4.7 Article

A Primitive Growth Factor, NME7AB, Is Sufficient to Induce Stable Naive State Human Pluripotency; Reprogramming in This Novel Growth Factor Confers Superior Differentiation

期刊

STEM CELLS
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 847-859

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/stem.2261

关键词

Naive stem cells; Embryonic stem cells; Induced pluripotent stem cells; Cellular differentiation; Myocytes; Cardiac; Neural stem cells; Hepatocytes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scientists have generated human stem cells that in some respects mimic mouse naive cells, but their dependence on the addition of several extrinsic agents, and their propensity to develop abnormal karyotype calls into question their resemblance to a naturally occurring naive state in humans. Here, we report that a recombinant, truncated human NME7, referred to as NME7(AB) here, induces a stable naive-like state in human embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells without the use of inhibitors, transgenes, leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF), fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2), feeder cells, or their conditioned media. Evidence of a naive state includes reactivation of the second X chromosome in female source cells, increased expression of naive markers and decreased expression of primed state markers, ability to be clonally expanded and increased differentiation potential. RNA-seq analysis shows vast differences between the parent FGF2 grown, primed state cells, and NME7(AB) converted cells, but similarities to altered gene expression patterns reported by others generating naive-like stem cells via the use of biochemical inhibitors. Experiments presented here, in combination with our previous work, suggest a mechanistic model of how human stem cells regulate self-replication: an early naive state driven by NME7, which cannot itself limit self-replication and a later naive state regulated by NME1, which limits self-replication when its multimerization state shifts from the active dimer to the inactive hexamer. Stem Cells2016;34:847-859

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