DNA methylation and cellular reprogramming

Trends in Cell Biology

Volumn 20, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 609-617

  De Carvalho, Daniel D ^a   You, Jueng Soo ^a   Jones, Peter A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AZACITIDINE; DNA; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR;

CELL FUNCTION; CELL REPROGRAMMING; DNA METHYLATION; EPIGENETICS; GENE EXPRESSION; HUMAN; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; ANIMAL; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; GENETIC EPIGENESIS; METABOLISM; NUCLEAR REPROGRAMMING;

ANIMALS; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; DNA METHYLATION; EPIGENESIS, GENETIC; HUMANS; NUCLEAR REPROGRAMMING; TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS; CELLULAR REPROGRAMMING;

IPS;

EID: 77957021225     PISSN: 09628924     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tcb.2010.08.003     Document Type: Review

References (84)

1. Amabile G., Meissner A. Induced pluripotent stem cells: current progress and potential for regenerative medicine. Trends Mol. Med. 2009, 15:59-68.
2. Hochedlinger K., Plath K. Epigenetic reprogramming and induced pluripotency. Development 2009, 136:509-523.
3. Editorial (2008) Moving AHEAD with an international human epigenome project. Nature 454, 711-715.
4. Chiu C.P., Blau H.M. Reprogramming cell differentiation in the absence of DNA synthesis. Cell 1984, 37:879-887.
5. Chiu C.P., Blau H.M. 5-Azacytidine permits gene activation in a previously noninducible cell type. Cell 1985, 40:417-424.
6. Takahashi K., Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 2006, 126:663-676.
7. Davis R.L., et al. Expression of a single transfected cDNA converts fibroblasts to myoblasts. Cell 1987, 51:987-1000.
8. Xie H., et al. Stepwise reprogramming of B cells into macrophages. Cell 2004, 117:663-676.
9. Zhou Q., et al. In vivo reprogramming of adult pancreatic exocrine cells to beta-cells. Nature 2008, 455:627-632.
10. Wilmut I., et al. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 1997, 385:810-813.
11. Wernig M., et al. In vitro reprogramming of fibroblasts into a pluripotent ES-cell-like state. Nature 2007, 448:318-324.
12. Okita K., et al. Generation of germline-competent induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2007, 448:313-317.
13. Hong H., et al. Suppression of induced pluripotent stem cell generation by the p53-p21 pathway. Nature 2009, 460:1132-1135.
14. Kawamura T., et al. Linking the p53 tumour suppressor pathway to somatic cell reprogramming. Nature 2009, 460:1140-1144.
15. Utikal J., et al. Immortalization eliminates a roadblock during cellular reprogramming into iPS cells. Nature 2009, 460:1145-1148.
16. Marion R.M., et al. A p53-mediated DNA damage response limits reprogramming to ensure iPS cell genomic integrity. Nature 2009, 460:1149-1153.
17. Li H., et al. The Ink4/Arf locus is a barrier for iPS cell reprogramming. Nature 2009, 460:1136-1139.
18. Eminli S., et al. Differentiation stage determines potential of hematopoietic cells for reprogramming into induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Genet. 2009, 41:968-976.
19. Mali P., et al. Butyrate greatly enhances derivation of human induced pluripotent stem cells by promoting epigenetic remodeling and the expression of pluripotency-associated genes. Stem Cells 2010, 28:713-720.
20. Esteban M.A., et al. Vitamin C enhances the generation of mouse and human induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2010, 6:71-79.
21. Yoshida Y., et al. Hypoxia enhances the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2009, 5:237-241.
22. Hanna J., et al. Treatment of sickle cell anemia mouse model with iPS cells generated from autologous skin. Science 2007, 318:1920-1923.
23. Wernig M., et al. Neurons derived from reprogrammed fibroblasts functionally integrate into the fetal brain and improve symptoms of rats with Parkinson's disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2008, 105:5856-5861.
24. Raya A., et al. Disease-corrected haematopoietic progenitors from Fanconi anaemia induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2009, 460:53-59.
25. Maherali N., et al. Directly reprogrammed fibroblasts show global epigenetic remodeling and widespread tissue contribution. Cell Stem Cell 2007, 1:55-70.
26. Aasen T., et al. Efficient and rapid generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from human keratinocytes. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008, 26:1276-1284.
27. Meissner A., et al. Direct reprogramming of genetically unmodified fibroblasts into pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25:1177-1181.
28. Qin D., et al. Direct generation of ES-like cells from unmodified mouse embryonic fibroblasts by Oct4/Sox2/Myc/Klf4. Cell Res. 2007, 17:959-962.
29. Stadtfeld M., et al. Defining molecular cornerstones during fibroblast to iPS cell reprogramming in mouse. Cell Stem Cell 2008, 2:230-240.
30. Carey B.W., et al. Reprogramming of murine and human somatic cells using a single polycistronic vector. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2009, 106:157-162.
31. Aoi T., et al. Generation of pluripotent stem cells from adult mouse liver and stomach cells. Science 2008, 321:699-702.
32. Stadtfeld M., et al. Induced pluripotent stem cells generated without viral integration. Science 2008, 322:945-949.
33. Kaji K., et al. Virus-free induction of pluripotency and subsequent excision of reprogramming factors. Nature 2009, 458:771-775.
34. Okita K., et al. Generation of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells without viral vectors. Science 2008, 322:949-953.
35. Zhou H., et al. Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells using recombinant proteins. Cell Stem Cell 2009, 4:381-384.
36. Hanna J., et al. Direct reprogramming of terminally differentiated mature B lymphocytes to pluripotency. Cell 2008, 133:250-264.
37. Mikkelsen T.S., et al. Dissecting direct reprogramming through integrative genomic analysis. Nature 2008, 454:49-55.
38. Kim J.B., et al. Pluripotent stem cells induced from adult neural stem cells by reprogramming with two factors. Nature 2008, 454:646-650.
39. Eminli S., et al. Reprogramming of neural progenitor cells into induced pluripotent stem cells in the absence of exogenous Sox2 expression. Stem Cells 2008, 26:2467-2474.
40. Shi Y., et al. A combined chemical and genetic approach for the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2008, 2:525-528.
41. Kim J.B., et al. Oct4-induced pluripotency in adult neural stem cells. Cell 2009, 136:411-419.
42. Nakagawa M., et al. Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells without Myc from mouse and human fibroblasts. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008, 26:101-106.
43. Huangfu D., et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells by defined factors is greatly improved by small-molecule compounds. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008, 26:795-797.
44. Lluis F., et al. Periodic activation of Wnt/beta-catenin signaling enhances somatic cell reprogramming mediated by cell fusion. Cell Stem Cell 2008, 3:493-507.
45. Ichida J.K., et al. A small-molecule inhibitor of tgf-Beta signaling replaces sox2 in reprogramming by inducing nanog. Cell Stem Cell 2009, 5:491-503.
46. Jones P.A., Baylin S.B. The epigenomics of cancer. Cell 2007, 128:683-692.
47. Teschendorff A.E., et al. Age-dependent DNA methylation of genes that are suppressed in stem cells is a hallmark of cancer. Genome Res. 2010, 20:440-446.
48. Hochedlinger K., et al. Reprogramming of a melanoma genome by nuclear transplantation. Genes Dev. 2004, 18:1875-1885.
49. Miyoshi N., et al. Defined factors induce reprogramming of gastrointestinal cancer cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2010, 107:40-45.
50. Ron-Bigger S., et al. Aberrant epigenetic silencing of tumor suppressor genes is reversed by direct reprogramming. Stem Cells 2010, 28:1349-1354.
51. Zhu J.K. Active DNA demethylation mediated by DNA glycosylases. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2009, 43:143-166.
52. Simonsson S., Gurdon J. DNA demethylation is necessary for the epigenetic reprogramming of somatic cell nuclei. Nat. Cell Biol. 2004, 6:984-990.
53. Popp C., et al. Genome-wide erasure of DNA methylation in mouse primordial germ cells is affected by AID deficiency. Nature 2010, 463:1101-1105.
54. Delker R.K., et al. A coming-of-age story: activation-induced cytidine deaminase turns 10. Nat. Immunol. 2009, 10:1147-1153.
55. Morgan H.D., et al. Activation-induced cytidine deaminase deaminates 5-methylcytosine in DNA and is expressed in pluripotent tissues: implications for epigenetic reprogramming. J. Biol. Chem. 2004, 279:52353-52360.
56. Rai K., et al. DNA demethylation in zebrafish involves the coupling of a deaminase, a glycosylase, and gadd45. Cell 2008, 135:1201-1212.
57. Hajkova P., et al. Genome-wide reprogramming in the mouse germ line entails the base excision repair pathway. Science 2010, 329:78-82.
58. Liu M., Schatz D.G. Balancing AID and DNA repair during somatic hypermutation. Trends Immunol. 2009, 30:173-181.
59. Bhutani N., et al. Reprogramming towards pluripotency requires AID-dependent DNA demethylation. Nature 2010, 463:1042-1047.
60. Palermo A., et al. Nuclear reprogramming in heterokaryons is rapid, extensive, and bidirectional. FASEB J. 2009, 23:1431-1440.
61. Mombaerts P. Therapeutic cloning in the mouse. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2003, 100(Suppl 1):11924-11925.
62. Tsai A.G., et al. Human chromosomal translocations at CpG sites and a theoretical basis for their lineage and stage specificity. Cell 2008, 135:1130-1142.
63. Hayashi K., Surani M.A. Resetting the epigenome beyond pluripotency in the germline. Cell Stem Cell 2009, 4:493-498.
64. Kim K., et al. Epigenetic memory in induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2010, 10.1038/nature09342.
65. Tahiliani M., et al. Conversion of 5-methylcytosine to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in mammalian DNA by MLL partner TET1. Science 2009, 324:930-935.
66. Tsukada Y., et al. Histone demethylation by a family of JmjC domain-containing proteins. Nature 2006, 439:811-816.
67. Klose R.J., et al. JmjC-domain-containing proteins and histone demethylation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2006, 7:715-727.
68. Ito S., et al. Role of Tet proteins in 5mC to 5hmC conversion, ES-cell self-renewal and inner cell mass specification. Nature 2010, 466:1129-1133.
69. Deng J., et al. Targeted bisulfite sequencing reveals changes in DNA methylation associated with nuclear reprogramming. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009, 27:353-360.
70. Chin M.H., et al. Induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells are distinguished by gene expression signatures. Cell Stem Cell 2009, 5:111-123.
71. Stadtfeld M., et al. Aberrant silencing of imprinted genes on chromosome 12qF1 in mouse induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2010, 465:175-181.
72. Bernstein B.E., et al. A bivalent chromatin structure marks key developmental genes in embryonic stem cells. Cell 2006, 125:315-326.
73. Mikkelsen T.S., et al. Genome-wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage-committed cells. Nature 2007, 448:553-560.
74. Doi A., et al. Differential methylation of tissue- and cancer-specific CpG island shores distinguishes human induced pluripotent stem cells, embryonic stem cells and fibroblasts. Nat. Genet. 2009, 41:1350-1353.
75. Yamanaka S., Blau H.M. Nuclear reprogramming to a pluripotent state by three approaches. Nature 2010, 465:704-712.
76. Cedar H., Bergman Y. Linking DNA methylation and histone modification: patterns and paradigms. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2009, 10:295-304.
77. Epsztejn-Litman S., et al. De novo DNA methylation promoted by G9a prevents reprogramming of embryonically silenced genes. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2008, 15:1176-1183.
78. Feldman N., et al. G9a-mediated irreversible epigenetic inactivation of Oct-3/4 during early embryogenesis. Nat. Cell Biol. 2006, 8:188-194.
79. Jones P.A., Liang G. Rethinking how DNA methylation patterns are maintained. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2009, 10:805-811.
80. Shen L., et al. Genome-wide profiling of DNA methylation reveals a class of normally methylated CpG island promoters. PLoS Genet. 2007, 3:2023-2036.
81. Illingworth R., et al. A novel CpG island set identifies tissue-specific methylation at developmental gene loci. PLoS Biol. 2008, 6:e22.
82. Laird P.W. Principles and challenges of genome-wide DNA methylation analysis. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11:191-203.
83. Sun N., et al. Human iPS cell-based therapy: considerations before clinical applications. Cell Cycle 2010, 9:880-885.
84. Gal-Yam E.N., et al. Frequent switching of Polycomb repressive marks and DNA hypermethylation in the PC3 prostate cancer cell line. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2008, 105:12979-12984.