4.5 Article

Modeling Andersen's Syndrome in Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

期刊

STEM CELLS AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 151-159

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/scd.2015.0258

关键词

-

资金

  1. CNRS
  2. Association Francaise contre les Myopathies (AFM)-Telethon
  3. Labex ICST

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Andersen's syndrome (AS) is a rare disorder characterized by a triad of symptoms: periodic paralysis, cardiac arrhythmia, and bone developmental defects. Most of the patients carry mutations on the inward rectifier potassium channel Kir2.1 encoded by the KCNJ2 gene. kcnj2 knockout mice are lethal at birth preventing, hence, thorough investigations of the physiological and pathophysiological events. We have generated induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells from healthy as well as from AS patient muscular biopsies using the four-gene cassette required for cellular reprogramming (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc). The generated AS-iPS cells exhibited the gold standard requirement for iPS cells: expression of genetics and surface pluripotent markers, strong alkaline phosphatase activity, self-renewal, and could be differentiated by the formation of embryoid bodies (EBs) into the three germ layers. Sequencing of the entire coding sequence of the KCNJ2 gene, in AS-iPS cells, revealed that the reprogramming process did not revert the Andersen's syndrome-associated mutation. Moreover, no difference was observed between control and AS-iPS cells in terms of pluripotent markers' expression, self-renewal, and three germ layer differentiation. Interestingly, expression of osteogenic markers are lower in EB-differentiated AS-iPS compared to control iPS cells. Our results showed that the Kir2.1 channel is not important for the reprogramming process and the early step of the development in vitro. However, the osteogenic machinery appears to be hastened in AS-iPS cells, strongly indicating that the generated AS-iPS cells could be a good model to better understand the AS pathophysiology.

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

4.5
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