4.7 Article

Cross-Comparison of Human iPSC Motor Neuron Models of Familial and Sporadic ALS Reveals Early and Convergent Transcriptomic Disease Signatures

期刊

CELL SYSTEMS
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 159-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cels.2020.10.010

关键词

-

资金

  1. ALS Association
  2. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine [RN3-06530]
  3. NIA [K99AG056678]
  4. NINDS [R01NS069669, U54NS091046]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study utilized single-cell RNA sequencing to analyze neural cells from ALS patients, addressing limitations caused by genetic and experimental variability. They identified unified and reproducible ALS signatures, classified cells anatomically, and discovered predictive ALS markers by relaxing statistical thresholds. This approach revealed early, convergent, and MN-resolved signatures of ALS.
Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neural cultures from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients can model disease phenotypes. However, heterogeneity arising from genetic and experimental variability limits their utility, impacting reproducibility and the ability to track cellular origins of pathogenesis. Here, we present methodologies using single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis to address these limitations. By repeatedly differentiating and applying scRNA-seq to motor neurons (MNs) from healthy, familial ALS, sporadic ALS, and genome-edited iPSC lines across multiple patients, batches, and platforms, we account for genetic and experimental variability toward identifying unified and reproducible ALS signatures. Combining HOX and developmental gene expression with global clustering, we anatomically classified cells into rostrocaudal, progenitor, and postmitotic identities. By relaxing statistical thresholds, we discovered genes in iPSC-MNs that were concordantly dysregulated in postmortem MNs and yielded predictive ALS markers in other human and mouse models. Our approach thus revealed early, convergent, and MN-resolved signatures of ALS.Y

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