Concise Review: Assessing the Genome Integrity of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: What Quality Control Metrics?

Stem Cells

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 2018, Pages 814-821

  Assou, Said ^a   Bouckenheimer, Julien ^a   De Vos, John ^a,b  

^a INSERM   (France)

^b HÔPITAL SAINT ELOI   (France)

Author keywords

Genetic abnormalities; Induced pluripotent stem cells; Pluripotency; Quality control; Recurrent abnormalities

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; CRISPR-CAS9 SYSTEM; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOME; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; IN VITRO STUDY; INDUCED PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; KARYOTYPING; NUCLEAR REPROGRAMMING; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; QUALITY CONTROL; WHOLE EXOME SEQUENCING; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; GENOMICS; METABOLISM; PROCEDURES;

CELL DIFFERENTIATION; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INDUCED PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 85048024801     PISSN: 10665099     EISSN: 15494918     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/stem.2797     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Shi Y, Inoue H, Wu JC et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell technology: A decade of progress. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2017;16:115–130.
2. De Vos J, Sansac C, Lemaître JM et al. Human induced pluripotent stem cells: A disruptive innovation. Curr Res Transl Med 2016;64:91–96.
3. Thomson JA, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro SS et al. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 1998;282:1145–1147.
4. Draper JS, Smith K, Gokhale P et al. Recurrent gain of chromosomes 17q and 12 in cultured human embryonic stem cells. Nat Biotechnol 2004;22:53–54.
5. Buzzard JJ, Gough NM, Crook JM et al. Karyotype of human ES cells during extended culture. Nat Biotechnol 2004;22:381–382.
6. Lefort N, Feyeux M, Bas C et al. Human embryonic stem cells reveal recurrent genomic instability at 20q11.21. Nat Biotechnol 2008;26:1364–1366.
7. Laurent LC, Ulitsky I, Slavin I et al. Dynamic changes in the copy number of pluripotency and cell proliferation genes in human ESCs and iPSCs during reprogramming and time in culture. Cell Stem Cell 2011;8:106–118.
8. Andrews PW. The selfish stem cell. Nat Biotechnol 2006;24:325–326.
9. Bai Q, Desprat R, Klein B et al. Embryonic stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells? A DNA integrity perspective. Curr Gene Ther 2013;13:93–98.
10. Avery S, Hirst AJ, Baker D et al. BCL-XL mediates the strong selective advantage of a 20q11.21 amplification commonly found in human embryonic stem cell cultures. Stem Cell Reports 2013;1:379–386.
11. Ben-David U, Benvenisty N, Mayshar Y. Genetic instability in human induced pluripotent stem cells: Classification of causes and possible safeguards. Cell Cycle 2010;9:4603–4604.
12. Lefort N, Perrier AL, Laâbi Y et al. Human embryonic stem cells and genomic instability. Regen Med 2009;4:899–909.
13. Qi S, Fang Z, Wang D et al. Concise review: Induced pluripotency by defined factors: Prey of oxidative stress. Stem Cells 2015;33:1371–1376.
14. Initiative ISC, Amps KJ, Andrews PW et al. Screening ethnically diverse human embryonic stem cells identifies a chromosome 20 minimal amplicon conferring growth advantage. Nat Biotechnol 2011;29:1132–1144.
15. Martins-Taylor K, Xu RH. Concise review: Genomic stability of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cells 2012;30:22–27.
16. Oliveira PH, da Silva CL, Cabral JM. Concise review: Genomic instability in human stem cells: Current status and future challenges. Stem Cells 2014;32:2824–2832.
17. Merkle FT, Ghosh S, Kamitaki N et al. Human pluripotent stem cells recurrently acquire and expand dominant negative P53 mutations. Nature 2017;545:229–233.
18. Redon R, Ishikawa S, Fitch KR et al. Global variation in copy number in the human genome. Nature 2006;444:444–454.
19. Andrews PW, Matin MM, Bahrami AR et al. Embryonic stem (ES) cells and embryonal carcinoma (EC) cells: Opposite sides of the same coin. Biochem Soc Trans 2005;33:1526–1530.
20. Watanabe K, Ueno M, Kamiya D et al. A ROCK inhibitor permits survival of dissociated human embryonic stem cells. Nat Biotechnol 2007;25:681–686.
21. Jacobs K, Zambelli F, Mertzanidou A et al. Higher-density culture in human embryonic stem cells results in DNA damage and genome instability. Stem Cell Reports 2016;6:330–341.
22. Bai Q, Ramirez JM, Becker F et al. Temporal analysis of genome alterations induced by single-cell passaging in human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells Dev 2015;24:653–662.
23. Gokhale PJ, Au-Young JK, Dadi S et al. Culture adaptation alters transcriptional hierarchies among single human embryonic stem cells reflecting altered patterns of differentiation. PLoS One 2015;10:e0123467.
24. Desbordes SC, Studer L. Adapting human pluripotent stem cells to high-throughput and high-content screening. Nat Protoc 2013;8:111–130.
25. Wong AP, Chin S, Xia S et al. Efficient generation of functional CFTR-expressing airway epithelial cells from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Protoc 2015;10:363–381.
26. Taapken SM, Nisler BS, Newton MA et al. Karotypic abnormalities in human induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Nat Biotechnol 2011;29:313–314.
27. Martins-Taylor K, Nisler BS, Taapken SM et al. Recurrent copy number variations in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol 2011;29:488–491.
28. Hussein SMI, Batada NN, Vuoristo S et al. Copy number variation and selection during reprogramming to pluripotency. Nature 2011;471:58–62.
29. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 2006;126:663–676.
30. Maherali N, Sridharan R, Xie W et al. Directly reprogrammed fibroblasts show global epigenetic remodeling and widespread tissue contribution. Cell Stem Cell 2007;1:55–70.
31. Okita K, Ichisaka T, Yamanaka S. Generation of germline-competent induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2007;448:313–317.
32. Wernig M, Meissner A, Foreman R et al. In vitro reprogramming of fibroblasts into a pluripotent ES-cell-like state. Nature 2007;448:318–324.
33. Yu J, Vodyanik MA, Smuga-Otto K et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science 2007;318:1917–1920.
34. Aoi T, Yae K, Nakagawa M et al. Generation of pluripotent stem cells from adult mouse liver and stomach cells. Science 2008;321:699–702.
35. Papapetrou EP, Tomishima MJ, Chambers SM 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 2009;106:12759–12764.
36. Ban H, Nishishita N, Fusaki N et al. Efficient generation of transgene-free human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) by temperature-sensitive Sendai virus vectors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108:14234–14239.
37. Warren L, Manos PD, Ahfeldt T et al. Highly efficient reprogramming to pluripotency and directed differentiation of human cells with synthetic modified mRNA. Cell Stem Cell 2010;7:618–630.
38. Mandai M, Watanabe A, Kurimoto Y et al. Autologous induced stem-cell-derived retinal cells for macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1038–1046.
39. Ruiz S, Lopez-Contreras AJ, Gabut M et al. Limiting replication stress during somatic cell reprogramming reduces genomic instability in induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat Commun 2015;6:8036.
40. Lamm N, Ben-David U, Golan-Lev T et al. Genomic instability in human pluripotent stem cells arises from replicative stress and chromosome condensation defects. Cell Stem Cell 2016;18:253–261.
41. Lecona E, Fernández-Capetillo O. Replication stress and cancer: It takes two to tango. Exp Cell Res 2014;329:26–34.
42. Bhutani K, Nazor KL, Williams R et al. Whole-genome mutational burden analysis of three pluripotency induction methods. Nature Communications 2016;7:10536.
43. Abyzov A, Mariani J, Palejev D et al. Somatic copy number mosaicism in human skin revealed by induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2012;492:438–442.
44. Hockemeyer D, Jaenisch R. Induced pluripotent stem cells meet genome editing. Cell Stem Cell 2016;18:573–586.
45. Fu Y, Foden JA, Khayter C et al. High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases in human cells. Nat Biotechnol 2013;31:822–826.
46. Hsu PD, Scott DA, Weinstein JA et al. DNA targeting specificity of RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases. Nat Biotechnol 2013;31:827–832.
47. Zhang XH, Tee LY, Wang XG et al. Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome engineering. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids 2015;4:e264.
48. Yang L, Grishin D, Wang G et al. Targeted and genome-wide sequencing reveal single nucleotide variations impacting specificity of Cas9 in human stem cells. Nat Commun 2014;5:5507.
49. Cho SW, Kim S, Kim Y et al. Analysis of off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas-derived RNA-guided endonucleases and nickases. Genome Res 2014;24:132–141.
50. Kleinstiver BP, Pattanayak V, Prew MS et al. High-fidelity CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature 2016;529:490–495.
51. Ran FA, Hsu PD, Lin C-Y et al. Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell 2013;154:1380–1389.
52. Slaymaker IM, Gao L, Zetsche B et al. Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science 2016;351:84–88.
53. Wang DG, Fan JB, Siao CJ et al. Large-scale identification, mapping, and genotyping of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the human genome. Science 1998;280:1077–1082.
54. International SCBI. Consensus guidance for banking and supply of human embryonic stem cell lines for research purposes. Stem Cell Rev 2009;5:301–314.
55. Stranger BE, Forrest MS, Dunning M et al. Relative impact of nucleotide and copy number variation on gene expression phenotypes. Science 2007;315:848–853.
56. MacArthur DG, Manolio TA, Dimmock DP et al. Guidelines for investigating causality of sequence variants in human disease. Nature 2014;508:469–476.
57. Conrad DF, Pinto D, Redon R et al. Origins and functional impact of copy number variation in the human genome. Nature 2010;464:704–712.
58. Yaffe MP, Noggle SA, Solomon SL. Raising the standards of stem cell line quality. Nat Cell Biol 2016;18:236–237.
59. Yamanaka S. A fresh look at iPS cells. Cell 2009;137:13–17.
60. Mak AC, Lai YY, Lam ET et al. Genome-wide structural variation detection by genome mapping on nanochannel arrays. Genetics 2016;202:351–362.
61. Baker D, Hirst AJ, Gokhale PJ et al. Detecting genetic mosaicism in cultures of human pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Reports 2016;7:998–1012.
62. Gore A, Li Z, Fung H-L et al. Somatic coding mutations in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2011;471:63–67.
63. Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 2007;131:861–872.
64. Maherali N, Ahfeldt T, Rigamonti A et al. A high-efficiency system for the generation and study of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2008;3:340–345.
65. Park IH, Arora N, Huo H et al. Disease-specific induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell 2008;134:877–886.
66. Lapasset L, Milhavet O, Prieur A et al. Rejuvenating senescent and centenarian human cells by reprogramming through the pluripotent state. Genes Dev 2011;25:2248–2253.
67. Raya A, Rodríguez-Pizà I, Guenechea G et al. Disease-corrected haematopoietic progenitors from Fanconi anaemia induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2009;460:53–9
68. Garitaonandia I, Amir H, Boscolo FS et al. Increased risk of genetic and epigenetic instability in human embryonic stem cells associated with specific culture conditions. PLoS One 2015;10:e0118307.
69. Stacey GN, Coecke S, Price AB et al. Ensuring the quality of stem cell-derived in vitro models for toxicity testing. Adv Exp Med Biol 2016;856:259–297.
70. International SCBI. Consensus guidance for banking and supply of human embryonic stem cell lines for research purposes. Stem Cell Rev 2009;5:301–314.
71. Pistollato F, Bremer-Hoffmann S, Healy L et al. Standardization of pluripotent stem cell cultures for toxicity testing. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2012;8:239–257.
72. Blasco MA, Serrano M, Fernandez-Capetillo O. Genomic instability in iPS: Time for a break. EMBO J 2011;30:991–993.