Quantitative approaches to model pluripotency and differentiation in stem cells

Stem Cells Handbook: Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 59-74

  Papatsenko, Dmitri ^a   Xu, Huilei ^a   Ma'ayan, Avi ^a   Lemischka, Ihor ^a  

^a MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941641069     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-7696-2_4     Document Type: Chapter

References (145)

1. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006;126(4):663-76.
2. Carvajal-Vergara X, et al. Patient-specific induced pluripotent stem-cell-derived models of LEOPARD syndrome. Nature. 2010;465(7299):808-12.
3. Marikawa Y, et al. Dual roles of Oct4 in the maintenance of mouse P19 embryonal carcinoma cells: as negative regulator of Wnt/beta-catenin signaling and competence provider for Brachyury induction. Stem Cells Dev. 2011;20(4):621-33.
4. Hayden EC. Stem cells: the growing pains of pluripotency. Nature. 2011;473(7347):272-4.
5. Kim HD, et al. Transcriptional regulatory circuits: predicting numbers from alphabets. Science. 2009;325(5939):429-32.
6. Tang C, Drukker M. Potential barriers to therapeutics utilizing pluripotent cell derivatives: intrinsic immunogenicity of in vitro maintained and matured populations. Semin Immunopathol. 2011;33(6):563-72.
7. Leeb C, et al. New perspectives in stem cell research: beyond embryonic stem cells. Cell Prolif. 2011;44 Suppl 1:9-14.
8. Grivennikov IA. Embryonic stem cells and the problem of directed differentiation. Biochemistry (Mosc). 2008;73(13):1438-52.
9. Bernstein HS. Cardiac repair and restoration using human embryonic stem cells. Regen Med. 2012;7(5):697-712. doi:10.2217/rme.12.46.
10. Pereira CF, Lemischka IR, Moore K. Reprogramming cell fates: insights from combinatorial approaches. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012;2012:7-17.
11. Sancho-Martinez I, Baek SH, Izpisua Belmonte JC. Lineage conversion methodologies meet the reprogramming toolbox. Nat Cell Biol. 2012;14(9):892-9.
12. Vierbuchen T, Wernig M. Direct lineage conversions: unnatural but useful? Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29(10):892-907.
13. Walasek MA, van Os R, de Haan G. Hematopoietic stem cell expansion: challenges and opportunities. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012;2012:138-50.
14. Armstrong L, et al. Editorial: our top 10 developments in stem cell biology over the last 30 years. Stem Cells. 2012;30(1):2-9.
15. Kim J, et al. An extended transcriptional network for pluripotency of embryonic stem cells. Cell. 2008;132(6):1049-61.
16. Loh YH, et al. The Oct4 and Nanog transcription network regulates pluripotency in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat Genet. 2006;38(4):431-40.
17. Xu H, et al. Toward a complete in silico, multi-layered embryonic stem cell regulatory network. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. 2010;2(6):708-33.
18. Martello G, et al. Esrrb is a pivotal target of the Gsk3/Tcf3 axis regulating embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Cell Stem Cell. 2012;11(4):491-504.
19. Buganim Y, et al. Single-cell expression analyses during cellular reprogramming reveal an early stochastic and a late hierarchic phase. Cell. 2012;150(6):1209-22.
20. Tan MH, et al. An Oct4-Sall4-Nanog network controls developmental progression in the pre-implantation mouse embryo. Mol Syst Biol. 2013;9(632):65.
21. Oron E, Ivanova N. Cell fate regulation in early mammalian development. Phys Biol. 2012;9(4):1478-3975.
22. Papp B, Plath K. Pluripotency re-centered around Esrrb. EMBO J. 2012;31(22):4255-7.
23. Pimanda JE, et al. Gata2, Fli1, and Scl form a recursively wired gene-regulatory circuit during early hematopoietic development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104(45):17692-7.
24. Wu JQ, et al. Tcf7 is an important regulator of the switch of selfrenewal and differentiation in a multipotential hematopoietic cell line. PLoS Genet. 2012;8(3):8.
25. Yang J, et al. Enhanced self-renewal of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells mediated by the stem cell gene Sall4. J Hematol. Oncol. 2011;4(38):1756-8722.4-38.
26. Cai L, Friedman N, Xie XS. Stochastic protein expression in individual cells at the single molecule level. Nature. 2006;440(7082):358-62.
27. Hanna J, et al. Direct cell reprogramming is a stochastic process amenable to acceleration. Nature. 2009;462(7273):595-601.
28. Macarthur BD, Ma'ayan A, Lemischka IR. Systems biology of stem cell fate and cellular reprogramming. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009;10(10):672-81.
29. Kalmar T, et al. Regulated fluctuations in nanog expression mediate cell fate decisions in embryonic stem cells. PLoS Biol. 2009;7(7):e1000149.
30. Glauche I, Herberg M, Roeder I. Nanog variability and pluripotency regulation of embryonic stem cells-insights from a mathematical model analysis. PLoS One. 2010;5(6):e11238.
31. Niwa H. How is pluripotency determined and maintained? Development. 2007;134(4):635-46.
32. Milo R, et al. Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Science. 2002;298(5594):824-7.
33. Chickarmane V, et al. Transcriptional dynamics of the embryonic stem cell switch. PLoS Comput Biol. 2006;2(9):e123.
34. Thomson M, et al. Pluripotency factors in embryonic stem cells regulate differentiation into germ layers. Cell. 2011;145(6):875-89.
35. Jiang J, et al. A core Klf circuitry regulates self-renewal of embryonic stem cells. Nat Cell Biol. 2008;10(3):353-60.
36. Zhang P, et al. Kruppel-like factor 4 (Klf4) prevents embryonic stem (ES) cell differentiation by regulating Nanog gene expression. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(12):9180-9.
37. Niwa H, et al. A parallel circuit of LIF signalling pathways maintains pluripotency of mouse ES cells. Nature. 2009;460(7251):118-22.
38. Nguyen H, Rendl M, Fuchs E. Tcf3 governs stem cell features and represses cell fate determination in skin. Cell. 2006;127(1):171-83.
39. Yi F, et al. Opposing effects of Tcf3 and Tcf1 control Wnt stimulation of embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13(7):762-70.
40. Wend P, et al. Wnt signaling in stem and cancer stem cells. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2010;21(8):855-63.
41. Sokol SY. Maintaining embryonic stem cell pluripotency with Wnt signaling. Development. 2011;2011:8.
42. Berge DT, et al. Embryonic stem cells require Wnt proteins to prevent differentiation to epiblast stem cells. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13(9):1070-5.
43. Hikasa H, et al. Regulation of TCF3 by Wnt-dependent phosphorylation during vertebrate axis specification. Dev Cell. 2010;19(4):521-32.
44. Cole MF, et al. Tcf3 is an integral component of the core regulatory circuitry of embryonic stem cells. Genes Dev. 2008;22(6):746-55. doi:10.1101/gad.1642408.
45. Nichols J, Smith A. The origin and identity of embryonic stem cells. Development. 2011;138(1):3-8.
46. MacArthur BD, Please CP, Oreffo RO. Stochasticity and the molecular mechanisms of induced pluripotency. PLoS One. 2008;3(8):e3086.
47. Chambers I, et al. Nanog safeguards pluripotency and mediates germline development. Nature. 2007;450(7173):1230-4.
48. Ivanova N, et al. Dissecting self-renewal in stem cells with RNA interference. Nature. 2006;442(7102):533-8.
49. Rizzino A. Sox2 and Oct-3/4: a versatile pair of master regulators that orchestrate the self-renewal and pluripotency of embryonic stem cells. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. 2009;1(2):228-36.
50. Plachta N, et al. Oct4 kinetics predict cell lineage patterning in the early mammalian embryo. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13(2):117-23.
51. Wang Z, et al. Distinct lineage specification roles for NANOG, OCT4, and SOX2 in human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2012;10(4):440-54.
52. Raser JM, O'Shea EK. Noise in gene expression: origins, consequences, and control. Science. 2005;309(5743):2010-3.
53. Wilkinson DJ. Stochastic modelling for quantitative description of heterogeneous biological systems. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10(2):122-33.
54. Hilfinger A, Paulsson J. Separating intrinsic from extrinsic fluctuations in dynamic biological systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(29):12167-72.
55. Lu R, et al. Systems-level dynamic analyses of fate change in murine embryonic stem cells. Nature. 2009;462(7271):358-62.
56. Markowetz F, et al. Mapping dynamic histone acetylation patterns to gene expression in nanog-depleted murine embryonic stem cells. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010;6(12):e1001034.
57. Hoffmann M, et al. Noise-driven stem cell and progenitor population dynamics. PLoS One. 2008;3(8):e2922.
58. Chickarmane V, Peterson C. A computational model for understanding stem cell, trophectoderm and endoderm lineage determination. PLoS One. 2008;3(10):e3478.
59. Price ND, Shmulevich I. Biochemical and statistical network models for systems biology. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2007;18(4):365-70.
60. Shmulevich I, Aitchison JD. Deterministic and stochastic models of genetic regulatory networks. Methods Enzymol. 2009;467:335-56.
61. Zinzen RP, et al. Computational models for neurogenic gene expression in the Drosophila embryo. Curr Biol. 2006;16(13):1358-65.
62. Janssens H, et al. Quantitative and predictive model of transcriptional control of the Drosophila melanogaster even skipped gene. Nat Genet. 2006;38(10):1159-65.
63. Gertz J, Siggia ED, Cohen BA. Analysis of combinatorial cisregulation in synthetic and genomic promoters. Nature. 2009;457(7226):215-8.
64. Kauffman SA. Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets. J Theor Biol. 1969;22(3):437-67.
65. Gershenson C. Classification of random Boolean networks. In: Artificial life VIII: proceedings of the eight international conference on artificial life. Sydney, Australia: MIT Press; 2002.
66. Shmulevich I, et al. Probabilistic Boolean networks: a rule-based uncertainty model for gene regulatory networks. Bioinformatics. 2002;18(2):261-74.
67. de Jong H. Modeling and simulation of genetic regulatory systems: a literature review. J Comput Biol. 2002;9(1):67-103.
68. Som A, et al. The PluriNetWork: an electronic representation of the network underlying pluripotency in mouse, and its applications. PLoS One. 2010;5(12):e15165.
69. Muller FJ, et al. Regulatory networks define phenotypic classes of human stem cell lines. Nature. 2008;455(7211):401-5.
70. Kelder T, et al. WikiPathways: building research communities on biological pathways. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;40(Database issue):D1301-7.
71. Porter CJ, et al. StemBase: a resource for the analysis of stem cell gene expression data. Methods Mol Biol. 2007;407:137-48.
72. Schulz H, et al. The FunGenES database: a genomics resource for mouse embryonic stem cell differentiation. PLoS One. 2009;4(9): e6804.
73. Barrett T, et al. NCBI GEO: mining tens of millions of expression profiles-database and tools update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(Database issue):D760-5.
74. Lachmann A, et al. ChEA: transcription factor regulation inferred from integrating genome-wide ChIP-X experiments. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(19):2438-44.
75. Jung M, et al. A data integration approach to mapping OCT4 gene regulatory networks operative in embryonic stem cells and embryonal carcinoma cells. PLoS One. 2010;5(5):e10709.
76. Shen Y, et al. A map of the cis-regulatory sequences in the mouse genome. Nature. 2012;488(7409):116-20.
77. Yaragatti M, Basilico C, Dailey L. Identification of active transcriptional regulatory modules by the functional assay of DNA from nucleosome-free regions. Genome Res. 2008;18(6):930-8.
78. Robasky K, Bulyk ML. UniPROBE, update 2011: expanded content and search tools in the online database of protein-binding microarray data on protein-DNA interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(Database issue):D124-8.
79. Bailey TL. DREME: motif discovery in transcription factor ChIP-seq data. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(12):1653-9.
80. Kulakovskiy IV, et al. HOCOMOCO: a comprehensive collection of human transcription factor binding sites models. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(D1):D195-202.
81. van den Berg DL, et al. An Oct4-centered protein interaction network in embryonic stem cells. Cell. 2010;6(4):369-81.
82. Pardo M, et al. An expanded Oct4 interaction network: implications for stem cell biology, development, and disease. Cell. 2010;6(4):382-95.
83. Lemischka IR. Hooking up with Oct4. Cell. 2010;6(4):291-2.
84. Sevilla A, Papatsenko D, Lemischka IR, et al. Esrrb and Nanog Comprise an Interlocked Cell Fate Regulatory Module Controlled by Feedback Interactions. 2013.
85. Kauffman S. The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.
86. Kauffman SA. Sequential DNA, replication and the control of differences in gene activity between sister chromatids-a possible factor in cell differentiation. J Theor Biol. 1967;17(3):483-97.
87. Chaves M, Albert R, Sontag ED. Robustness and fragility of Boolean models for genetic regulatory networks. J Theor Biol. 2005;235(3):431-49.
88. Aracena J, et al. On the robustness of update schedules in Boolean networks. Biosystems. 2009;97(1):1-8.
89. Davidich MI, Bornholdt S. Boolean network model predicts cell cycle sequence of fission yeast. PLoS One. 2008;3(2):e1672.
90. Shmulevich I, et al. Steady-state analysis of genetic regulatory networks modelled by probabilistic boolean networks. Comp Funct Genomics. 2003;4(6):601-8.
91. Liang S, Fuhrman S, Somogyi R. Reveal, a general reverse engineering algorithm for inference of genetic network architectures. Pac Symp Biocomput. 1998:18-29.
92. Akutsu T, Miyano S, Kuhara S. Identification of genetic networks from a small number of gene expression patterns under the Boolean network model. Pac Symp Biocomput. 1999:17-28.
93. Akutsu T, Miyano S, Kuhara S. Algorithms for inferring qualitative models of biological networks. Pac Symp Biocomput. 2000: 293-304.
94. Ideker TE, Thorsson V, Karp RM.. Discovery of regulatory interactions through perturbation: inference and experimental design. Pac Symp Biocomput. 2000:305-16.
95. Lutter D, Bruns P, Theis FJ. An ensemble approach for inferring semi-quantitative regulatory dynamics for the differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells using prior knowledge. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2012;736:247-60.
96. Saez-Rodriguez J, et al. Discrete logic modelling as a means to link protein signalling networks with functional analysis of mammalian signal transduction. Mol Syst Biol. 2009;5:331.
97. Brown CT, et al. New computational approaches for analysis of cis-regulatory networks. Dev Biol. 2002;246(1):86-102.
98. Wuensche A. Discrete dynamics lab: tools for investigating cellular automata and discrete dynamical networks. In: Komosinski M, Adamatzky A, editors. Artificial life models in software. London: Springer; 2009.
99. Albert I, et al. Boolean network simulations for life scientists. Source Code Biol Med. 2008;3:16.
100. Mussel C, Hopfensitz M, Kestler HA. BoolNet-an R package for generation, reconstruction and analysis of Boolean networks. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(10):1378-80.
101. Batagelj V, Mrvar A. Pajek-program for large network analysis. Connections. 1998;21:45-57.
102. Longabaugh WJ, Davidson EH, Bolouri H. Computational representation of developmental genetic regulatory networks. Dev Biol. 2005;283(1):1-16.
103. 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(4):372-6.
104. Matoba R, et al. Dissecting Oct3/4-regulated gene networks in embryonic stem cells by expression profiling. PLoS One. 2006;1:e26.
105. Schulz C, Tautz D. Autonomous concentration-dependent activation and repression of Kruppel by hunchback in the Drosophila embryo. Development. 1994;120(10):3043-9.
106. Zuo P, et al. Activation and repression of transcription by the gap proteins hunchback and Kruppel in cultured Drosophila cells. Genes Dev. 1991;5(2):254-64.
107. Papatsenko D, Levine MS. Dual regulation by the Hunchback gradient in the Drosophila embryo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(8):2901-6.
108. Papatsenko D, Levine M. The Drosophila gap gene network is composed of two parallel toggle switches. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e21145.
109. Bolouri H, Davidson EH. Modeling transcriptional regulatory networks. Bioessays. 2002;24(12):1118-29.
110. Zinzen RP, Papatsenko D. Enhancer responses to similarly distributed antagonistic gradients in development. PLoS Comput Biol. 2007;3(5):e84.
111. Xia X. Position weight matrix, Gibbs sampler, and the associated significance tests in motif characterization and prediction. Scientifica. 2012;2012:917540.
112. Bower JM, Bolouri H, editors. Computational modeling of genetic and biochemical networks. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001. p. 390.
113. Hastings WK. Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika. 1970;57:97-109.
114. McKenna BK, et al. A parallel microfluidic flow cytometer for high-content screening. Nat Methods. 2011;8(5):401-3.
115. Ornatsky O, et al. Highly multiparametric analysis by mass cytometry. J Immunol Methods. 2010;361(1-2):1-20.
116. Strumpf D, et al. Cdx2 is required for correct cell fate specification and differentiation of trophectoderm in the mouse blastocyst. Development. 2005;132(9):2093-102.
117. Fidalgo M, et al. Zfp281 functions as a transcriptional repressor for pluripotency of mouse embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells. 2011;2011(13):736.
118. Ombrato L, Lluis F, Cosma MP. Regulation of self-renewal and reprogramming by TCF factors. Cell. 2012;11(1):39-47.
119. Andrecut M, et al. A general model for binary cell fate decision gene circuits with degeneracy: indeterminacy and switch behavior in the absence of cooperativity. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19358.
120. Ptashne M. Principles of a switch. Nat Chem Biol. 2011;7(8):484-7.
121. Preisler HD, Kauffman S. A proposal regarding the mechanism which underlies lineage choice during hematopoietic differentiation. Leuk Res. 1999;23(8):685-94.
122. Glauche I, et al. Stem cell proliferation and quiescence-two sides of the same coin. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009;5(7):e1000447.
123. Glauche I, Thielecke L, Roeder I. Cellular aging leads to functional heterogeneity of hematopoietic stem cells: a modeling perspective. Aging Cell. 2011;10(3):457-65.
124. Chickarmane V, Enver T, Peterson C. Computational modeling of the hematopoietic erythroid-myeloid switch reveals insights into cooperativity, priming, and irreversibility. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009;5(1):e1000268.
125. Loose M, Swiers G, Patient R. Transcriptional networks regulating hematopoietic cell fate decisions. Curr Opin Hematol. 2007;14(4):307-14.
126. Marks H, et al. The transcriptional and epigenomic foundations of ground state pluripotency. Cell. 2012;149(3):590-604.
127. Kim JK, Marioni JC. Inferring the kinetics of stochastic gene expression from single-cell RNA-sequencing data. Genome. 2013;14(1):R7.
128. Fuchs E, Horsley V. Ferreting out stem cells from their niches. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13(5):513-8.
129. Lewis J. From signals to patterns: space, time, and mathematics in developmental biology. Science. 2008;322(5900):399-403. doi:10.1126/science.1166154.
130. Davidson EH, Levine MS. Properties of developmental gene regulatory networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105(51):20063-6.
131. Papatsenko D. Stripe formation in the early fly embryo: principles, models, and networks. Bioessays. 2009;31(11):1172-80.
132. Stanojevic D, Small S, Levine M. Regulation of a segmentation stripe by overlapping activators and repressors in the Drosophila embryo. Science. 1991;254(5036):1385-7.
133. Clyde DE, et al. A self-organizing system of repressor gradients establishes segmental complexity in Drosophila. Nature. 2003;426(6968):849-53.
134. Elowitz MB, et al. Stochastic gene expression in a single cell. Science. 2002;297(5584):1183-6.
135. Mettetal JT, et al. Predicting stochastic gene expression dynamics in single cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(19):7304-9.
136. Waks Z, Silver PA. Nuclear origins of cell-to-cell variability. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 2012;75:87-94.
137. Cook DL, Gerber AN, Tapscott SJ. Modeling stochastic gene expression: implications for haploinsufficiency. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95(26):15641-6.
138. Pedraza JM, Paulsson J. Effects of molecular memory and bursting on fluctuations in gene expression. Science. 2008;319(5861): 339-43. doi:10.1126/science.1144331.
139. Li GW, Xie XS. Central dogma at the single-molecule level in living cells. Nature. 2011;475(7356):308-15.
140. Yang HT, Ko MS. Stochastic modeling for the expression of a gene regulated by competing transcription factors. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):14.
141. Miyanari Y, Torres-Padilla ME. Control of ground-state pluripotency by allelic regulation of Nanog. Nature. 2012;483(7390):470-3.
142. Bolhuis J, Hogan J. The development of animal behavior: a reader. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 1999.
143. Huang S, et al. Cell fates as high-dimensional attractor states of a complex gene regulatory network. Phys Rev Lett. 2005;94(12):128701.
144. Hanna J, et al. Human embryonic stem cells with biological and epigenetic characteristics similar to those of mouse ESCs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(20):9222-7.
145. Enver T, et al. Stem cell states, fates, and the rules of attraction. Cell Stem Cell. 2009;4(5):387-97.