4.8 Article

CellNet: Network Biology Applied to Stem Cell Engineering

Journal

CELL
Volume 158, Issue 4, Pages 903-915

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.07.020

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [R24DK092760]
  2. HHMI
  3. NIH (Progenitor Cell Biology Consortium) [R24DK092760, UO1-HL100001, P50HG005550]
  4. Ellison Medical Foundation
  5. Doris Duke Medical Foundation
  6. Boston Children's Hospital Stem Cell Program
  7. NIDDK [K01DK096013]
  8. NHLBI [T32HL066987, T32HL007623]
  9. Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation
  10. Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine
  11. Mayo Clinic Center for Regenerative Medicine
  12. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development
  13. program Science Without Borders (CNPq, Brazil)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Somatic cell reprogramming, directed differentiation of pluripotent stem cells, and direct conversions between differentiated cell lineages represent powerful approaches to engineer cells for research and regenerative medicine. We have developed CellNet, a network biology platform that more accurately assesses the fidelity of cellular engineering than existing methodologies and generates hypotheses for improving cell derivations. Analyzing expression data from 56 published reports, we found that cells derived via directed differentiation more closely resemble their in vivo counterparts than products of direct conversion, as reflected by the establishment of target cell-type gene regulatory networks (GRNs). Furthermore, we discovered that directly converted cells fail to adequately silence expression programs of the starting population and that the establishment of unintended GRNs is common to virtually every cellular engineering paradigm. CellNet provides a platform for quantifying how closely engineered cell populations resemble their target cell type and a rational strategy to guide enhanced cellular engineering.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available