Epigenetic factors influencing resistance to nuclear reprogramming

Trends in Genetics

Volumn 27, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 516-525

  Pasque, Vincent ^a,b   Jullien, Jerome ^a,b   Miyamoto, Kei ^a,b   Halley Stott, Richard P ^a,b   Gurdon, J B ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR; UNTRANSLATED RNA;

CHROMATIN STRUCTURE; EPIGENETICS; GENE EXPRESSION; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR REPROGRAMMING; OOCYTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGENERATIVE MEDICINE; REVIEW; SOMATIC CELL;

ANIMALS; CELL DIVISION; DNA METHYLATION; EPIGENESIS, GENETIC; HUMANS; MODELS, GENETIC; NUCLEAR REPROGRAMMING; TRANSCRIPTION, GENETIC;

EID: 81055156879     PISSN: 01689525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2011.08.002     Document Type: Review

References (103)

1. Gurdon J.B., et al. Sexually mature individuals of Xenopus laevis from the transplantation of single somatic nuclei. Nature 1958, 182:64-65.
2. Wilmut I., et al. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 1997, 385:810-813.
3. Byrne J.A., et al. Producing primate embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Nature 2007, 450:497-502.
4. Harland R.M., Grainger R.M. Genetic and genomic metamorphosis of Xenopus. Trends Genet 2011, 27:D-11-00110. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2011.08.003.
5. Halley-Stott R.P., et al. Mammalian nuclear transplantation to germinal vesicle stage Xenopus oocytes - a method for quantitative transcriptional reprogramming. Methods 2010, 51:56-65.
6. Harris H. The reactivation of the red cell nucleus. J. Cell Sci. 1967, 2:23-32.
7. Ringertz N.R., Bolund L. 'Activation' of hen erythrocyte deoxyribonucleoprotein. Exp. Cell Res. 1969, 55:205-214.
8. Blau H.M., et al. Cytoplasmic activation of human nuclear genes in stable heterocaryons. Cell 1983, 32:1171-1180.
9. Bhutani N., et al. Reprogramming towards pluripotency requires AID-dependent DNA demethylation. Nature 2010, 463:1042-1047.
10. Cowan C.A., et al. Nuclear reprogramming of somatic cells after fusion with human embryonic stem cells. Science 2005, 309:1369-1373.
11. Takahashi K., Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 2006, 126:663-676.
12. Plath K., Lowry W.E. Progress in understanding reprogramming to the induced pluripotent state. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 12:253-265.
13. Jaenisch R., Young R. Stem cells, the molecular circuitry of pluripotency and nuclear reprogramming. Cell 2008, 132:567-582.
14. Pasque V., et al. Efficiencies and mechanisms of nuclear reprogramming. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 2010, 75:189-200.
15. Gurdon J.B. The developmental capacity of nuclei taken from intestinal epithelium cells of feeding tadpoles. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 1962, 10:622-640.
16. Meissner A., Jaenisch R. Mammalian nuclear transfer. Dev. Dyn. 2006, 235:2460-2469.
17. Hochedlinger K., Jaenisch R. On the cloning of animals from terminally differentiated cells. Nat. Genet. 2007, 39:136-137. author reply 137-138.
18. Pereira C.F., et al. Heterokaryon-based reprogramming of human B lymphocytes for pluripotency requires Oct4 but not Sox2. PLoS Genet. 2008, 4:e1000170.
19. Blau H.M., et al. Plasticity of the differentiated state. Science 1985, 230:758-766.
20. Warren L., et al. Highly efficient reprogramming to pluripotency and directed differentiation of human cells with synthetic modified mRNA. Cell Stem Cell 2011, 7:618-630.
21. Hochedlinger K., Plath K. Epigenetic reprogramming and induced pluripotency. Development 2009, 136:509-523.
22. Eminli S., et al. Differentiation stage determines potential of hematopoietic cells for reprogramming into induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Genet. 2009, 41:968-976.
23. Ng R.K., Gurdon J.B. Epigenetic memory of an active gene state depends on histone H3.3 incorporation into chromatin in the absence of transcription. Nat. Cell Biol. 2008, 10:102-109.
24. Kim K., et al. Epigenetic memory in induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2010, 467:285-290.
25. Polo J.M., et al. Cell type of origin influences the molecular and functional properties of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010, 28:848-855.
26. Luger K., et al. Crystal structure of the nucleosome core particle at 2.8Å resolution. Nature 1997, 389:251-260.
27. Ho L., Crabtree G.R. Chromatin remodelling during development. Nature 2010, 463:474-484.
28. Gaspar-Maia A., et al. Open chromatin in pluripotency and reprogramming. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2011, 12:36-47.
29. Gurdon J.B. Changes in somatic cell nuclei inserted into growing and maturing amphibian oocytes. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 1968, 20:401-414.
30. Jullien J., et al. Characterization of somatic cell nuclear reprogramming by oocytes in which a linker histone is required for pluripotency gene reactivation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107:5483-5488.
31. Terranova R., et al. Acquisition and extinction of gene expression programs are separable events in heterokaryon reprogramming. J. Cell Sci. 2006, 119:2065-2072.
32. Pereira C.F., et al. ESCs require PRC2 to direct the successful reprogramming of differentiated cells toward pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 2010, 6:547-556.
33. Tamada H., et al. Chromatin decondensation and nuclear reprogramming by nucleoplasmin. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2006, 26:1259-1271.
34. Cho H., Wolffe A.P. Xenopus laevis B4, an intron-containing oocyte-specific linker histone-encoding gene. Gene 1994, 143:233-238.
35. Tanaka M., et al. A mammalian oocyte-specific linker histone gene H1oo: homology with the genes for the oocyte-specific cleavage stage histone (cs-H1) of sea urchin and the B4/H1M histone of the frog. Development 2001, 128:655-664.
36. Biddle A., et al. Xenopus oocytes reactivate muscle gene transcription in transplanted somatic nuclei independently of myogenic factors. Development 2009, 136:2695-2703.
37. Gaspar-Maia A., et al. Chd1 regulates open chromatin and pluripotency of embryonic stem cells. Nature 2009, 460:863-868.
38. Singhal N., et al. Chromatin-remodeling components of the BAF complex facilitate reprogramming. Cell 2010, 141:943-955.
39. Hansis C., et al. Nuclear reprogramming of human somatic cells by Xenopus egg extract requires BRG1. Curr. Biol. 2004, 14:1475-1480.
40. Wakayama S., et al. Equivalency of nuclear transfer-derived embryonic stem cells to those derived from fertilized mouse blastocysts. Stem Cells 2006, 24:2023-2033.
41. Takahashi K., et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 2007, 131:861-872.
42. Maherali N., et al. Directly reprogrammed fibroblasts show global epigenetic remodeling and widespread tissue contribution. Cell stem cell 2007, 1:55-70.
43. Simonsson S., Gurdon J. DNA demethylation is necessary for the epigenetic reprogramming of somatic cell nuclei. Nat. Cell Biol. 2004, 6:984-990.
44. Mikkelsen T.S., et al. Dissecting direct reprogramming through integrative genomic analysis. Nature 2008, 454:49-55.
45. Kang Y.K., et al. Aberrant methylation of donor genome in cloned bovine embryos. Nat. Genet. 2001, 28:173-177.
46. Blelloch R., et al. Reprogramming efficiency following somatic cell nuclear transfer is influenced by the differentiation and methylation state of the donor nucleus. Stem Cells 2006, 24:2007-2013.
47. Wossidlo M., et al. 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine in the mammalian zygote is linked with epigenetic reprogramming. Nat. Commun. 2011, 2:241.
48. Guo J.U., et al. Hydroxylation of 5-methylcytosine by TET1 promotes active DNA demethylation in the adult brain. Cell 2011, 145:423-434.
49. Ohi Y., et al. Incomplete DNA methylation underlies a transcriptional memory of somatic cells in human iPS cells. Nat. Cell Biol. 2011, 13:541-549.
50. Lister R., et al. Hotspots of aberrant epigenomic reprogramming in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2011, 471:68-73.
51. Pasque V., et al. Histone variant macroH2A confers resistance to nuclear reprogramming. EMBO J. 2011, 30:2373-2387.
52. Deaton A.M., Bird A. CpG islands and the regulation of transcription. Genes Dev. 2011, 25:1010-1022.
53. Jones P.L., et al. Methylated DNA and MeCP2 recruit histone deacetylase to repress transcription. Nat. Genet. 1998, 19:187-191.
54. Bannister A.J., Kouzarides T. Regulation of chromatin by histone modifications. Cell Res. 2011, 21:381-395.
55. Kishigami S., et al. Significant improvement of mouse cloning technique by treatment with trichostatin A after somatic nuclear transfer. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2006, 340:183-189.
56. Bui H.T., et al. Effect of trichostatin A on chromatin remodeling, histone modifications, DNA replication, and transcriptional activity in cloned mouse embryos. Biol. Reprod. 2010, 83:454-463.
57. 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.
58. Anokye-Danso F., et al. Highly efficient miRNA-mediated reprogramming of mouse and human somatic cells to pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 2011, 8:376-388.
59. Tursun B., et al. Direct conversion of C. elegans germ cells into specific neuron types. Science 2011, 331:304-308.
60. Hirose Y., Ohkuma Y. Phosphorylation of the C-terminal domain of RNA polymerase II plays central roles in the integrated events of eucaryotic gene expression. J. Biochem. 2007, 141:601-608.
61. Murata K., et al. Histone H3 lysine 4 methylation is associated with the transcriptional reprogramming efficiency of somatic nuclei by oocytes. Epigenet. Chromatin 2010, 3:4.
62. Koche R.P., et al. Reprogramming factor expression initiates widespread targeted chromatin remodeling. Cell Stem Cell 2011, 8:96-105.
63. Ang Y.S., et al. Wdr5 mediates self-renewal and reprogramming via the embryonic stem cell core transcriptional network. Cell 2011, 145:183-197.
64. Inoue K., et al. Impeding Xist expression from the active X chromosome improves mouse somatic cell nuclear transfer. Science 2010, 330:496-499.
65. Wen B., et al. Large histone H3 lysine 9 dimethylated chromatin blocks distinguish differentiated from embryonic stem cells. Nat. Genet. 2009, 41:246-250.
66. 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.
67. Ma D.K., et al. G9a and Jhdm2a regulate embryonic stem cell fusion-induced reprogramming of adult neural stem cells. Stem Cells 2008, 26:2131-2141.
68. Shi Y., et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic fibroblasts by Oct4 and Klf4 with small-molecule compounds. Cell Stem Cell 2008, 3:568-574.
69. Banaszynski L.A., et al. Histone variants in metazoan development. Dev. Cell 2010, 19:662-674.
70. Nashun B., et al. Changes in the nuclear deposition of histone H2A variants during pre-implantation development in mice. Development 2010, 137:3785-3794.
71. Chang C.C., et al. Rapid elimination of the histone variant MacroH2A from somatic cell heterochromatin after nuclear transfer. Cell. Reprogram. 2010, 12:43-53.
72. Angelov D., et al. The histone variant macroH2A interferes with transcription factor binding and SWI/SNF nucleosome remodeling. Mol. Cell 2003, 11:1033-1041.
73. Chakravarthy S., et al. Structural characterization of the histone variant macroH2A. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005, 25:7616-7624.
74. Doyen C.M., et al. Mechanism of polymerase II transcription repression by the histone variant macroH2A. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2006, 26:1156-1164.
75. Chang E.Y., et al. MacroH2A allows ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling by SWI/SNF and ACF complexes but specifically reduces recruitment of SWI/SNF. Biochemistry 2008, 47:13726-13732.
76. Roeder R.G. Multiple forms of deoxyribonucleic acid-dependent ribonucleic acid polymerase in Xenopus laevis. Levels of activity during oocyte and embryonic development. J. Biol. Chem. 1974, 249:249-256.
77. Bellier S., et al. Phosphorylation of the RNA polymerase II largest subunit during Xenopus laevis oocyte maturation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1997, 17:1434-1440.
78. Palancade B., et al. Incomplete RNA polymerase II phosphorylation in Xenopus laevis early embryos. J. Cell Sci. 2001, 114:2483-2489.
79. Ahmad K., Henikoff S. The histone variant H3.3 marks active chromatin by replication-independent nucleosome assembly. Mol. Cell 2002, 9:1191-1200.
80. Miyamoto K., et al. Nuclear actin polymerization is required for transcriptional reprogramming of Oct4 by oocytes. Genes Dev. 2011, 25:946-958.
81. Gurdon J.B. Injected nuclei in frog oocytes: fate, enlargement, and chromatin dispersal. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 1976, 36:523-540.
82. Pauli A., et al. Non-coding RNAs as regulators of embryogenesis. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 12:136-149.
83. Wutz A. Xist function: bridging chromatin and stem cells. Trends Genet. 2007, 23:457-464.
84. Fukuda A., et al. Identification of inappropriately reprogrammed genes by large-scale transcriptome analysis of individual cloned mouse blastocysts. PLoS ONE 2010, 5:e11274.
85. Loewer S., et al. Large intergenic non-coding RNA-RoR modulates reprogramming of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Genet. 2010, 42:1113-1117.
86. Judson R.L., et al. Embryonic stem cell-specific microRNAs promote induced pluripotency. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009, 27:459-461.
87. Li Z., et al. Small RNA-mediated regulation of iPS cell generation. EMBO J. 2011, 30:823-834.
88. Miyoshi N., et al. Reprogramming of mouse and human cells to pluripotency using mature microRNAs. Cell Stem Cell 2011, 8:633-638.
89. Egli D., et al. Mediators of reprogramming: transcription factors and transitions through mitosis. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2008, 9:505-516.
90. Han D.W., et al. Pluripotential reprogramming of the somatic genome in hybrid cells occurs with the first cell cycle. Stem Cells 2008, 26:445-454.
91. Reik W., et al. Epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Science 2001, 293:1089-1093.
92. Jarriault S., et al. A Caenorhabditis elegans model for epithelial-neuronal transdifferentiation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105:3790-3795.
93. Ruiz S., et al. A high proliferation rate is required for cell reprogramming and maintenance of human embryonic stem cell identity. Curr. Biol. 2010, 21:45-52.
94. Hanna J., et al. Direct cell reprogramming is a stochastic process amenable to acceleration. Nature 2009, 462:595-601.
95. Lemaitre J.M., et al. Mitotic remodeling of the replicon and chromosome structure. Cell 2005, 123:787-801.
96. Miyamoto K., et al. Identification and characterization of an oocyte factor required for development of porcine nuclear transfer embryos. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:7040-7045.
97. Yamanaka S. Elite and stochastic models for induced pluripotent stem cell generation. Nature 2009, 460:49-52.
98. Jullien J., et al. Mechanisms of nuclear reprogramming by eggs and oocytes: a deterministic process?. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2011, 12:453-459.
99. Gurdon J., Melton D. Nuclear reprogramming in cells. Science 2008, 322:1811-1815.
100. Tat P.A., et al. The efficiency of cell fusion-based reprogramming is affected by the somatic cell type and the in vitro age of somatic cells. Cell. Reprogram. 2011, 13:331-344.
101. Silva J., et al. Nanog promotes transfer of pluripotency after cell fusion. Nature 2006, 441:997-1001.
102. Silva J., et al. Nanog is the gateway to the pluripotent ground state. Cell 2009, 138:722-737.
103. Zhang Z., et al. PRC2 complexes with JARID2, MTF2, and esPRC2p48 in ES cells to modulate ES cell pluripotency and somatic cell reprogramming. Stem Cells 2011, 29:229-240.