Difference between hESCs and NSC-Derived Integration-Free iPSCs

By introducing Oct4 and Nanog into human fetal neural progenitor cells, the Muotri lab at UCSD, in collaboration with colleagues from the Yeo and Gage labs of UCSD and Salk, was able to create induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) using the oriP/EBNA1 episomal system to introduce the aforementioned Oct4 and Nanog. While it has been shown by others that with less differentiated cells, such as progenitor cells, it is relatively easy to reprogram using two, or sometimes even one, of the commonly used iPSC generating factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, c-Myc, Nanog, or Lin28) as reported in the AlleleNews article “iPSC generated by using a single reprogramming factor” on August 3rd, 2009, the new publication in PLoS ONE analyzed in detail the differences between embryonic stem cells (ES cells) and iPS cells.



There were three groups of genes that changed significantly between hESC versus iPSC and iPSC versus NSC; genes that are important in early embryonic fate including iPSC-expressed factors that are not sufficiently repressed and genes that are upregulated in iPSCs but are silenced in both NSCs and hESCs which may be downstream to the reprogramming genes during dedifferentiation. Their conclusion is that iPSCs may retain the gene expression signature of donor cells in human reprogrammed cells, even with integration-free gene transfer vehicles such as oriP/EBNA1 element containing plasmids. It should be pointed out that this episomal vector system has been previously reported for iPS cell generation by the Thomson group, see:

(http://allelebiotech.com/blogs/2009/03/episomal-expression-of-ips-inducing-genes-no-trace-of-transgenes-afterwards/). In this paper it was also shown, not unexpectedly, that myc-immortalized cell lines can be efficiently reprogrammed.



Marchetto et al. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007076



Note from Allele: Congratulations to Maria, Gene, Alysson and the Gage lab.

Episomal Expression of iPS Inducing Genes -- No Trace of Transgenes Afterwards

The potential use of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) in basic research and therapeutics is still mostly on the level of imagination. However, few doubt that this field will be one of the most actively contested and fastest evolving research topics in recent history. It reminds me of the early days of RNAi discovery, when 5 papers on DNA-based shRNA/RNAi appeared within a span of a few days (one draft from the Allele team was considered a few days too late to catch up with Nature Biotech by Science, but in the end we were the only recipient of patents on the subject).

The latest big news is a publication in Science by Junying Yu et al in the Thomson lab, who induced human iPS by using OriP/EBNA1 plasmid vector [1]. This method avoids integration of transgenes into the genome, thus reducing the risk of causing mutations.

A bit about the background: OriP/EBNA1 system originated from Epstein-Bar virus, which allows the establishment of stable episomes at 5-20 copies per cell, and duplication occurs once per cell division.

There are very few suppliers of vectors with the OriP/EBNA1, because of low demand (I was told so by the only supplier at the time, which explains why it was terminated altogether). The Phoenix™ Retrovirus system actually has the complete episomal cassette on the packing vector pBMN, which if not used in packaging Eco or Ampho cells, will behave as a regular plasmid. Therefore, the Retrovirus based iPS product within Allele’s iPS product group will provide two systems in one: a retroviral vector as published by Takahashi et al, and a OriP/EBNA1 system by Yu et al. They will also contain the brightest green fluorescent protein, mWasabi.

1. Yu, J., et al., Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Free of Vector and Transgene Sequences. Science, 2009.