Dynamic stem cell states: Naive to primed pluripotency in rodents and humans

Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 155-169

  Weinberger, Leehee ^a   Ayyash, Muneef ^a   Novershtern, Noa ^a   Hanna, Jacob H ^a  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CELL GROWTH; CELL ISOLATION; ECTODERM; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; NONHUMAN; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STEM CELL RESEARCH; TRANSGENE; ANIMAL; MOUSE; NUCLEAR REPROGRAMMING; RAT; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

ANIMALS; CELLULAR REPROGRAMMING; HUMANS; MICE; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS; RATS; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84959486058     PISSN: 14710072     EISSN: 14710080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrm.2015.28     Document Type: Review

References (121)

1. Hanna, J. H., Saha, K. & Jaenisch, R. Pluripotency and cellular reprogramming: facts, hypotheses, unresolved issues. Cell 143, 508-525 (2010).
2. Nichols, J. & Smith, A. Pluripotency in the embryo and in culture. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 4, a008128 (2012).
3. Hackett, J. A. & Surani, M. A. Regulatory principles of pluripotency: from the ground state up. Cell Stem Cell 15, 416-430 (2014).
4. Manor, Y. S., Massarwa, R. & Hanna, J. H. Establishing the human naive pluripotent state. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 34, 35-45 (2015).
5. Inoue, H., Nagata, N., Kurokawa, H. & Yamanaka, S. iPS cells: a game changer for future medicine. EMBO J. 33, 409-417 (2014).
6. Thomson, J. A. et al. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282, 1145-1147 (1998).
7. Evans, M. J. & Kaufman, M. H. Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos. Nature 292, 154-156 (1981).
8. Martin, G. R. Isolation of a pluripotent cell line from early mouse embryos cultured in medium conditioned by teratocarcinoma stem cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 7634-7638 (1981).
9. Tesar, P. J. et al. New cell lines from mouse epiblast share defining features with human embryonic stem cells. Nature 448, 196-199 (2007).
10. Brons, I. G. et al. Derivation of pluripotent epiblast stem cells from mammalian embryos. Nature 448, 191-195 (2007).
11. Leitch, H. G. et al. Embryonic germ cells from mice and rats exhibit properties consistent with a generic pluripotent ground state. Development 137, 2279-2287 (2010).
12. Matsui, Y., Zsebo, K. & Hogan, B. L. Derivation of pluripotential embryonic stem cells from murine primordial germ cells in culture. Cell 70, 841-847 (1992).
13. Kanatsu-Shinohara, M. et al. Generation of pluripotent stem cells from neonatal mouse testis. Cell 119, 1001-1012 (2004).
14. Tanaka, T., Kanatsu-Shinohara, M., Hirose, M., Ogura, A. & Shinohara, T. Pluripotent cell derivation from male germline cells by suppression of Dmrt1 and Trp53. J. Reprod. Dev. 61, 473-484 (2015).
15. Ko, K. et al. Induction of pluripotency in adult unipotent germline stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 5, 87-96 (2009).
16. Ko, K. et al. Human adult germline stem cells in question. Nature 465, E1; discussion E3 (2010).
17. Shamblott, M. J. et al. Derivation of pluripotent stem cells from cultured human primordial germ cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 13726-13731 (1998).
18. Yamada, M. et al. Human oocytes reprogram adult somatic nuclei of a type 1 diabetic to diploid pluripotent stem cells. Nature 510, 533-536 (2014).
19. Tachibana, M. et al. Human embryonic stem cells derived by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Cell 153, 1228-1238 (2013).
20. Wakayama, T. et al. Differentiation of embryonic stem cell lines generated from adult somatic cells by nuclear transfer. Science 292, 740-743 (2001).
21. Takahashi, K. & Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126, 663-676 (2006).
22. Takahashi, K. et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 131, 861-872 (2007).
23. Wernig, M. et al. In vitro reprogramming of fibroblasts into a pluripotent ES-cell-like state. Nature 448, 318-324 (2007).
24. Yu, J. et al. Human induced pluripotent stem cells free of vector and transgene sequences. Science 324, 797-801 (2009).
25. Yu, J. et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science 318, 1917-1920 (2007).
26. Deuse, T. et al. SCNT-derived ESCs with mismatched mitochondria trigger an immune response in allogeneic hosts. Cell Stem Cell 16, 33-38 (2015).
27. Ma, H. et al. Metabolic rescue in pluripotent cells from patients with mtDNA disease. Nature 524, 234-238 (2015).
28. Tachibana, M. et al. Mitochondrial gene replacement in primate offspring and embryonic stem cells. Nature 461, 367-372 (2009).
29. Paull, D. et al. Nuclear genome transfer in human oocytes eliminates mitochondrial DNA variants. Nature 493, 632-637 (2013).
30. Hanna, J. et al. Metastable pluripotent states in NOD-mouse-derived ESCs. Cell Stem Cell 4, 513-524 (2009).
31. Nichols, J. & Smith, A. Naive and primed pluripotent states. Cell Stem Cell 4, 487-492 (2009).
32. Han, D. W. et al. Direct reprogramming of fibroblasts into epiblast stem cells. Nat. Cell Biol. 13, 66-71 (2011).
33. Najm, F. J. et al. Isolation of epiblast stem cells from preimplantation mouse embryos. Cell Stem Cell 8, 318-325 (2011).
34. Martin, G. R. & Evans, M. J. Differentiation of clonal lines of teratocarcinoma cells: formation of embryoid bodies in vitro. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 72, 1441-1445 (1975).
35. Smith, A. G. et al. Inhibition of pluripotential embryonic stem cell differentiation by purified polypeptides. Nature 336, 688-690 (1988).
36. Williams, R. L. et al. Myeloid leukaemia inhibitory factor maintains the developmental potential of embryonic stem cells. Nature 336, 684-687 (1988).
37. Orkin, S. H. & Hochedlinger, K. Chromatin connections to pluripotency and cellular reprogramming. Cell 145, 835-850 (2011).
38. Ying, Q. L., Nichols, J., Chambers, I. & Smith, A. BMP induction of Id proteins suppresses differentiation and sustains embryonic stem cell self renewal in collaboration with STAT3. Cell 115, 281-292 (2003).
39. Burdon, T., Stracey, C., Chambers, I., Nichols, J. & Smith, A. Suppression of SHP-2 and ERK signalling promotes self-renewal of mouse embryonic stem cells. Dev. Biol. 210, 30-43 (1999).
40. Ying, Q. L. et al. The ground state of embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Nature 453, 519-523 (2008).
41. Buehr, M. et al. Capture of authentic embryonic stem cells from rat blastocysts. Cell 135, 1287-1298 (2008).
42. Nichols, J. et al. Validated germline-competent embryonic stem cell lines from nonobese diabetic mice. Nat. Med. 15, 814-818 (2009).
43. Chen, H. et al. Erk signaling is indispensable for genomic stability and self-renewal of mouse embryonic stem cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E5936-E5943 (2015).
44. Shimizu, T. et al. Dual inhibition of Src and GSK3 maintains mouse embryonic stem cells, whose differentiation is mechanically regulated by Src signaling. Stem Cells 30, 1394-1404 (2012).
45. Dutta, D. et al. Self-renewal versus lineage commitment of embryonic stem cells: protein kinase C signaling shifts the balance. Stem Cells 29, 618-628 (2011).
46. Kolodziejczyk, A. A. et al. Single cell RNAsequencing of pluripotent states unlocks modular transcriptional variation. Cell Stem Cell 17, 471-485 (2015).
47. Chen, Y., Blair, K. & Smith, A. Robust self-renewal of rat embryonic stem cells requires fine-tuning of glycogen synthase kinase-3 inhibition. Stem Cell Rep. 1, 209-217 (2013).
48. Meek, S. et al. Tuning of β-catenin activity is required to stabilize self-renewal of rat embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells 31, 2104-2115 (2013).
49. Rajendran, G. et al. Inhibition of protein kinase C signaling maintains rat embryonic stem cell pluripotency. J. Biol. Chem. 288, 24351-24362 (2013).
50. Li, X. et al. Calcineurin-NFAT signaling critically regulates early lineage specification in mouse embryonic stem cells and embryos. Cell Stem Cell 8, 46-58 (2011).
51. Nishioka, N. et al. The Hippo signaling pathway components Lats and Yap pattern Tead4 activity to distinguish mouse trophectoderm from inner cell mass. Dev. Cell 16, 398-410 (2009).
52. Azzolin, L. et al. YAP/TAZ incorporation in the β-catenin destruction complex orchestrates the Wnt response. Cell 158, 157-170 (2014).
53. Lian, I. et al. The role of YAP transcription coactivator in regulating stem cell self-renewal and differentiation. Genes Dev. 24, 1106-1118 (2010).
54. Wray, J. et al. Inhibition of glycogen synthase kinase-3 alleviates Tcf3 repression of the pluripotency network and increases embryonic stem cell resistance to differentiation. Nat. Cell Biol. 13, 838-845 (2011).
55. Faunes, F. et al. A membrane-associated β-catenin/Oct4 complex correlates with ground-state pluripotency in mouse embryonic stem cells. Development 140, 1171-1183 (2013).
56. Morgani, S. M. & Brickman, J. M. LIF supports primitive endoderm expansion during preimplantation development. Development 142, 3488-3499 (2015).
57. Silva, J. et al. Nanog is the gateway to the pluripotent ground state. Cell 138, 722-737 (2009).
58. Maza, I. et al. Transient acquisition of pluripotency during somatic cell transdifferentiation with iPSC reprogramming factors. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 769-774 (2015).
59. Carter, A. C., Davis-Dusenbery, B. N., Koszka, K., Ichida, J. K. & Eggan, K. Nanog-independent reprogramming to iPSCs with canonical factors. Stem Cell Rep. 2, 119-126 (2014).
60. Schwartz, B. A. et al. Nanog is dispensable for the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Curr. Biol. 24, 347-350 (2014).
61. Festuccia, N. et al. Esrrb is a direct Nanog target gene that can substitute for Nanog function in pluripotent cells. Cell Stem Cell 11, 477-490 (2012).
62. Yeo, J. C. et al. Klf2 is an essential factor that sustains ground state pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 14, 864-872 (2014).
63. Reynolds, N. et al. NuRD suppresses pluripotency gene expression to promote transcriptional heterogeneity and lineage commitment. Cell Stem Cell 10, 583-594 (2012).
64. Rais, Y. et al. Deterministic direct reprogramming of somatic cells to pluripotency. Nature 502, 65-70 (2013).
65. Loh, K. M. & Lim, B. A precarious balance: pluripotency factors as lineage specifiers. Cell Stem Cell 8, 363-369 (2011).
66. 6A mRNA methylation facilitates resolution of naive pluripotency toward differentiation. Science 347, 1002-1006 (2015).
67. Huang, Y. et al. In vivo differentiation potential of epiblast stem cells revealed by chimeric embryo formation. Cell Rep. 2, 1571-1578 (2012).
68. Buecker, C. et al. Reorganization of enhancer patterns in transition from naive to primed pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 14, 838-853 (2014).
69. Marks, H. et al. The transcriptional and epigenomic foundations of ground state pluripotency. Cell 149, 590-604 (2012).
70. Gafni, O. et al. Derivation of novel human ground state naive pluripotent stem cells. Nature 504, 282-286 (2013).
71. Factor, D. C. et al. Epigenomic comparison reveals activation of "seed" enhancers during transition from naive to primed pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 14, 854-863 (2014).
72. Kumar, R. M. et al. Deconstructing transcriptional heterogeneity in pluripotent stem cells. Nature 516, 56-61 (2014).
73. Kim, H. et al. Modulation of β-catenin function maintains mouse epiblast stem cell and human embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Nat. Commun. 4, 2403 (2013).
74. Kojima, Y. et al. The transcriptional and functional properties of mouse epiblast stem cells resemble the anterior primitive streak. Cell Stem Cell 14, 107-120 (2014).
75. Wu, J. et al. An alternative pluripotent state confers interspecies chimaeric competency. Nature 521, 316-321 (2015).
76. Han, D. W. et al. Epiblast stem cell subpopulations represent mouse embryos of distinct pregastrulation stages. Cell 143, 617-627 (2010).
77. Hayashi, K., Ohta, H., Kurimoto, K., Aramaki, S. & Saitou, M. Reconstitution of the mouse germ cell specification pathway in culture by pluripotent stem cells. Cell 146, 519-532 (2011).
78. Guo, G. et al. Klf4 reverts developmentally programmed restriction of ground state pluripotency. Development 136, 1063-1069 (2009).
79. Bao, S. et al. Epigenetic reversion of post-implantation epiblast to pluripotent embryonic stem cells. Nature 461, 1292-1295 (2009).
80. Gillich, A. et al. Epiblast stem cell-based system reveals reprogramming synergy of germline factors. Cell Stem Cell 10, 425-439 (2012).
81. Greber, B. et al. Conserved and divergent roles of FGF signaling in mouse epiblast stem cells and human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 6, 215-226 (2010).
82. Leitch, H. G. et al. Naive pluripotency is associated with global DNA hypomethylation. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 311-316 (2013).
83. Ficz, G. et al. FGF signaling inhibition in ESCs drives rapid genome-wide demethylation to the epigenetic ground state of pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 13, 351-359 (2013).
84. Hackett, J. A. et al. Synergistic mechanisms of DNA demethylation during transition to ground-state pluripotency. Stem Cell Rep. 1, 518-531 (2013).
85. Galonska, C., Ziller, M. J., Karnik, R. & Meissner, A. Ground state conditions induce rapid reorganization of core pluripotency factor binding before global epigenetic reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 17, 462-470 (2015).
86. Liao, J. et al. Targeted disruption of DNMT1, DNMT3A and DNMT3B in human embryonic stem cells. Nat. Genet. 47, 469-478 (2015).
87. Tee, W. W., Shen, S. S., Oksuz, O., Narendra, V. & Reinberg, D. Erk1/2 activity promotes chromatin features and RNAPII phosphorylation at developmental promoters in mouse ESCs. Cell 156, 678-690 (2014).
88. Bertero, A. et al. Activin/Nodal signaling and NANOG orchestrate human embryonic stem cell fate decisions by controlling the H3K4me3 chromatin mark. Genes Dev. 29, 702-717 (2015).
89. Smith, Z. D. et al. DNA methylation dynamics of the human preimplantation embryo. Nature 511, 611-615 (2014).
90. Mekhoubad, S. et al. Erosion of dosage compensation impacts human iPSC disease modeling. Cell Stem Cell 10, 595-609 (2012).
91. Chia, N. Y. et al. A genome-wide RNAi screen reveals determinants of human embryonic stem cell identity. Nature 468, 316-320 (2010).
92. Shipony, Z. et al. Dynamic and static maintenance of epigenetic memory in pluripotent and somatic cells. Nature 513, 115-119 (2014).
93. Betschinger, J. et al. Exit from pluripotency is gated by intracellular redistribution of the bHLH transcription factor Tfe3. Cell 153, 335-347 (2013).
94. Hanna, J. et al. Human embryonic stem cells with biological and epigenetic characteristics similar to those of mouse ESCs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 9222-9227 (2010).
95. Theunissen, T. W. et al. Systematic identification of culture conditions for induction and maintenance of naive human pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 15, 471-487 (2014).
96. Takashima, Y. et al. Resetting transcription factor control circuitry toward ground-state pluripotency in human. Cell 158, 1254-1269 (2014).
97. Blakeley, P. et al. Defining the three cell lineages of the human blastocyst by single-cell RNA-seq. Development 142, 3151-3165 (2015).
98. Gkountela, S. et al. DNA demethylation dynamics in the human prenatal germline. Cell 161, 1425-1436 (2015).
99. Shakiba, N. et al. CD24 tracks divergent pluripotent states in mouse and human cells. Nat. Commun. 6, 7329 (2015).
100. Barakat, T. S. et al. Stable X chromosome reactivation in female human induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Rep. 4, 199-208 (2015).
101. Chan, Y. S. et al. Induction of a human pluripotent state with distinct regulatory circuitry that resembles preimplantation epiblast. Cell Stem Cell 13, 663-675 (2013).
102. Duggal, G. et al. Alternative routes to induce naive pluripotency in human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells 33, 2686-2698 (2015).
103. Chen, H. et al. Reinforcement of STAT3 activity reprogrammes human embryonic stem cells to naive-like pluripotency. Nat. Commun. 6, 7095 (2015).
104. Ohgushi, M., Minaguchi, M. & Sasai, Y. Rho-signaling-directed YAP/TAZ activity underlies the long-term survival and expansion of human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 17, 448-461 (2015).
105. Kameda, T. & Thomson, J. A. Human ERas gene has an upstream premature polyadenylation signal that results in a truncated, noncoding transcript. Stem Cells 23, 1535-1540 (2005).
106. Boroviak, T. et al. Lineage-specific profiling delineates the emergence and progression of naive pluripotency in mammalian embryogenesis. Dev. Cell 35, 366-382 (2015).
107. Buecker, C. & Wysocka, J. Enhancers as information integration hubs in development: lessons from genomics. Trends Genet. 28, 276-284 (2012).
108. Karwacki-Neisius, V. et al. Reduced Oct4 expression directs a robust pluripotent state with distinct signaling activity and increased enhancer occupancy by Oct4 and Nanog. Cell Stem Cell 12, 531-545 (2013).
109. Boroviak, T., Loos, R., Bertone, P., Smith, A. & Nichols, J. The ability of inner-cell-mass cells to self-renew as embryonic stem cells is acquired following epiblast specification. Nat. Cell Biol. 16, 516-528 (2014).
110. Osafune, K. et al. Marked differences in differentiation propensity among human embryonic stem cell lines. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 313-315 (2008).
111. Irie, N. et al. SOX17 is a critical specifier of human primordial germ cell fate. Cell 160, 253-268 (2015).
112. Bock, C. et al. Reference maps of human ES and iPS cell variation enable high-throughput characterization of pluripotent cell lines. Cell 144, 439-452 (2011).
113. Kobayashi, T. et al. Generation of rat pancreas in mouse by interspecific blastocyst injection of pluripotent stem cells. Cell 142, 787-799 (2010).
114. Chen, Y. et al. Generation of cynomolgus monkey chimeric fetuses using embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 17, 116-124 (2015).
115. Fang, R. et al. Generation of naive induced pluripotent stem cells from rhesus monkey fibroblasts. Cell Stem Cell 15, 488-496 (2014).
116. Bock, A. S., Leigh, N. D. & Bryda, E. C. Effect of Gsk3 inhibitor CHIR99021 on aneuploidy levels in rat embryonic stem cells. In Vitro Cell Dev. Biol. Anim. 50, 572-579 (2014).
117. Qin, H. et al. Systematic identification of barriers to human iPSC generation. Cell 158, 449-461 (2014).
118. Kim, K. et al. Donor cell type can influence the epigenome and differentiation potential of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 1117-1119 (2011).
119. Choi, J. et al. A comparison of genetically matched cell lines reveals the equivalence of human iPSCs and ESCs. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 1173-1181 (2015).
120. Ma, H. et al. Abnormalities in human pluripotent cells due to reprogramming mechanisms. Nature 511, 177-183 (2014).
121. Pastor, W. A. et al. Naive human pluripotent cells feature a methylation landscape devoid of blastocyst or germline memory. Cell Stem Cell http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2016.01.019 (2016).