Nanog, Oct4 and Tet1 interplay in establishing pluripotency

Scientific Reports

Volumn 6, Issue , 2016, Pages

  Olariu, Victor ^a,b   Lövkvist, Cecilia ^a   Sneppen, Kim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA BINDING PROTEIN; NANOG PROTEIN, MOUSE; OCTAMER TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR 4; ONCOPROTEIN; POU5F1 PROTEIN, MOUSE; TET1 PROTEIN, MOUSE; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR NANOG;

ANIMAL; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CYTOLOGY; DNA METHYLATION; FIBROBLAST; GENE REGULATORY NETWORK; GENETIC EPIGENESIS; GENETIC TRANSCRIPTION; GENETICS; METABOLISM; MOUSE; MOUSE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; NUCLEAR REPROGRAMMING; PHYSIOLOGICAL FEEDBACK; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL;

ANIMALS; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CELLULAR REPROGRAMMING; DNA METHYLATION; DNA-BINDING PROTEINS; EPIGENESIS, GENETIC; FEEDBACK, PHYSIOLOGICAL; FIBROBLASTS; GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS; MICE; MOUSE EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS; NANOG HOMEOBOX PROTEIN; OCTAMER TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR-3; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS; PROTO-ONCOGENE PROTEINS; TRANSCRIPTION, GENETIC;

EID: 84966430896     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep25438     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Evans, M. J. & Kaufman, M. H. Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos. Nature 292, 154176 (1981).
2. 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, 76341738 (1981).
3. Takahashi, K. & Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126, 663176 (2006).
4. Takahashi, K. et al. Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors. Cell 131(5), 861172, doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.019. PMID 18035408 (2007).
5. Yu, J. et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells .Science advance, doi: 10.1126/science.1151526 (2007).
6. Niwa, H., Miyazaki, J. & Smith, A. G. Quantitative expression of Oct-3/4 defines differentiation, dedifferentiation or self-renewal of ES cells. Nat Genet. 24, 372176 (2000).
7. Masui, S. et al. Pluripotency governed by Sox2 via regulation of Oct3/4 expression in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat .Cell. Biol. 9, 625175 (2007).
8. Chambers, I. et al. Nanog safeguards pluripotency and mediates germline development. Nature. 450, 12301734 (2007).
9. Nichols, J. & Smith A. Pluripotency in the embryo and in culture. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 4, a008128 (2012).
10. Boyer, L. A. et al. Core transcriptional regulatory circuitry in human embryonic stem cells. Cell. 122, 947176 (2005).
11. Loh, Y. H. et al. The Oct4 and Nanog transcription network regulates pluripotency in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat. Genet. 38, 431170 (2006).
12. Young, R. A. Control of the embryonic stem cell state. Cell. 144, 940174 (2011).
13. Kalmar, T. et al. Regulated Fluctuations in Nanog Expression Mediate Cell Fate Decisions in Embryonic Stem Cells. PLoS Biol 7(7), e1000149 (2009).
14. Osorno, R. & Chambers, I. Transcription factor heterogeneity and epiblast pluripotency. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 2230-2237 (2011).
15. Glauche, I., Herberg, M. & Roeder, I. Nanog Variability and Pluripotency Regulation of Embryonic Stem Cells - Insights from a Mathematical Model Analysis. PLoS One 5(6), e11238 (2010).
16. Chickarmane, V., Olariu, V. & Peterson, C. Probing the role of stochasticity in a model of the embryonic stem cell heterogeneous gene expression and reprogramming efficiency. BMC System Biology 13(6), 98 (2012).
17. Singer, Z. S. et al. Dynamic Heterogeneity and DNA Methylation in Embryonic Stem Cells. Mol Cell. 55(2), 319171 (2014).
18. Wray, J., Kalkan, T. & Smith, A. G. The ground state of pluripotency. Biochem Soc Trans 38, 1027-1032 (2010).
19. Smith, A. G. Nanog Heterogeneity: Tilting at Windmills? Cell Stem Cell 13(1), 6-7 (2013).
20. Mitsui, K. et al. The homeoprotein Nanog is required for maintenance of pluripotency in mouse epiblast and ES cells. Cell 113(5), 631-42 (2003).
21. Silva, J. et al. Nanog Is the Gateway to the Pluripotent Ground State. Cell 138(4), 722-737 (2009).
22. Yuan, H., Corbi, N., Basilico, C. & Dailey, L. Developmental-specific activity of the FGF-4 enhancer requires the synergistic action of Sox2 and Oct-3. Genes Dev. 9, 26351745 (1995).
23. Nichols, J. Formation of pluripotent stem cells in the mammalian embryo depends on the POU transcription factor Oct4. Cell. 95, 379171 (1998).
24. Frum, T. et al. Oct4 cell-autonomously promotes primitive endoderm development in the mouse blastocyst. Dev. Cell 25, 610172 (2013).
25. Tan, M. et al. An Oct4-Sall4-Nanog network controls developmental progression in the pre-implantation mouse embryo. Mol. Syst. Biol. 9, 632 (2013).
26. Radzisheuskaya, A. et al. A defined Oct4 level governs cell state transitions of pluripotency entry and differentiation into all embryonic lineages. Nat Cell Biol. 15(6), 579-90 (2013).
27. 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(5), 531-545 (2013).
28. Kim, J. B. et al. Oct4-induced pluripotency in adult neural stem cells. Cell. 136, 411-419 (2009).
29. Tsai, S. Y. et al. Single transcription factor reprogramming of hair follicle dermal papilla cells to induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cells 29, 964-971 (2011).
30. Wu, T. et al. Reprogramming of trophoblast stem cells into pluripotent stem cells by Oct4. Stem Cells. 29, 755-763 (2011).
31. 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).
32. Li, R. et al. A mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition initiates and is required for the nuclear reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts. Cell Stem Cell. 7, 51-63 (2010).
33. You, J. S. et al. OCT4 establishes and maintains nucleosome-depleted regions that provide additional layers of epigenetic regulation of its target genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 14497-14502 (2011).
34. Loh, Y. H. et al. Jmjd1a and Jmjd2c histone H3 Lys 9 demethylases regulate self-renewal in embryonic stem cells. Genes Dev. 21, 2545-2557 (2007).
35. Radzisheuskaya, A. & Silva, J. Do all roads lead to Oct4? The emerging concepts of induced pluripotency. Trends Cell Biol. 24(5), 275-284 (2014).
36. Tahiliani, M. et al. Conversion of 5-methylcytosine to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in mammalian DNA by MLL partner TET1. Science. 324, 930175 (2009).
37. Williams, K. et al. TET1 and hydroxymethylcytosine in transcription and DNA methylation fidelity. Nature 473(7347), 343-348 (2011).
38. Koh, K. P. et al. Tet1 and Tet2 regulate 5-hydroxymethylcytosine production and cell lineage specification in mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 8(2), 200-13. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2011.01.008 (2011).
39. Sohni, A. et al. Dynamic switching of active promoter and enhancer domains regulates Tet1 and Tet2 expression during cell state transitions between pluripotency and differentiation. Molecular and Cellular Biology 35(6), 1026-1042 (2015).
40. Gao, Y. et al. Replacement of Oct4 by Tet1 during iPSC induction reveals an important role of DNA methylation and hydroxymethylation in reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell. 12, 453-469 (2013).
41. Wu, H. et al. Dual functions of Tet1 in transcriptional regulation in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nature. 473, 389-393 (2011).
42. Costa, Y. et al. NANOG-dependent function of TET1 and TET2 in establishment of pluripotency. Nature. 495, 370-374 (2013).
43. Wu, H. et al. Genome-wide analysis of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine distribution reveals its dual function in transcriptional regulation in mouse embryonic stem cells. Genes Dev. 25, 679174 (2011).
44. Carey, B. W. et al. Reprogramming factor stoichiometry influences the epigenetic state and biological properties of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 9, 588-598 (2011).
45. Papapetrou, E. P. et al. Stoichiometric and temporal requirements of Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc expression for efficient human iPSC induction and differentiation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 12759-12764 (2009).
46. Nagamatsu, G. et al. Optimal ratio of transcription factors for somatic cell reprogramming. J. Biol. Chem. 287, 3627317282 (2012).
47. Carter, A. C., Davis-Dusenbery, B. N., Koszka, K., Ichida, J. K. & Eggan, K. Nanog-independent reprogramming to iPSCs with canonical factors. Stem Cell Reports 2(2), 119176 (2014).
48. Schwarz, B. A., Bar-Nur, O., Silva, J. C. & Hochedlinger, K. Nanog is Dispensable for the Generation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Current Biology:CB 24(3), 347170 (2014).
49. Smith, A. et al. Inhibition of pluripotential embryonic stem cell differentiation by purified polypeptides. Nature 336, 688-690 (1988).
50. Smith, A. G. Embryo-derived stem cells: of mice and men. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 17, 435-462 (2001).
51. Duval, D., Malais17, M., Reinhardt, B., Kedinger, C. & Boeuf, H. A p38 inhibitor allows to dissociate differentiation and apoptotic processes triggered upon LIF withdrawal in mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Death Differ. 11(3), 331-41(2004).
52. Ying, Q.-L. et al. BMP Induction of Id Proteins Suppresses Differentiation and Sustains Embryonic Stem Cell Self-Renewal in Collaboration with STAT3. Cell. 115, 281-292 (2011).
53. Jeltsch, A.& Jurkowska, R. Z. New concepts in DNA methylation. Trends in biochemical sciences. 39(7), 310-318 (2014).
54. Deaton, A. M. & Bird, A. CpG islands and the regulation of transcription. Genes & development 25(10), 1010-1022 (2011).
55. Williams, K., Christensen, J. & Helin, K. DNA methylation: TET proteins - guardians of CpG islands? EMBO reports 13(1), 28-35 (2011).
56. Yamazaki, Y. et al. Gradual DNA demethylation of the Oct4 promoter in cloned mouse embryos. Molecular reproduction and development 73, 180-188 (2006).
57. Dodd, I. B., Micheelsen, M. A., Sneppen, K. & Thon, G. Theoretical analysis of epigenetic cell memory by nucleosome modification. Cell 129(4), 813-822 (2007).
58. Haerter, J. et al. Collaboration between CpG sites is needed for stable somatic inheritance of DNA methylation states. Nucleic acids research doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt1235 (2013).
59. Alsing, A. K. & Sneppen, K. Differentiation of developing olfactory neurons analysed in terms of coupled epigenetic landscapes. Nucleic acids research 41(9), 4755-4764 (2013).
60. Wu, H. & Zhang, Y. Reversing DNA methylation: mechanisms, genomics, and biological functions. Cell 156(1), 45-68 (2014).
61. Sun, M. et al. HMGA2/TET1/HOXA9 signaling pathway regulates breast cancer growth and metastasis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(24), 9920-9925 (2013).
62. Hanna, J. et al. Direct cell reprogramming is a stochastic process amenable to acceleration. Nature 462(7273), 595-601 (2009).
63. Lovkvist C. et al. DNA methylation in human epigenomes depends on local topology of CpG sites. Nucleic Acids Res. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw124 (2016).
64. Goutelle, S. et al. The Hill equation: a review of its capabilities in pharmacological modelling. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 22(6), 633-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2008.00633 (2008).
65. Chu, M., Zabet, N. R. & Mitavskiy, B. Models of transcription factor binding: Sensitivity of activation functions to model assumptions. Journal of Theoretical Biology 257(3), 419-429 (2009).
66. Dawlaty, M. M. et al. Tet1 is dispensable for maintaining pluripotency and its loss is compatible with embryonic and postnatal development. Cell Stem Cell 9, 166-175 (2011).
67. Gillespie, D. A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions. Journal of computational physics 22(4), 403-434 (1976).