Physical Cues Push Mature Cells into Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells


Bioengineers from the laboratory of Song Li at UC Berkeley have used physical cues to help push mature cells to de-differentiate into embryonic-like cells known as induced pluripotent stem cells.

Essentially, Li and his coworkers grew skin fibroblasts from human skin and mouse ears on surfaces with parallel grooves 10 micrometers apart and 3 micrometers high, in a special culture medium. This procedure increased the efficiency of reprogramming of these mature cells four-fold when compared to cells grown on a flat surface. Growing cells in scaffolds of nanofilbers aligned in parallel had similar effects.

Li’s study could significantly advance the protocols for making induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Normally iPSCs are made by genetically engineering adult cells so that they overexpress four different genes: Oct-4, Sox-2, Klf-4, and c-Myc. To put these genes into the cells, genetically modified viruses are used, or plasmids (small circles of DNA). Initially, Shinya Yamanaka, the scientist who invented iPSCs, and his co-workers used retroviruses that contained these four genes. When fibroblasts were infected with these souped-up retroviruses, the viruses inserted their viral DNA into the genomes of the host cells and expressed these genes.

retrovirus_life_cycle

Shinya Yamanaka won the Nobel Prize for this work in Physiology or Medicine in 2012 for this work. Unfortunately, retroviruses and can cause insertional mutations when they integrate into the genome (Zheng W., et al., Gene. 2013 Apr 25;519(1):142-9), and for this reason they are not the preferred way of making iPSCs. There are other viral vectors that do not integrate into the genome of the host cell (e.g., Sendai virus; see Chen IP, et al., Cell Reprogram. 2013 Dec;15(6):503-13). There are also techniques that use plasmids, which encode the four genes but do not integrate into the genome of the host cell. Finally, synthetic messenger RNAs that encode these four genes have also been used to make iPSCs (Tavernier G,, et al., Biomaterials. 2012 Jan;33(2):412-7).

The use of physical cues to make iPSCs may replace the need for gene overexpression, just as the use of particular chemicals can replace the need for particular genes (Zhu, S. et al. Cell Stem Cell 7, 651–655 (2010); Li, Y. et al. Cell Res. 21, 196–204 (2011)). If physical cues can replace the need for the overexpression of particular genes, then this discovery could revolutionize iPSC derivation; especially since the overexpression of particular genes in mature cells tends to cause genome instability in cells (Doris Steinemann, Gudrun Göhring, and Brigitte Schlegelberger. Am J Stem Cells. 2013; 2(1): 39–51).

“Our study demonstrates for the first time that the physical features of biomaterials can replace some of these biochemical factors and regulate the memory of a cell’s identity,” said study principal investigator Song Li, UC Berkeley, Professor of bioengineering. “We show that biophysical signals can be converted into intracellular chemical signals that coax cells to change.”

a, Scanning electron micrograph of PDMS membranes with a 10 μm groove width. All grooves were fabricated with a groove height of 3 μm. b, The top row shows phase contrast images of flat and grooved PDMS membranes with various widths and spacings. The bottom row shows fibroblast morphology on various PDMS membranes. Images are fluorescence micrographs of the nucleus (DAPI, blue) and actin network (phalloidin, green; scale bars, 100 μm). c, Reprogramming protocol. Colonies were subcultured and expanded or immunostained and quantified by day 12–14. d, Fluorescence micrograph showing the morphology of iPSC colonies generated on flat and grooved membranes (scale bar, 1 mm). Groove dimensions were 10 μm in width and spacing, denoted as 10 μm in this and the rest of the figures. Double-headed arrow indicates microgroove orientation of alignment. e, Reprogramming efficiency of fibroblasts transduced with OSKM and cultured on PDMS membranes with flat or grooved microtopography. The number of biological replicates, n, used for this experiment was equal to 6. Groove width and spacing were varied between 40, 20 and 10 μm. Differences of statistical significance were determined by a one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s post-hoc test. * indicates significant difference (p<0.05) compared with the control flat surface. f, Reprogramming efficiency in fibroblasts transduced with OSK (n = 4). *p<0.05 (two-tailed, unpaired t-test) compared with the control flat surface. Error bars represent one standard deviation. g, Immunostaining of a stable iPSC line expanded from colonies generated on 10 μm grooves. These cells express mESC-specific markers Oct4, Sox2, Nanog and SSEA-1 (scale bar, 100 μm). h, The expanded iPSCs in g were transplanted into SCID mice to demonstrate the formation of teratomas in vivo (scale bar, 50 μm).
a, Scanning electron micrograph of PDMS membranes with a 10 μm groove width. All grooves were fabricated with a groove height of 3 μm. b, The top row shows phase contrast images of flat and grooved PDMS membranes with various widths and spacings. The bottom row shows fibroblast morphology on various PDMS membranes. Images are fluorescence micrographs of the nucleus (DAPI, blue) and actin network (phalloidin, green; scale bars, 100 μm). c, Reprogramming protocol. Colonies were subcultured and expanded or immunostained and quantified by day 12–14. d, Fluorescence micrograph showing the morphology of iPSC colonies generated on flat and grooved membranes (scale bar, 1 mm). Groove dimensions were 10 μm in width and spacing, denoted as 10 μm in this and the rest of the figures. Double-headed arrow indicates microgroove orientation of alignment. e, Reprogramming efficiency of fibroblasts transduced with OSKM and cultured on PDMS membranes with flat or grooved microtopography. The number of biological replicates, n, used for this experiment was equal to 6. Groove width and spacing were varied between 40, 20 and 10 μm. Differences of statistical significance were determined by a one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s post-hoc test. * indicates significant difference (p<0.05) compared with the control flat surface. f, Reprogramming efficiency in fibroblasts transduced with OSK (n = 4). *p

To boost the efficiency of mature cell reprogramming, scientists also use a chemical called valproic acid, which dramatically affects global DNA structure and expression.

“The concern with current methods is the low efficiency at which cells actually reprogram and the unpredictable long-term effects of certain imposed genetic or chemical manipulations,” said the lead author of this study Timothy Downing. “For instance, valproic acid is a potent chemical that drastically alters the cell’s epigenetic state and can cause unintended changes inside the cell. Given this, many people have been looking at different ways to improve various aspects of the reprogramming process.”

This new study confirms and extends previous studies that showed that mechanical and physical cues can influence cell fate. Li’s group showed that physical and mechanical cues can not only affect cell fate, but also the epigenetic state and cell reprogramming.

a, Scanning electron micrograph of nanofibres showing fibre morphology in aligned and random orientations (scale bar, 20 μm). Confocal fluorescence micrograph of fibroblasts cultured on nanofibres (DAPI (blue) and phalloidin (green) staining; scale bar, 100 μm). b, Western blotting analysis for fibroblasts cultured on random and aligned nanofibres for three days. c, Fibroblasts were transduced with OSKM and seeded onto nanofibre surfaces, followed by immunostaining for Nanog expression (red) at day 12. Nuclei were stained with DAPI in blue; scale bar, 500 μm. d, Quantification of colony numbers in c (n = 5). *p<0.05 (two-tailed, unpaired t-test) compared with the control surface with random nanofibres. e, Fibroblasts were micropatterned into single-cell islands of 2,000 μm2 area with a CSI value of 1 (round) or 0.1 (elongated). After 24 h, cells were immunostained for AcH3, H3K4me2 or H3K4me3 (in green). Phalloidin staining (red) identifies the cell cytoskeleton for cell shape accuracy. The white arrowhead indicates the location of the nucleus (scale bars, 20 μm). f, Quantification of fluorescence intensity in e (n = 34, 20 and 34 for AcH3, H3K4me2 and H3K4me3, respectively). *p<0.05 (two-tailed, unpaired t-test) compared with the circular micropatterned cells (CSI = 1). Error bars represent one standard deviation.
a, Scanning electron micrograph of nanofibres showing fibre morphology in aligned and random orientations (scale bar, 20 μm). Confocal fluorescence micrograph of fibroblasts cultured on nanofibres (DAPI (blue) and phalloidin (green) staining; scale bar, 100 μm). b, Western blotting analysis for fibroblasts cultured on random and aligned nanofibres for three days. c, Fibroblasts were transduced with OSKM and seeded onto nanofibre surfaces, followed by immunostaining for Nanog expression (red) at day 12. Nuclei were stained with DAPI in blue; scale bar, 500 μm. d, Quantification of colony numbers in c (n = 5). *p

“Cells elongate, or example, as they migrate throughout the body,” said Downing, who is a research associate in Li’s lab. “In the case of topography, where we control the elongation of a cell by controlling the physical microenvironment, we are able to more closely mimic what a cell would experience in its native physiological environment. In this regard, these physical cues are less invasive and artificial to the cell and therefore less likely to cause unintended side effects.”

Li and his colleagues are studying whether growing cells on grooved surfaces eventually replace valproic acid and even replace other chemical compounds in the reprogramming process.

“We are also studying whether biophysical factors could help reprogram cells into specific cell types, such as neurons,” said Jennifer Soto, a UC Berkeley graduate student in bioengineering who was also a co-author on this paper.

Timothy Downing, et al., Nature Materials 12, 1154–1162 (2013).  

Advertisements

Published by

mburatov

Professor of Biochemistry at Spring Arbor University (SAU) in Spring Arbor, MI. Have been at SAU since 1999. Author of The Stem Cell Epistles. Before that I was a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA (1997-1999), and Sussex University, Falmer, UK (1994-1997). I studied Cell and Developmental Biology at UC Irvine (PhD 1994), and Microbiology at UC Davis (MA 1986, BS 1984).