4.8 Article

Epigenetic memory in induced pluripotent stem cells

期刊

NATURE
卷 467, 期 7313, 页码 285-U60

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature09342

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [RO1-DK70055, RO1-DK59279, K99HL093212-01, R37CA054358, P50HG003233, R01AI047457, R01AI047458, CA86065, HL099999]
  2. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [RC2-HL102815]
  3. LLS [3567-07]
  4. Cooley's Anemia Foundation
  5. Thomas and Stacey Siebel Foundation
  6. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society
  7. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine [T1-00001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 more readily establishes 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据