A guide to stem cell identification: Progress and challenges in system-wide predictive testing with complex biomarkers

BioEssays

Volumn 33, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 880-890

  Williams, Roy ^a   Schuldt, Bernhard ^b   Müller, Franz Josef ^c  

^a BURNHAM INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c Zentrum fur Integrative Psychiatrie   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bioinformatics; Biomarkers; Gene expression; Machine learning; Pluripotent stem cells

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; GENE SEQUENCE; HUMAN; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; PHENOTYPE; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; PLURITEST; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CELL LINE; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; HUMANS; NEURONS; OLIGONUCLEOTIDE ARRAY SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; PHENOTYPE; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 80054697563     PISSN: 02659247     EISSN: 15211878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bies.201100073     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Kahvejian A, Quackenbush J, Thompson JF. 2008. What would you do if you could sequence everything? Nat Biotechnol 26: 1125-33.
2. Gray J. 2009. A transformed scientific method. In Hey T, Tansley S, Tolle K, eds; The Fourth Paradigm. Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Research.
3. American Association for Cancer Research Human Epigenome Task Force EUNoESAB. 2008. Moving AHEAD with an international human epigenome project. Nature 454: 711-5.
4. Siva N. 2008. 1000 Genomes project. Nat Biotechnol 26: 256.
5. Hudson TJ, Anderson W, Artez A, Barker AD, et al. 2010. International network of cancer genome projects. Nature 464: 993-8.
6. Group BDW. 2001. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 69: 89-95.
7. Augenlicht LH, Wahrman MZ, Halsey H, Anderson L, et al. 1987. Expression of cloned sequences in biopsies of human colonic tissue and in colonic carcinoma cells induced to differentiate in vitro. Cancer Res 47: 6017-21.
8. Golub TR, Slonim DK, Tamayo P, Huard C, et al. 1999. Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science 286: 531-7.
9. Pomeroy SL, Tamayo P, Gaasenbeek M, Sturla LM, et al. 2002. Prediction of central nervous system embryonal tumour outcome based on gene expression. Nature 415: 436-42.
10. Shi L, Campbell G, Jones WD, Campagne F, et al. 2010. The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC)-II study of common practices for the development and validation of microarray-based predictive models. Nat Biotechnol 28: 827-38.
11. Marbach D, Prill RJ, Schaffter T, Mattiussi C, et al. 2010. Revealing strengths and weaknesses of methods for gene network inference. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107: 6286-91.
12. Müller FJ, Laurent LC, Kostka D, Ulitsky I, et al. 2008. Regulatory networks define phenotypic classes of human stem cell lines. Nature 455: 401-5.
13. Kim H, Lee G, Ganat Y, Papapetrou EP, et al. 2011. miR-371-3 expression predicts neural differentiation propensity in human pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 8: 695-706.
14. Hummel M, Bentink S, Berger H, Klapper W, et al. 2006. A biologic definition of Burkitt's lymphoma from transcriptional and genomic profiling. N Engl J Med 354: 2419-30.
15. Cardoso F, Piccart-Gebhart M, Van't Veer L, Rutgers E. 2007. The MINDACT trial: the first prospective clinical validation of a genomic tool. Mol Oncol 1: 246-51.
16. Scott CT, McCormick JB, Owen-Smith J. 2009. And then there were two: use of hESC lines. Nat Biotechnol 27: 696-7.
17. Loser P, Schirm J, Guhr A, Wobus AM, et al. 2010. Human embryonic stem cell lines and their use in international research. Stem Cells 28: 240-6.
18. Hu BY, Weick JP, Yu J, Ma LX, et al. 2010. Neural differentiation of human induced pluripotent stem cells follows developmental principles but with variable potency. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107: 4335-40.
19. Kim K, Doi A, Wen B, Ng K, et al. 2010. Epigenetic memory in induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 467: 285-90.
20. Hussein SM, Batada NN, Vuoristo S, Ching RW, et al. 2011. Copy number variation and selection during reprogramming to pluripotency. Nature 471: 58-62.
21. Laurent LC, Ulitsky I, Slavin I, Tran H, et al. 2011. Dynamic changes in the copy number of pluripotency and cell proliferation genes in human ESCs and iPSCs during reprogramming and time in culture. Cell Stem Cell 8: 106-18.
22. Lister R, Pelizzola M, Kida YS, Hawkins RD, et al. 2011. Hotspots of aberrant epigenomic reprogramming in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 471: 68-73.
23. Gore A, Li Z, Fung HL, Young JE, et al. 2011. Somatic coding mutations in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 471: 63-7.
24. Ohi Y, Qin H, Hong C, Blouin L, et al. 2011. Incomplete DNA methylation underlies a transcriptional memory of somatic cells in human iPS cells. Nat Cell Biol 13: 541-9.
25. Bock C, Kiskinis E, Verstappen G, Gu H, et al. 2011. Reference maps of human ES and iPS cell variation enable high-throughput characterization of pluripotent cell lines. Cell 144: 439-52.
26. Zhao T, Zhang ZN, Rong Z, Xu Y. 2011. Immunogenicity of induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 474: 212-5.
27. Nagy A, Gocza E, Diaz EM, Prideaux VR, et al. 1990. Embryonic stem cells alone are able to support fetal development in the mouse. Development 110: 815-21.
28. Zhao XY, Li W, Lv Z, Liu L, et al. 2009. iPS cells produce viable mice through tetraploid complementation. Nature 461: 86-90.
29. Hayden EC. 2011. Stem cells: the growing pains of pluripotency. Nature 473: 272-4.
30. Müller FJ, Goldmann J, Loser P, Loring JF. 2010. A call to standardize teratoma assays used to define human pluripotent cell lines. Cell Stem Cell 6: 412-4.
31. Dolgin E. 2010. Putting stem cells to the test. Nat Med 16: 1354-7.
32. Stevens LC, Little CC. 1954. Spontaneous testicular teratomas in an inbred strain of mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 40: 1080-7.
33. Chin MH, Mason MJ, Xie W, Volinia S, et al. 2009. Induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells are distinguished by gene expression signatures. Cell Stem Cell 5: 111-23.
34. Stadtfeld M, Apostolou E, Akutsu H, Fukuda A, et al. 2010. Aberrant silencing of imprinted genes on chromosome 12qF1 in mouse induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 465: 175-81.
35. Josephson R, Ording CJ, Liu Y, Shin S, et al. 2007. Qualification of embryonal carcinoma 2102Ep as a reference for human embryonic stem cell research. Stem Cells 25: 437-46.
36. Kornblum HI, Geschwind DH. 2001. Molecular markers in CNS stem cell research: hitting a moving target. Nat Rev Neurosci 2: 843-6.
37. Baum CM, Weissman IL, Tsukamoto AS, Buckle AM, et al. 1992. Isolation of a candidate human hematopoietic stem-cell population. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89: 2804-8.
38. Notta F, Doulatov S, Laurenti E, Poeppl A, et al. 2011. Isolation of single human hematopoietic stem cells capable of long-term multilineage engraftment. Science 333: 218-21.
39. McCulloch EA, Till JE. 1960. The radiation sensitivity of normal mouse bone marrow cells, determined by quantitative marrow transplantation into irradiated mice. Radiat Res 13: 115-25.
40. Schöler HR, Balling R, Hatzopoulos AK, Suzuki N, et al. 1989. Octamer binding proteins confer transcriptional activity in early mouse embryogenesis. EMBO J 8: 2551-7.
41. Schöler HR, Hatzopoulos AK, Balling R, Suzuki N, et al. 1989. A family of octamer-specific proteins present during mouse embryogenesis: evidence for germline-specific expression of an Oct factor. EMBO J 8: 2543-50.
42. Kim JB, Greber B, Arauzo-Bravo MJ, Meyer J, et al. 2009. Direct reprogramming of human neural stem cells by OCT4. Nature 461: 649-3.
43. Lengner CJ, Camargo FD, Hochedlinger K, Welstead GG, et al. 2007. Oct4 expression is not required for mouse somatic stem cell self-renewal. Cell Stem Cell 1: 403-15.
44. Ponten F, Gry M, Fagerberg L, Lundberg E, et al. 2009. A global view of protein expression in human cells, tissues, and organs. Mol Syst Biol 5: 337.
45. Ravasi T, Suzuki H, Cannistraci CV, Katayama S, et al. 2010. An atlas of combinatorial transcriptional regulation in mouse and man. Cell 140: 744-52.
46. Schöler HR, Ruppert S, Suzuki N, Chowdhury K, et al. 1990. New type of POU domain in germ line-specific protein Oct-4. Nature 344: 435-9.
47. Mootha VK, Lindgren CM, Eriksson KF, Subramanian A, et al. 2003. PGC-1alpha-responsive genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation are coordinately downregulated in human diabetes. Nat Genet 34: 267-73.
48. Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, et al. 2005. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 15545-50.
49. Brunet JP, Tamayo P, Golub TR, Mesirov JP. 2004. Metagenes and molecular pattern discovery using matrix factorization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 4164-9.
50. Müller FJ, Schuldt BM, Williams R, Mason D, et al. 2011. A bioinformatic assay for pluripotency in human cells. Nat Methods 8: 315-7.
51. Lukk M, Kapushesky M, Nikkila J, Parkinson H, et al. 2010. A global map of human gene expression. Nat Biotechnol 28: 322-4.
52. Pearson K. 1901. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philos Mag Ser 6: 559-72.
53. Lee DD, Seung HS. 1999. Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization. Nature 401: 788-91.
54. Kim PM, Tidor B. 2003. Subsystem identification through dimensionality reduction of large-scale gene expression data. Genome Res 13: 1706-18.
55. Dudley JT, Tibshirani R, Deshpande T, Butte AJ. 2009. Disease signatures are robust across tissues and experiments. Mol Syst Biol 5: 307.
56. Hanna J, Cheng AW, Saha K, Kim J, et al. 2010. Human embryonic stem cells with biological and epigenetic characteristics similar to those of mouse ESCs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107: 9222-7.
57. Nichols J, Smith A. 2009. Naive and primed pluripotent states. Cell Stem Cell 4: 487-92.
58. Guenther MG, Frampton GM, Soldner F, Hockemeyer D, et al. 2010. Chromatin structure and gene expression programs of human embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 7: 249-57.
59. Pastor WA, Pape UJ, Huang Y, Henderson HR, et al. 2011. Genome-wide mapping of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in embryonic stem cells. Nature 473: 394-7.
60. Strahl BD, Allis CD. 2000. The language of covalent histone modifications. Nature 403: 41-5.
61. Cheng C, Yan KK, Yip KY, Rozowsky J, et al. 2011. A statistical framework for modeling gene expression using chromatin features and application to modENCODE datasets. Genome Biol 12: R15.
62. Kharchenko PV, Alekseyenko AA, Schwartz YB, Minoda A, et al. 2011. Comprehensive analysis of the chromatin landscape in Drosophila melanogaster Nature 471: 480-5.
63. Boulting GL, Kiskinis E, Croft GF, Amoroso MW, et al. 2011. A functionally characterized test set of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol 29: 279-86.
64. Mill JS. 1884. A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence, and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. 3rd edn., London, England: Longmans, Green and Co. p. 622.
65. Tax DMJ, Müller KR. 2004. A consistency-based model selection for one-class classification. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR'04), Cambridge, England.
66. McCall MN, Murakami PN, Lukk M, Huber W, et al. 2011. Assessing affymetrix GeneChip microarray quality. BMC Bioinf 12: 137.
67. Leek JT, Scharpf RB, Bravo HC, Simcha D, et al. 2010. Tackling the widespread and critical impact of batch effects in high-throughput data. Nat Rev Genet 11: 733-9.
68. Johnson WE, Li C, Rabinovic A. 2007. Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. Biostatistics 8: 118-27.
69. Luo J, Schumacher M, Scherer A, Sanoudou D, et al. 2010. A comparison of batch effect removal methods for enhancement of prediction performance using MAQC-II microarray gene expression data. Pharmacogenomics J 10: 278-91.
70. Cheng C, Shen K, Song C, Luo J, et al. 2009. Ratio adjustment and calibration scheme for gene-wise normalization to enhance microarray inter-study prediction. Bioinformatics 25: 1655-61.
71. Meissner A, Mikkelsen TS, Gu H, Wernig M, et al. 2008. Genome-scale DNA methylation maps of pluripotent and differentiated cells. Nature 454: 766-70.
72. Harness JV, Turovets NA, Seiler MJ, Nistor G, et al. 2011. Equivalence of conventionally-derived and parthenote-derived human embryonic stem cells. PLoS One 6: e14499.
73. Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T. 1998. The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. Technical Report. Stanford InfoLab.
74. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. 2006. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126: 663-76.