4.7 Review

A developmental framework for induced pluripotency

期刊

DEVELOPMENT
卷 142, 期 19, 页码 3274-3285

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/dev.114249

关键词

Reprogramming; Development; iPSC; Stem cell

资金

  1. Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT)
  3. MEXT
  4. Funding Program for World-Leading Innovative Research and Development in Science and Technology (First Program) of the JSPS
  5. Core Center for iPS Cell Research, Research Center Network for Realization of Regenerative Medicine
  6. World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI), MEXT
  7. Japan Foundation for Applied Enzymology
  8. iPS Cell Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During development, cells transition from a pluripotent to a differentiated state, generating all the different types of cells in the body. Development is generally considered an irreversible process, meaning that a differentiated cell is thought to be unable to return to the pluripotent state. However, it is now possible to reprogram mature cells to pluripotency. It is generally thought that reprogramming is accomplished by reversing the natural developmental differentiation process, suggesting that the two mechanisms are closely related. Therefore, a detailed study of cell reprogramming has the potential to shed light on unexplained developmental mechanisms and, conversely, a better understanding of developmental differentiation can help improve cell reprogramming. However, fundamental differences between reprogramming processes and multi-lineage specification during early embryonic development have also been uncovered. In addition, there are multiple routes by which differentiated cells can re-enter the pluripotent state. In this Review, we discuss the connections and disparities between differentiation and reprogramming, and assess the degree to which reprogramming can be considered as a simple reversal of development.

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