Jak/Stat3 signaling promotes somatic cell reprogramming by epigenetic regulation

Stem Cells

Volumn 30, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 2645-2656

  Tang, Yong ^a   Luo, Yan ^a   Jiang, Zongliang ^a   Ma, Yinghong ^a   Lin, Chih Jen ^a   Kim, Chul ^a   Carter, Mark G ^a   Amano, Tomokazu ^a   Park, Joonghong ^a   Kish, Sharon ^a   Tian, Xiuchun ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

Cell signaling; Embryonic stem cells; Epigenetics; Induced pluripotent stem cells; Reprogramming

Indexed keywords

ALPHA TUBULIN; DNA METHYLTRANSFERASE 1; GLYCERALDEHYDE 3 PHOSPHATE DEHYDROGENASE; HISTONE DEACETYLASE; HISTONE DEACETYLASE 2; HISTONE DEACETYLASE 3; HISTONE DEACETYLASE 8; HISTONE DEMETHYLASE; JANUS KINASE; LEUKEMIA INHIBITORY FACTOR; LYSINE SPECIFIC HISTONE DEMETHYLASE 2; MESSENGER RNA; METHYL CPG BINDING PROTEIN 2; MITOGEN ACTIVATED PROTEIN KINASE 1; MITOGEN ACTIVATED PROTEIN KINASE 3; OCTAMER TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR 4; PROTEIN KINASE B; STAT3 PROTEIN; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR NANOG; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR SOX2; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ANIMAL CELL; ARTICLE; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CHROMATIN; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMETHYLATION; DNA METHYLATION; ECTODERM; EMBRYO; EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; EPIGENETICS; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE SILENCING; MOUSE; NEURAL STEM CELL; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR REPROGRAMMING; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; REGULATORY MECHANISM; RETROVIRUS; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; SOMATIC CELL; TRANSGENE; UPREGULATION;

ANIMALS; EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS; EPIGENOMICS; FIBROBLASTS; INDUCED PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS; JANUS KINASES; MICE; NUCLEAR REPROGRAMMING; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; STAT3 TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR;

EID: 84870330033     PISSN: 10665099     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/stem.1225     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Okita K, Ichisaka T, Yamanaka S. Generation of germline-competent induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2007;448:313-U311.
2. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 2006;126:663-676.
3. Yu J, Vodyanik MA, Smuga-Otto K et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science 2007;318: 1917-1920.
4. Anokye-Danso F, Trivedi CM, Juhr D et al. Highly efficient miRNAmediated reprogramming of mouse and human somatic cells to pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 2011;8:376-388.
5. Kim D, Kim CH, Moon JI et al. Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cells by direct delivery of reprogramming proteins. Cell Stem Cell 2009;4:472-476.
6. Miyoshi N, Ishii H, Nagano H et al. Reprogramming of mouse and human cells to pluripotency using mature microRNAs. Cell Stem Cell 2011;8:633-638.
7. Warren L, Manos PD, Ahfeldt T et al. Highly efficient reprogramming to pluripotency and directed differentiation of human cells with synthetic modified mRNA. Cell Stem Cell 2010;7:618-630.
8. Zhou H, Wu S, Joo JY et al. Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells using recombinant proteins. Cell Stem Cell 2009;4:381-384.
9. Blomen VA, Boonstra J. Stable transmission of reversible modifications: Maintenance of epigenetic information through the cell cycle. Cell Mol Life Sci 2011;68:27-44.
10. De Felici M. Nuclear reprogramming in mouse primordial germ cells: Epigenetic contribution. Stem Cells Int 2011;2011:425863.
11. Hochedlinger K, Plath K. Epigenetic reprogramming and induced pluripotency. Development 2009;136:509-523.
12. Meissner A, Wernig M, Jaenisch R. Direct reprogramming of genetically unmodified fibroblasts into pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol 2007;25:1177-1181.
13. Wernig M, Meissner A, Foreman R et al. In vitro reprogramming of fibroblasts into a pluripotent ES-cell-like state. Nature 2007;448: 318-324.
14. Nichols J, Zevnik B, Anastassiadis K et al. Formation of pluripotent stem cells in the mammalian embryo depends on the POU transcription factor Oct4. Cell 1998;95:379-391.
15. Hattori N, Nishino K, Ko YG et al. Epigenetic control of mouse Oct- 4 gene expression in embryonic stem cells and trophoblast stem cells. J Biol Chem 2004;279:17063-17069.
16. Mikkelsen TS, Hanna J, Zhang X et al. Dissecting direct reprogramming through integrative genomic analysis. Nature 2008;454:49-55.
17. Niwa H, Miyazaki J, Smith AG. Quantitative expression of Oct-3/4 defines differentiation, dedifferentiation or self-renewal of ES cells. Nat Genet 2000;24:372-376.
18. Theunissen TW, van Oosten AL, Castelo-Branco G et al. Nanog overcomes reprogramming barriers and induces pluripotency in minimal conditions. Curr Biol 2011;21:65-71.
19. Okano M, Bell DW, Haber DA et al. DNA methyltransferases Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b are essential for de novo methylation and mammalian development. Cell 1999;99:247-257.
20. Chedin F, Lieber MR, Hsieh CL. The DNA methyltransferase-like protein DNMT3L stimulates de novo methylation by Dnmt3a. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:16916-16921.
21. Suetake I, Shinozaki F, Miyagawa J et al. DNMT3L stimulates the DNA methylation activity of Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b through a direct interaction. J Biol Chem 2004;279:27816-27823.
22. Gowher H, Liebert K, Hermann A et al. Mechanism of stimulation of catalytic activity of Dnmt3A and Dnmt3B DNA-(cytosine-C5)-methyltransferases by Dnmt3L. J Biol Chem 2005;280:13341-13348.
23. Ooi SK, Wolf D, Hartung O et al. Dynamic instability of genomic methylation patterns in pluripotent stem cells. Epigenetics Chromatin 2010;3:17.
24. Niwa H, Burdon T, Chambers I et al. Self-renewal of pluripotent embryonic stem cells is mediated via activation of STAT3. Genes Dev 1998;12:2048-2060.
25. Niwa H, Ogawa K, Shimosato D et al. A parallel circuit of LIF signalling pathways maintains pluripotency of mouse ES cells. Nature 2009;460:118-122.
26. Paling NR, Wheadon H, Bone HK et al. Regulation of embryonic stem cell self-renewal by phosphoinositide 3-kinase-dependent signaling. J Biol Chem 2004;279:48063-48070.
27. Burdon T, Smith A, Savatier P. Signalling, cell cycle and pluripotency in embryonic stem cells. Trends Cell Biol 2002;12:432-438.
28. Heinrich PC, Behrmann I, Muller-Newen G et al. Interleukin-6-type cytokine signalling through the gp130/Jak/STAT pathway. Biochem J 1998;334(Pt 2):297-314.
29. Taga T, Kishimoto T. Gp130 and the interleukin-6 family of cytokines. Annu Rev Immunol 1997;15:797-819.
30. Matsuda T, Nakamura T, Nakao K et al. STAT3 activation is sufficient to maintain an undifferentiated state of mouse embryonic stem cells. EMBO J 1999;18:4261-4269.
31. Hall J, Guo G, Wray J et al. Oct4 and LIF/Stat3 additively induce Kruppel factors to sustain embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Cell Stem Cell 2009;5:597-609.
32. Cartwright P, McLean C, Sheppard A et al. LIF/STAT3 controls ES cell self-renewal and pluripotency by a Myc-dependent mechanism. Development 2005;132:885-896.
33. Ying QL, Wray J, Nichols J et al. The ground state of embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Nature 2008;453:519-523.
34. van Oosten AL, Costa Y, Smith A et al. JAK/STAT3 signalling is sufficient and dominant over antagonistic cues for the establishment of naive pluripotency. Nat Commun 2012;3:817.
35. Yang J, van Oosten AL, Theunissen TW et al. Stat3 activation is limiting for reprogramming to ground state pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 2010;7:319-328.
36. Bromberg JF, Wrzeszczynska MH, Devgan G et al. Stat3 as an oncogene. Cell 1999;98:295-303.
37. Burdon T, Chambers I, Stracey C et al. Signaling mechanisms regulating self-renewal and differentiation of pluripotent embryonic stem cells. Cells Tissues Organs 1999;165:131-143.
38. Schmitz J, Weissenbach M, Haan S et al. SOCS3 exerts its inhibitory function on interleukin-6 signal transduction through the SHP2 recruitment site of gp130. J Biol Chem 2000;275:12848-12856.
39. Burdon T, Stracey C, Chambers I et al. Suppression of SHP-2 and ERK signalling promotes self-renewal of mouse embryonic stem cells. Dev Biol 1999;210:30-43.
40. Ernst M, Najdovska M, Grail D et al. STAT3 and STAT1 mediate IL-11-dependent and inflammation-associated gastric tumorigenesis in gp130 receptor mutant mice. J Clin Invest 2008;118:1727-1738.
41. Silva J, Nichols J, Theunissen TW et al. Nanog is the gateway to the pluripotent ground state. Cell 2009;138:722-737.
42. Kim J, Efe JA, Zhu S et al. Direct reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts to neural progenitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108: 7838-7843.
43. Rathjen PD, Toth S, Willis A et al. Differentiation inhibiting activity is produced in matrix-associated and diffusible forms that are generated by alternate promoter usage. Cell 1990;62:1105-1114.
44. Stewart CL, Kaspar P, Brunet LJ et al. Blastocyst implantation depends on maternal expression of leukaemia inhibitory factor. Nature 1992;359:76-79.
45. Dong KB, Maksakova IA, Mohn F et al. DNA methylation in ES cells requires the lysine methyltransferase G9a but not its catalytic activity. EMBO J 2008;27:2691-2701.
46. Leung DC, Dong KB, Maksakova IA et al. Lysine methyltransferase G9a is required for de novo DNA methylation and the establishment, but not the maintenance, of proviral silencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108:5718-5723.
47. Hermann A, Goyal R, Jeltsch A. The Dnmt1 DNA-(cytosine-C5)- methyltransferase methylates DNA processively with high preference for hemimethylated target sites. J Biol Chem 2004;279:48350-48359.
48. Szyf M. The role of DNA hypermethylation and demethylation in cancer and cancer therapy. Curr Oncol 2008;15:72-75.
49. Torrisani J, Unterberger A, Tendulkar SR et al. AUF1 cell cycle variations define genomic DNA methylation by regulation of DNMT1 mRNA stability. Mol Cell Biol 2007;27:395-410.
50. Dhe-Paganon S, Syeda F, Park L. DNA methyl transferase 1: Regulatory mechanisms and implications in health and disease. Int J Biochem Mol Biol 2011;2:58-66.
51. Snyder M, Huang XY, Zhang JJ. Identification of novel direct Stat3 target genes for control of growth and differentiation. J Biol Chem 2008;283:3791-3798.
52. Guo JU, Su Y, Zhong C et al. Hydroxylation of 5-methylcytosine by TET1 promotes active DNA demethylation in the adult brain. Cell 2011;145:423-434.
53. Tahiliani M, Koh KP, Shen Y et al. Conversion of 5-methylcytosine to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in mammalian DNA by MLL partner TET1. Science 2009;324:930-935.
54. Williams K, Christensen J, Pedersen MT et al. TET1 and hydroxymethylcytosine in transcription and DNA methylation fidelity. Nature 2011;473:343-348.
55. Wu H, D'Alessio AC, Ito S et al. Dual functions of Tet1 in transcriptional regulation in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nature 2011;473: 389-393.
56. Koh KP, Yabuuchi A, Rao S et al. Tet1 and Tet2 regulate 5-hydroxymethylcytosine production and cell lineage specification in mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2011;8:200-213.
57. Dawlaty MM, Ganz K, Powell BE et al. Tet1 is dispensable for maintaining pluripotency and its loss is compatible with embryonic and postnatal development. Cell Stem Cell 2011;9:166-175.
58. Ficz G, Branco MR, Seisenberger S et al. Dynamic regulation of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in mouse ES cells and during differentiation. Nature 2011;473:398-402.
59. Huangfu D, Maehr R, Guo W et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells by defined factors is greatly improved by small-molecule compounds. Nat Biotechnol 2008;26:795-797.
60. Mali P, Chou BK, Yen J 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.
61. Nan X, Ng HH, Johnson CA et al. Transcriptional repression by the methyl-CpG-binding protein MeCP2 involves a histone deacetylase complex. Nature 1998;393:386-389.
62. Yang Z, Jiang J, Stewart DM et al. AOF1 is a histone H3K4 demethylase possessing demethylase activity-independent repression function. Cell Res 2010;20:276-287.
63. Feng Q, Zhang Y. The MeCP1 complex represses transcription through preferential binding, remodeling, and deacetylating methylated nucleosomes. Genes Dev 2001;15:827-832.
64. Lin SL. Concise review: Deciphering the mechanism behind induced pluripotent stem cell generation. Stem Cells 2011;29:1645-1649.
65. Chou YF, Chen HH, Eijpe M et al. The growth factor environment defines distinct pluripotent ground states in novel blastocyst-derived stem cells. Cell 2008;135:449-461.
66. Ichida JK, Blanchard J, Lam K et al. A small-molecule inhibitor of TGFβ signaling replaces sox2 in reprogramming by inducing nanog. Cell Stem Cell 2009;5:491-503.
67. Varlakhanova NV, Cotterman RF, deVries WN et al. myc maintains embryonic stem cell pluripotency and self-renewal. Differentiation 2010;80:9-19.
68. Wernig M, Meissner A, Cassady JP et al. c-Myc is dispensable for direct reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts. Cell Stem Cell 2008;2: 10-12.
69. Okano M, Xie S, Li E. Cloning and characterization of a family of novel mammalian DNA (cytosine-5) methyltransferases. Nat Genet 1998;19:219-220.
70. Bourc'his D, Bestor TH. Meiotic catastrophe and retrotransposon reactivation in male germ cells lacking Dnmt3L. Nature 2004;431:96-99.
71. Bourc'his D, Xu GL, Lin CS et al. Dnmt3L and the establishment of maternal genomic imprints. Science 2001;294:2536-2539.
72. Hata K, Okano M, Lei H et al. Dnmt3L cooperates with the Dnmt3 family of de novo DNA methyltransferases to establish maternal imprints in mice. Development 2002;129:1983-1993.
73. Maherali N, Sridharan R, Xie W et al. Directly reprogrammed fibroblasts show global epigenetic remodeling and widespread tissue contribution. Cell Stem CELL 2007;1:55-70.
74. Imamura M, Miura K, Iwabuchi K et al. Transcriptional repression and DNA hypermethylation of a small set of ES cell marker genes in male germline stem cells. BMC Dev Biol 2006;6:34.
75. Mikkelsen TS, Ku M, Jaffe DB et al. Genome-wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage-committed cells. Nature 2007;448: 553-560.
76. Park IH, Zhao R, West JA et al. Reprogramming of human somatic cells to pluripotency with defined factors. Nature 2008;451:141-146.
77. Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 2007; 131:861-872.
78. Shi Y, Do JT, Desponts C et al. A combined chemical and genetic approach for the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2008;2:525-528.
79. Du Z, Song J, Wang Y et al. DNMT1 stability is regulated by proteins coordinating deubiquitination and acetylation-driven ubiquitination. Sci Signal 2010;3:ra80.
80. Zhou Q, Agoston AT, Atadja P et al. Inhibition of histone deacetylases promotes ubiquitin-dependent proteasomal degradation of DNA methyltransferase 1 in human breast cancer cells. Mol Cancer Res 2008;6:873-883.
81. Hanna J, Saha K, Pando B et al. Direct cell reprogramming is a stochastic process amenable to acceleration. Nature 2009;462:595-601.
82. Hanna JH, Saha K, Jaenisch R. Pluripotency and cellular reprogramming: Facts, hypotheses, unresolved issues. Cell 2010;143:508-525.
83. Lin SL, Chang DC, Chang-Lin S et al. Mir-302 reprograms human skin cancer cells into a pluripotent ES-cell-like state. Rna 2008;14: 2115-2124.
84. Lin SL, Chang DC, Lin CH et al. Regulation of somatic cell reprogramming through inducible mir-302 expression. Nucleic Acids Res 2010;39:1054-1065.
85. Plath K, Lowry WE. Progress in understanding reprogramming to the induced pluripotent state. Nat Rev Genet 2011;12:253-265.
86. Boyer LA, Lee TI, Cole MF et al. Core transcriptional regulatory circuitry in human embryonic stem cells. Cell 2005;122:947-956.
87. Loh YH, Wu Q, Chew JL et al. The Oct4 and Nanog transcription network regulates pluripotency in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat Genet 2006;38:431-440.
88. Chew JL, Loh YH, Zhang W et al. Reciprocal transcriptional regulation of Pou5f1 and Sox2 via the Oct4/Sox2 complex in embryonic stem cells. Mol Cell Biol 2005;25:6031-6046.
89. Boyer LA, Plath K, Zeitlinger J et al. Polycomb complexes repress developmental regulators in murine embryonic stem cells. Nature 2006;441:349-353.