4.7 Article

Reprogramming to pluripotency does not require transition through a primitive streak-like state

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-15187-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [KL 2544/1-1, KL 2544/1-2, AR 732/1-1, AR 732/3-1, SFB 850]
  2. German Cancer Aid [111879]
  3. Forschungskern SyStaR
  4. NDIMED-Verbund PancChip
  5. BIU (Bohringer Ingelheim)
  6. Else-Kroner-Fresenius-Stiftung [2011_A200]
  7. Fritz-Thyssen Foundation [2015-00363]
  8. BIOSS Centre of Biological Signalling Studies
  9. University of Pennsylvania Orphan Disease Center
  10. Faculty of Medicine Tubingen [2248-0-0]
  11. Baden-Wurttemberg Stiftung

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pluripotency can be induced in vitro from adult somatic mammalian cells by enforced expression of defined transcription factors regulating and initiating the pluripotency network. Despite the substantial advances over the last decade to improve the efficiency of direct reprogramming, exact mechanisms underlying the conversion into the pluripotent stem cell state are still vaguely understood. Several studies suggested that induced pluripotency follows reversed embryonic development. For somatic cells of mesodermal and endodermal origin that would require the transition through a Primitive streak-like state, which would necessarily require an Eomesodermin (Eomes) expressing intermediate. We analyzed reprogramming in human and mouse cells of mesodermal as well as ectodermal origin by thorough marker gene analyses in combination with genetic reporters, conditional loss of function and stable fate-labeling for the broad primitive streak marker Eomes. We unambiguously demonstrate that induced pluripotency is not dependent on a transient primitive streak-like stage and thus does not represent reversal of mesendodermal development in vivo.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available