A stochastic model dissects cell states in biological transition processes

Scientific Reports

Volumn 4, Issue , 2014, Pages

  Armond, Jonathan W ^a   Saha, Krishanu ^b   Rana, Anas A ^a,d   Oates, Chris J ^a,d   Jaenisch, Rudolf ^c,e   Nicodemi, Mario ^f   Mukherjee, Sach ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b University of Wisconsin Madison   (United States)

^c WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^d NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^e MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES FEDERICO II   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; TRANSCRIPTOME;

ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; HUMAN; PHYSIOLOGY; SINGLE CELL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SINGLE-CELL ANALYSIS; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES; TRANSCRIPTOME;

EID: 84897775152     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep03692     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Evans, M. J. & Kaufman, M. H. Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos. Nature 292, 154-156 (1981).
2. Tang, F. et al. Tracing the derivation of embryonic stem cells from the inner cell mass by single-cell RNA-seq analysis. Cell Stem Cell 6, 468-478 (2010).
3. Vierbuchen, T. et al. Direct conversion of fibroblasts to functional neurons by defined factors. Nature 463, 1035-1041 (2010).
4. Pang, Z. P. et al. Induction of human neuronal cells by defined transcription factors. Nature 476, 220-223 (2011).
5. Caiazzo, M. et al. Direct generation of functional dopaminergic neurons from mouse and human fibroblasts. Nature 476, 224-227 (2011).
6. Ieda, M. et al.Direct reprogramming of fibroblasts into functional cardiomyocytes by defined factors. Cell 142, 375-386 (2010).
7. Efe, J. A. et al. Conversion of mouse fibroblasts into cardiomyocytes using a direct reprogramming strategy. Nat. Cell Biol. 13, 215-222 (2011).
8. Huang, P. et al. Induction of functional hepatocyte-like cells from mouse fibroblasts by defined factors. Nature 475, 386-389 (2011).
9. Sekiya, S. & Suzuki, A. Direct conversion of mouse fibroblasts to hepatocyte-like cells by defined factors. Nature 475, 390-393 (2011).
10. Takahashi, K. & Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126, 663-676 (2006).
11. Hanna, J. H., Saha, K. & Jaenisch, R. Pluripotency and cellular reprogramming: Facts, hypotheses, unresolved issues. Cell 143, 508-525 (2010).
12. Okita, K. & Yamanaka, S. Induced pluripotent stem cells: opportunities and challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 366, 2198-2207 (2011).
13. Wilmut, I., Sullivan, G. & Chambers, I. The evolving biology of cell reprogramming. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 366, 2183-2197 (2011).
14. Vogel, G. Diseases in a dish take off. Science 330, 1172-1173 (2010).
15. Wernig, M. et al. In vitro reprogramming of fibroblasts into a pluripotent ES-celllike state. Nature 448, 318-324 (2007).
16. Jaenisch, R. & Young, R. Stem cells, the molecular circuitry of pluripotency and nuclear reprogramming. Cell 132, 567-582 (2008).
17. Hanna, J. et al. Direct cell reprogramming is a stochastic process amenable to acceleration. Nature 462, 595-601 (2009).
18. Samavarchi-Tehrani, P. et al. Functional genomics reveals a BMP-driven mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition in the initiation of somatic cell reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 7, 64-77 (2010).
19. Buganim, Y. et al. Single-cell expression analyses during cellular reprogramming reveal an early stochastic and a late hierarchic phase. Cell 150, 1209-1222 (2012).
20. Polo, J. et al. A molecular roadmap of reprogramming somatic cells into iPS cells. Cell 151, 1617-32 (2012).
21. Hansson, J. et al. Highly coordinated proteome dynamics during reprogramming of somatic cells to pluripotency. Cell Report 2, 1579-92 (2012).
22. O'Malley, J. et al. High-resolution analysis with novel cell-surface markers identifies routes to iPS cells. Nature 499, 88-91 (2013).
23. Tai, Y. & Speed, T. A multivariate empirical Bayes statistic for replicated microarray time course data. Ann. Stat. 34, 2387-2412 (2006).
24. Kalaitzis, A. & Lawrence, N. Asimple approach to ranking differentially expressed gene expression time courses through gaussian process regression. BMC Bioinf. 12, 180 (2011).
25. Heard, N., Holmes, C., Stephens, D., Hand, D. & Dimopoulos, G. Bayesian coclustering of Anopheles gene expression time series: study of immune defense response to multiple experimental challenges. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sc. USA 102, 16939-16944 (2005).
26. Roy, S., Lane, T., Allen, C., Aragon, A. & Werner-Washburne, M. A hidden-state Markov model for cell population deconvolution. J. Comp. Bio. 13, 1749-74 (2006).
27. Bar-Joseph, Z., Farkash, S., Gifford, D., Simon, I. & Rosenfeld, R. Deconvolving cell cycle expression data with complementary information. Bioinformatics 20, i23-i30 (2004).
28. Bar-Joseph, Z. et al. Genome-wide transcriptional analysis of the human cell cycle identifies genes differentially regulated in normal and cancer cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 955-60 (2009).
29. Siegal-Gaskins, D., Ash, J. & Crosson, S. Model-based deconvolution of cell cycle time-series data reveals gene expression details at high resolution. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5, e1000460 (2009).
30. Orlando, D. et al. A probabilistic model for cell cycle distributions in synchrony experiments. Cell Cycle 6, 478-488 (2007).
31. Rowicka, M., Kudlicki, A., Tu, B. P. & Otwinowski, Z. High-resolution timing of cell cycle-regulated gene expression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 16892-16897 (2007).
32. Costa, I., Roepcke, S., Hafemeister, C. & Schliep, A. Inferring differentiation pathways from gene expression. Bioinformatics 24, i156-64 (2008).
33. Mansour, A. et al. The H3K27 demethylase Utx regulates somatic and germ cell epigenetic reprogramming. Nature 488, 409-413 (2012).
34. Ang, Y. et al.Wdr5 mediates self-renewal and reprogramming via the embryonic stem cell core transcriptional network. Cell 145, 183-197 (2011).
35. Qu, J. & Bishop, J. M. Nucleostemin maintains self-renewal of embryonic stem cells and promotes reprogramming of somatic cells to pluripotency. J. Cell Biol. 197, 731-745 (2012).
36. Subramanyam, D. et al. Multiple targets of miR-302 and miR-372 promote reprogramming of human fibroblasts to induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 443-448 (2011).
37. Cole, M., Johnstone, S., Newman, J., Kagey, M. & Young, R. Tcf3 is an integral component of the core regulatory circuitry of embryonic stem cells. GenesDev. 22, 746-755 (2008).
38. Lluis, F. et al. T-cell factor 3 (Tcf3) deletion increases somatic cell reprogramming by inducing epigenome modifications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sc. USA 108, 11912-917 (2011).
39. Marson, A. et al. Wnt signaling promotes reprogramming of somatic cells to pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 3, 132-135 (2008).
40. Mikkelsen, T. S. et al. Dissecting direct reprogramming through integrative genomic analysis. Nature 454, 49-55 (2008).
41. Koche, R. P. et al. Reprogramming factor expression initiates widespread targeted chromatin remodeling. Cell Stem Cell 8, 96-105 (2011).
42. Deal, R. B., Henikoff, J. G. & Henikoff, S. Genome-wide kinetics of nucleosome turnover determined by metabolic labeling of histones. Science 328, 1161-1164 (2010).
43. Maere, S., Heymans, K. & Kuiper, M. BiNGO: a Cytoscape plugin to assess overrepresentation of Gene Ontology categories in biological networks. Bioinformatics 21, 3448-3449 (2005).