuchi A, Takeuchi A, Cunniff KC, Hongguang H, McKinney-Freeman S, Naveiras O, Yoon TJ, Irizarry RA, Jung N, Seita J, Hanna J, Murakami P, Jaenisch R, Weissleder R, Orkin SH, Weissman IL, Feinberg AP, Daley GQ.
Stem Cell Transplantation Program, Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Children's Hospital Boston and Dana Farber Cancer Institute; Division of Hematology, Brigham and Women's Hospital; Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School; Harvard Stem Cell Institute; Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Somatic cell nuclear transfer and transcription-factor-based reprogramming revert adult cells to an embryonic state, and yield pluripotent stem cells that can generate all tissues. Through different mechanisms and kinetics, these two reprogramming methods reset genomic methylation, an epigenetic modification of DNA that influences gene expression, leading us to hypothesize that the resulting pluripotent stem cells might have different properties. Here we observe that low-passage induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) derived by factor-based reprogramming of adult murine tissues harbour residual DNA methylation signatures characteristic of their somatic tissue of origin, which favours their differentiation along lineages related to the donor cell, while restricting alternative cell fates. Such an 'epigenetic memory' of the donor tissue could be reset by differentiation and serial reprogramming, or by treatment of iPSCs with chromatin-modifying drugs. In contrast, the differentiation and methylation of nuclear-transfer-derived pluripotent stem cells were more similar to classical embryonic stem cells than were iPSCs. Our data indicate that nuclear transfer is more effective at establishing the ground state of pluripotency than factor-based reprogramming, which can leave an epigenetic memory of the tissue of origin that may influence efforts at directed differentiation for applications in disease modelling or treatment.

Cell type of origin influences the molecular and functional properties of mouse induced pluripotent stem cellsJose M Polo, Susanna Liu, Maria Eugenia Figueroa, Warakorn Kulalert, Sarah Eminli, Kah Yong Tan, Effie Apostolou, Matthias Stadtfeld, Yushan Li, Toshi Shioda, Sridaran Natesan, Amy J Wagers, Ari Melnick, Todd Evans & Konrad Hochedlinger
Nature Biotechnology (2010) DOI: 10.1038/nbt.1667
Received 26 March 2010 Accepted 09 July 2010 Published online 19 July 2010
Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have been derived from various somatic cell populations through ectopic expression of defined factors. It remains unclear whether iPSCs generated from different cell types are molecularly and functionally similar. Here we show that iPSCs obtained from mouse fibroblasts, hematopoietic and myogenic cells exhibit distinct transcriptional and epigenetic patterns. Moreover, we demonstrate that cellular origin influences the in vitro differentiation potentials of iPSCs into embryoid bodies and different hematopoietic cell types. Notably, continuous passaging of iPSCs largely attenuates these differences. Our results suggest that early-passage iPSCs retain a transient epigenetic memory of their somatic cells of origin, which manifests as differential gene expression and altered differentiation capacity. These observations may influence ongoing attempts to use iPSCs for disease modeling and could also be exploited in potential therapeutic applications to enhance differentiation into desired cell lineages.
- 作者:cail
- 版权声明:署名-非商业性使用-禁止演绎 CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
- 原文网址:http://en.dogeno.us/?p=7260
- 最后修改时间:2010年7月21日 11:35 PDT
Previous:
Photo from #We_xUS - Rocky Mountain NP
Next:
Photo from #We_xUS - Arches NP
2 Responses to “Early-passage iPSCs retain cell-of-origin epigenetic memory, which needs continuous passaging to get into Limbo”
Leave a Reply
blog by cail
- » the Paper Link - my latest Creation for PubMed users
- » How to use ImageJ to analyze images?
- » 2shRNA - design oligos for RNAi
- » Play background music
- » about this blog
- » about me
New in 'Theory'
- A clustering-outgrowth model for filopodia formation, based on study using Xenopus egg extracts and liposome
- Xenogeneic organ complementation is achievable! What's next? Human-pig chimera?
- Septins, planar cell polarity, cilia, convergent extension ... Bardet-Biedl and Meckel-Gruber syndromes
- Early-passage iPSCs retain cell-of-origin epigenetic memory, which needs continuous passaging to get into Limbo
- Right place and right time: small molecules reprogram cell fate of worm germ cells
- Caspase cleavage-mediated substrate change: switching function of Dicer between RNAi pathway and apoptosis pathway
- Some thoughts on focal adhesion disassembly: focal adhesion fades as retrograde flow
Hot in 'Theory'
- bacteria dividing without a wall - no need for FtsZ mediated constriction - 54,091 views
- Peter Jackson talks about BBSome, Rab8, ciliary membrane biogenesis and proteomics analysis on ciliopathies - 22,691 views
- Cdc42 targets aPKC to adherens junctions, where aPKC limits Rho activity to limit actomyosin contractility - 20,748 views
- Cells memorize their tissue origin during axolotl limb regeneration - the blastema is a heterogeneous collection of restricted progenitor cells - 15,847 views
- Intersection from prediction programs is demonstrated to be an important regulator of cancer metastasis - 14,940 views


Researchers completely forgot past discoveries on the nature of iPSC cells and reprogramming-----------Are these findings really any "new discovery? Who have strongly resisted the ground-breaking discovery that iPSCs are distinct from ESCs and hang on the "indistinguishable" claim as long as they can? Who have still neglected the pioneering discoveries that iPSCs are incorrectly programmed stem cells or man-made cancer stem cells and are still trying to push them into clinical application as "ethical" and "safe" replacements for ESCs? Please read the original and more insightful discoveries on the true nature of iPSCs and the iPS reprogramming at http://im1.biz/iPS.htm.
what's your point?