4.7 Article

Epigenetic Biomarker to Support Classification into Pluripotent and Non-Pluripotent Cells

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep08973

关键词

-

资金

  1. StemCellFactory consortium
  2. European Union (European Regional Development Fund - Investing in your future)
  3. German Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia
  4. German Research Foundation [WA 1706/3-2, WA 1706/2-1]
  5. Bayer Technology Services GmbH
  6. Else Kroner-Fresenius-Stiftung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quality control of human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) can be performed by several methods. These methods are usually relatively labor-intensive, difficult to standardize, or they do not facilitate reliable quantification. Here, we describe a biomarker to distinguish between pluripotent and non-pluripotent cells based on DNA methylation (DNAm) levels at only three specific CpG sites. Two of these CpG sites were selected by their discriminatory power in 258 DNAm profiles - they were either methylated in pluripotent or non-pluripotent cells. The difference between these two beta-values provides an Epi-Pluri-Score that was validated on independent DNAm-datasets (264 pluripotent and 1,951 non-pluripotent samples) with 99.9% specificity and 98.9% sensitivity. This score was complemented by a third CpG within the gene POU5F1 (OCT4), which better demarcates early differentiation events. We established pyrosequencing assays for the three relevant CpG sites and thereby correctly classified DNA of 12 pluripotent cell lines and 31 non-pluripotent cell lines. Furthermore, DNAm changes at these three CpGs were tracked in the course of differentiation of iPSCs towards mesenchymal stromal cells. The Epi-Pluri-Score does not give information on lineage-specific differentiation potential, but it provides a simple, reliable, and robust biomarker to support high-throughput classification into either pluripotent or non-pluripotent cells.

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

4.7
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