Computational Tools for Stem Cell Biology

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 34, Issue 12, 2016, Pages 993-1009

  Bian, Qin ^a   Cahan, Patrick ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

cell fate engineering; computational biology; network biology; single cell transcriptomics; stem cell biology

Indexed keywords

BIOINFORMATICS; BIOLOGY; CELLS; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; CYTOLOGY; STEM CELLS; THROUGHPUT;

CELL FATES; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; NETWORK BIOLOGY; STEM CELL BIOLOGY; TRANSCRIPTOMICS;

CELL ENGINEERING;

CELL ENGINEERING; CELL FATE; CELL LINEAGE; CELL POPULATION; CELL STRUCTURE; CYTOLOGY; DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY; EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; GENE REGULATORY NETWORK; GENOMICS; HUMAN; INDUCED PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SINGLE CELL ANALYSIS; STEM CELL; TRANSCRIPTOMICS; ANIMAL; BIOLOGY; CELL CULTURE; MOUSE; PROCEDURES; STEM CELL RESEARCH; TRENDS;

ANIMALS; CELL BIOLOGY; CELLS, CULTURED; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; HUMANS; MICE; STEM CELL RESEARCH; STEM CELLS;

EID: 85002651279     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: 18793096     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.05.010     Document Type: Review

References (99)

1. 1 Turing, A.M., The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 237 (1952), 37–72.
2. 2 Lander, A.D., Morpheus unbound: reimagining the morphogen gradient. Cell 128 (2007), 245–256.
3. 3 Till, J.E., et al. A stochastic model of stem cell proliferation, based on the growth of spleen colony-forming cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 51 (1964), 29–36.
4. 4 Lander, E.S., et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409 (2001), 860–921.
5. 5 Waterston, R.H., et al. Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature 420 (2002), 520–562.
6. 6 Boyer, L.A., et al. Core transcriptional regulatory circuitry in human embryonic stem cells. Cell 122 (2005), 947–956.
7. 7 Loh, Y.H., et al. The Oct4 and Nanog transcription network regulates pluripotency in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat. Genet. 38 (2006), 431–440.
8. 8 Thurman, R.E., et al. The accessible chromatin landscape of the human genome. Nature 489 (2012), 75–82.
9. 9 Ingolia, N.T., et al. Ribosome profiling of mouse embryonic stem cells reveals the complexity and dynamics of mammalian proteomes. Cell 147 (2011), 789–802.
10. 10 Wang, L., et al. The THO complex regulates pluripotency gene mRNA export and controls embryonic stem cell self-renewal and somatic cell reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 13 (2013), 676–690.
11. 11 Cho, J., et al. LIN28A is a suppressor of ER-associated translation in embryonic stem cells. Cell 151 (2012), 765–777.
12. 6A RNA modification controls cell fate transition in mammalian embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 15 (2014), 707–719.
13. 6A mRNA methylation and gene transcription by ZFP217 regulates pluripotency and reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 17 (2015), 689–704.
14. 14 Takahashi, K., Yamanaka, S., Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126 (2006), 663–676.
15. 15 Takahashi, K., et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 131 (2007), 861–872.
16. 16 Irizarry, R.A., et al. Comprehensive high-throughput arrays for relative methylation (CHARM). Genome Res. 18 (2008), 780–790.
17. 17 Kim, K., et al. Epigenetic memory in induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 467 (2010), 285–290.
18. 18 Kim, K., et al. Donor cell type can influence the epigenome and differentiation potential of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 29 (2011), 1117–1119.
19. 19 Polo, J.M., et al. Cell type of origin influences the molecular and functional properties of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 28 (2010), 848–855.
20. 20 Mikkelsen, T.S., et al. Dissecting direct reprogramming through integrative genomic analysis. Nature 454 (2008), 49–55.
21. 21 Qian, L., et al. Reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts into cardiomyocyte-like cells in vitro. Nat. Protoc. 8 (2013), 1204–1215.
22. 22 Davidson, E.H., Erwin, D.H., Gene regulatory networks and the evolution of animal body plans. Science 311 (2006), 796–800.
23. 23 Osafune, K., et al. Marked differences in differentiation propensity among human embryonic stem cell lines. Nat. Biotechnol. 26 (2008), 313–315.
24. 24 Cahan, P., Daley, G.Q., Origins and implications of pluripotent stem cell variability and heterogeneity. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14 (2013), 357–368.
25. 25 Bock, C., et al. Reference maps of human ES and iPS cell variation enable high-throughput characterization of pluripotent cell lines. Cell 144 (2011), 439–452.
26. 26 Tsankov, A.M., et al. A qPCR ScoreCard quantifies the differentiation potential of human pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 33 (2015), 1182–1192.
27. 27 Muller, F.J., et al. A bioinformatic assay for pluripotency in human cells. Nat. Methods 8 (2011), 315–317.
28. 28 Slamecka, J., et al. Non-integrating episomal plasmid-based reprogramming of human amniotic fluid stem cells into induced pluripotent stem cells in chemically defined conditions. Cell Cycle 15 (2016), 234–249.
29. 29 Avior, Y., et al. TeratoScore: assessing the differentiation potential of human pluripotent stem cells by quantitative expression analysis of teratomas. Stem Cell Rep. 4 (2015), 967–974.
30. 30 Roost, M.S., et al. KeyGenes, a tool to probe tissue differentiation using a human fetal transcriptional atlas. Stem Cell Rep. 4 (2015), 1112–1124.
31. 31 Cahan, P., et al. CellNet: network biology applied to stem cell engineering. Cell 158 (2014), 903–915.
32. 32 Morris, S.A., et al. Dissecting engineered cell types and enhancing cell fate conversion via CellNet. Cell 158 (2014), 889–902.
33. 33 Heinaniemi, M., et al. Gene-pair expression signatures reveal lineage control. Nat. Methods 10 (2013), 577–583.
34. 34 Zhang, P., et al. Negative cross-talk between hematopoietic regulators: GATA proteins repress PU.1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96 (1999), 8705–8710.
35. 35 D'Alessio, A.C., et al. A systematic approach to identify candidate transcription factors that control cell identity. Stem Cell Rep. 5 (2015), 763–775.
36. 36 Rackham, O.J., et al. A predictive computational framework for direct reprogramming between human cell types. Nat. Genet. 48 (2016), 331–335.
37. 37 Lang, A.H., et al. Epigenetic landscapes explain partially reprogrammed cells and identify key reprogramming genes. PLoS Comput. Biol., 10, 2014, e1003734.
38. 38 Crespo, I., Del Sol, A., A general strategy for cellular reprogramming: the importance of transcription factor cross-repression. Stem Cells 31 (2013), 2127–2135.
39. 39 Davis, F.P., Eddy, S.R., Transcription factors that convert adult cell identity are differentially polycomb repressed. PLoS ONE, 8, 2013, e63407.
40. 40 Patel, A.P., et al. Single-cell RNA-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma. Science 344 (2014), 1396–1401.
41. 41 Treutlein, B., et al. Reconstructing lineage hierarchies of the distal lung epithelium using single-cell RNA-seq. Nature 509 (2014), 371–375.
42. 42 Macaulay, I.C., Voet, T., Single cell genomics: advances and future perspectives. PLoS Genet., 10, 2014, e1004126.
43. 43 Etzrodt, M., et al. Quantitative single-cell approaches to stem cell research. Cell Stem Cell 15 (2014), 546–558.
44. 44 Chambers, I., et al. Functional expression cloning of Nanog, a pluripotency sustaining factor in embryonic stem cells. Cell 113 (2003), 643–655.
45. 45 MacArthur, B.D., Lemischka, I.R., Statistical mechanics of pluripotency. Cell 154 (2013), 484–489.
46. 46 Graf, T., Stadtfeld, M., Heterogeneity of embryonic and adult stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 3 (2008), 480–483.
47. 47 MacArthur, B.D., et al. Nanog-dependent feedback loops regulate murine embryonic stem cell heterogeneity. Nat. Cell Biol. 14 (2012), 1139–1147.
48. 48 Kumar, R.M., et al. Deconstructing transcriptional heterogeneity in pluripotent stem cells. Nature 516 (2014), 56–61.
49. 49 van Wolfswinkel, J.C., et al. Single-cell analysis reveals functionally distinct classes within the planarian stem cell compartment. Cell Stem Cell 15 (2014), 326–339.
50. 50 Kolodziejczyk, A.A., et al. Single cell RNA-sequencing of pluripotent states unlocks modular transcriptional variation. Cell Stem Cell 17 (2015), 471–485.
51. 51 Grun, D., et al. Single-cell messenger RNA sequencing reveals rare intestinal cell types. Nature 525 (2015), 251–255.
52. 52 Moignard, V., et al. Characterization of transcriptional networks in blood stem and progenitor cells using high-throughput single-cell gene expression analysis. Nat. Cell Biol. 15 (2013), 363–372.
53. 53 Klein, A.M., et al. Droplet barcoding for single-cell transcriptomics applied to embryonic stem cells. Cell 161 (2015), 1187–1201.
54. 54 Guo, G., et al. Mapping cellular hierarchy by single-cell analysis of the cell surface repertoire. Cell Stem Cell 13 (2013), 492–505.
55. 55 Bendall, S.C., et al. Single-cell trajectory detection uncovers progression and regulatory coordination in human B cell development. Cell 157 (2014), 714–725.
56. 56 Trapnell, C., et al. The dynamics and regulators of cell fate decisions are revealed by pseudotemporal ordering of single cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 32 (2014), 381–386.
57. 57 Shin, J., et al. Single-cell RNA-Seq with waterfall reveals molecular cascades underlying adult neurogenesis. Cell Stem Cell 17 (2015), 360–372.
58. 58 Lee, J.H., et al. Highly multiplexed subcellular RNA sequencing in situ. Science 343 (2014), 1360–1363.
59. 59 Lee, J.H., et al. Fluorescent in situ sequencing (FISSEQ) of RNA for gene expression profiling in intact cells and tissues. Nat. Protoc. 10 (2015), 442–458.
60. 60 Lovatt, D., et al. Transcriptome in vivo analysis (TIVA) of spatially defined single cells in live tissue. Nat. Methods 11 (2014), 190–196.
61. 61 Macosko, E.Z., et al. Highly parallel genome-wide expression profiling of individual cells using nanoliter droplets. Cell 161 (2015), 1202–1214.
62. 62 Pollen, A.A., et al. Low-coverage single-cell mRNA sequencing reveals cellular heterogeneity and activated signaling pathways in developing cerebral cortex. Nat. Biotechnol. 32 (2014), 1053–1058.
63. 63 Johnson, D.S., et al. Genome-wide mapping of in vivo protein–DNA interactions. Science 316 (2007), 1497–1502.
64. 64 Wilinski, D., et al. RNA regulatory networks diversified through curvature of the PUF protein scaffold. Nat. Commun., 6, 2015, 8213.
65. 65 Leung, A.K., et al. Genome-wide identification of Ago2 binding sites from mouse embryonic stem cells with and without mature microRNAs. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18 (2011), 237–244.
66. 66 Guttman, M., et al. Chromatin signature reveals over a thousand highly conserved large non-coding RNAs in mammals. Nature 458 (2009), 223–227.
67. 67 Meyer, K.D., et al. Comprehensive analysis of mRNA methylation reveals enrichment in 3′ UTRs and near stop codons. Cell 149 (2012), 1635–1646.
68. 68 Dominissini, D., et al. Topology of the human and mouse m6A RNA methylomes revealed by m6A-seq. Nature 485 (2012), 201–206.
69. 69 Lee, R.C., et al. The C. elegans heterochronic gene lin-4 encodes small RNAs with antisense complementarity to lin-14. Cell 75 (1993), 843–854.
70. 70 Wightman, B., et al. Posttranscriptional regulation of the heterochronic gene lin-14 by lin-4 mediates temporal pattern formation in C. elegans. Cell 75 (1993), 855–862.
71. 71 Ingolia, N.T., et al. Genome-wide analysis in vivo of translation with nucleotide resolution using ribosome profiling. Science 324 (2009), 218–223.
72. 72 Josephson, R., et al. A molecular scheme for improved characterization of human embryonic stem cell lines. BMC Biol., 4, 2006, 28.
73. 73 Abyzov, A., et al. Somatic copy number mosaicism in human skin revealed by induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 492 (2012), 438–442.
74. 74 Bhattacharya, B., et al. Gene expression in human embryonic stem cell lines: unique molecular signature. Blood 103 (2004), 2956–2964.
75. 75 Laurent, L.C., et al. Comprehensive microRNA profiling reveals a unique human embryonic stem cell signature dominated by a single seed sequence. Stem Cells 26 (2008), 1506–1516.
76. 76 Guttman, M., et al. lincRNAs act in the circuitry controlling pluripotency and differentiation. Nature 477 (2011), 295–300.
77. 77 Gore, A., et al. Somatic coding mutations in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 471 (2011), 63–67.
78. 78 Quinlan, A.R., et al. Genome sequencing of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells reveals retroelement stability and infrequent DNA rearrangement during reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 9 (2011), 366–373.
79. 79 Wilhelm, B.T., et al. RNA-seq analysis of 2 closely related leukemia clones that differ in their self-renewal capacity. Blood 117 (2011), e27–e38.
80. 80 Gifford, C.A., et al. Transcriptional and epigenetic dynamics during specification of human embryonic stem cells. Cell 153 (2013), 1149–1163.
81. 81 Clancy, J.L., et al. Small RNA changes en route to distinct cellular states of induced pluripotency. Nat. Commun., 5, 2014, 5522.
82. 82 Mikkelsen, T.S., et al. Genome-wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage-committed cells. Nature 448 (2007), 553–560.
83. 83 Klauke, K., et al. Polycomb Cbx family members mediate the balance between haematopoietic stem cell self-renewal and differentiation. Nat. Cell Biol. 15 (2013), 353–362.
84. 84 Mathur, D., et al. Analysis of the mouse embryonic stem cell regulatory networks obtained by ChIP-chip and ChIP-PET. Genome Biol., 9, 2008, R126.
85. 85 Kwon, S.C., et al. The RNA-binding protein repertoire of embryonic stem cells. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20 (2013), 1122–1130.
86. 86 Balakrishnan, I., et al. Genome-wide analysis of miRNA–mRNA interactions in marrow stromal cells. Stem Cells 32 (2014), 662–673.
87. 87 Van Wynsberghe, P.M., et al. LIN-28 co-transcriptionally binds primary let-7 to regulate miRNA maturation in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18 (2011), 302–308.
88. 88 Lienert, F., et al. Genomic prevalence of heterochromatic H3K9me2 and transcription do not discriminate pluripotent from terminally differentiated cells. PLoS Genet., 7, 2011, e1002090.
89. 89 Lister, R., et al. Hotspots of aberrant epigenomic reprogramming in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 471 (2011), 68–73.
90. 90 Baharvand, H., et al. Proteomic signature of human embryonic stem cells. Proteomics 6 (2006), 3544–3549.
91. 91 Kratchmarova, I., et al. Mechanism of divergent growth factor effects in mesenchymal stem cell differentiation. Science 308 (2005), 1472–1477.
92. 92 Grow, E.J., et al. Intrinsic retroviral reactivation in human preimplantation embryos and pluripotent cells. Nature 522 (2015), 221–225.
93. 93 Zheng, Y., et al. Generation and characterization of yeast two-hybrid cDNA libraries derived from two distinct mouse pluripotent cell types. Mol. Biotechnol. 54 (2013), 228–237.
94. 94 Vierstra, J., et al. Mouse regulatory DNA landscapes reveal global principles of cis-regulatory evolution. Science 346 (2014), 1007–1012.
95. 95 Subramanian, A., et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (2005), 15545–15550.
96. 96 John, S., et al. Chromatin accessibility pre-determines glucocorticoid receptor binding patterns. Nat. Genet. 43 (2011), 264–268.
97. 97 Boyle, A.P., et al. F-Seq: a feature density estimator for high-throughput sequence tags. Bioinformatics 24 (2008), 2537–2538.
98. 98 Feng, J., et al. Identifying ChIP-seq enrichment using MACS. Nat. Protoc. 7 (2012), 1728–1740.
99. 99 Kumar, V., et al. Uniform, optimal signal processing of mapped deep-sequencing data. Nat. Biotechnol. 31 (2013), 615–622.