11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Aberrant DNA methylation reprogramming during induced pluripotent stem cell generation is dependent on the choice of reprogramming factors

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The conversion of somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells via overexpression of reprogramming factors involves epigenetic remodeling. DNA methylation at a significant proportion of CpG sites in induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) differs from that of embryonic stem cells (ESCs). Whether different sets of reprogramming factors influence the type and extent of aberrant DNA methylation in iPSCs differently remains unknown. In order to help resolve this critical question, we generated human iPSCs from a common fibroblast cell source using either the Yamanaka factors (OCT4, SOX2, KLF4 and cMYC) or the Thomson factors (OCT4, SOX2, NANOG and LIN28), and determined their genome-wide DNA methylation profiles. In addition to shared DNA methylation aberrations present in all our iPSCs, we identified Yamanaka-iPSC (Y-iPSC)-specific and Thomson-iPSC (T-iPSC)-specific recurrent aberrations. Strikingly, not only were the genomic locations of the aberrations different but also their types: reprogramming with Yamanaka factors mainly resulted in failure to demethylate CpGs, whereas reprogramming with Thomson factors mainly resulted in failure to methylate CpGs. Differences in the level of transcripts encoding DNMT3b and TET3 between Y-iPSCs and T-iPSCs may contribute partially to the distinct types of aberrations. Finally , de novo aberrantly methylated genes in Y-iPSCs were enriched for NANOG targets that are also aberrantly methylated in some cancers. Our study thus reveals that the choice of reprogramming factors influences the amount, location, and class of DNA methylation aberrations in iPSCs. These findings may provide clues into how to produce human iPSCs with fewer DNA methylation abnormalities.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2045-9769-3-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Naive and primed pluripotent states.

          After maternal predetermination gives way to zygotic regulation, a ground state is established within the mammalian embryo. This tabula rasa for embryogenesis is present only transiently in the preimplantation epiblast. Here, we consider how unrestricted cells are first generated and then prepared for lineage commitment. We propose that two phases of pluripotency can be defined: naive and primed. This distinction extends to pluripotent stem cells derived from embryos or by molecular reprogramming ex vivo.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dissecting direct reprogramming through integrative genomic analysis.

            Somatic cells can be reprogrammed to a pluripotent state through the ectopic expression of defined transcription factors. Understanding the mechanism and kinetics of this transformation may shed light on the nature of developmental potency and suggest strategies with improved efficiency or safety. Here we report an integrative genomic analysis of reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts and B lymphocytes. Lineage-committed cells show a complex response to the ectopic expression involving induction of genes downstream of individual reprogramming factors. Fully reprogrammed cells show gene expression and epigenetic states that are highly similar to embryonic stem cells. In contrast, stable partially reprogrammed cell lines show reactivation of a distinctive subset of stem-cell-related genes, incomplete repression of lineage-specifying transcription factors, and DNA hypermethylation at pluripotency-related loci. These observations suggest that some cells may become trapped in partially reprogrammed states owing to incomplete repression of transcription factors, and that DNA de-methylation is an inefficient step in the transition to pluripotency. We demonstrate that RNA inhibition of transcription factors can facilitate reprogramming, and that treatment with DNA methyltransferase inhibitors can improve the overall efficiency of the reprogramming process.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Genome-wide mapping of DNA methylation: a quantitative technology comparison

              DNA methylation is a key component of mammalian gene regulation and the most classical example of an epigenetic mark. DNA methylation patterns are mitotically heritable and stable over time, but they undergo considerable changes in response to cell differentiation, diseases and environmental influences. Several methods have been developed for DNA methylation profiling on a genomic scale. Here, we benchmark four of these methods on two sample pairs, comparing their accuracy and power to detect DNA methylation differences. The results show that all evaluated methods (MeDIP-seq: methylated DNA immunoprecipitation, MethylCap-seq: methylated DNA capture by affinity purification, RRBS: reduced representation bisulfite sequencing, and the Infinium HumanMethylation27 assay) produce accurate DNA methylation data. However, these methods differ in their ability to detect differentially methylated regions between pairs of samples. We highlight strengths and weaknesses of the four methods and give practical recommendations for the design of epigenomic case-control studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                alinep_fisio@yahoo.com.br
                junfeng.ji@gmail.com
                viveksharma_bt@yahoo.com
                rajitz@gmail.com
                faridah.mbabaali@oicr.on.ca
                fmueller@mpi-inf.mpg.de
                javier.alfaro.4@gmail.com
                cbock@cemm.at
                ddecarv@uhnresearch.ca
                nizar.batada@oicr.on.ca
                Journal
                Cell Regen (Lond)
                Cell Regen (Lond)
                Cell Regeneration
                BioMed Central (London )
                2045-9769
                7 February 2014
                7 February 2014
                2014
                : 3
                : 1
                : 4
                Affiliations
                [ ]Campbell Family Cancer Research Institute, Ontario Cancer Institute, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2 M9 Canada
                [ ]Department of Morphology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP Brazil
                [ ]Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario M4G 0A3 Canada
                [ ]Center of Stem Cell and Developmental Biology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province 310058 China
                [ ]National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
                [ ]Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 2 M9 Canada
                [ ]Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Campus E1.4, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
                [ ]CeMM Research Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Lazarettgasse 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria
                [ ]Department of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria
                Article
                19
                10.1186/2045-9769-3-4
                4230737
                25408883
                542ca460-beb0-4706-89f3-43b8ce7808be
                © Planello et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

                This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 12 December 2013
                : 30 January 2014
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd 2014

                Comments

                Comment on this article