You might remember that Charles Vacanti and researchers at the RIKEN Institute in Japan reported a protocol for reprogramming mature mouse cells into pluripotent stem cells that could not only integrate into mouse embryos, but could also contribute to the formation of the placenta. To convert mature cells into pluripotent cells, Vacanti and others exposed the cells to slightly acidic conditions or other types of stressful conditions and the cells reverted to a pluripotent state.
Even though Vacanti and others published these results in the prestigious journal Nature, as other scientists tried to replicate the results in these papers, they found themselves growing more and more frustrated. Also, some gaffes with a few of the figures contributed to a kind of pall that has hung over this research in general.
The original makers of these cells, stress-acquired acquisition of pluripotency or STAP cells, have now made a detailed protocol of how they made their STAP cells publicly available at the Nature Protocol Exchange. Already. it is clear that a few things about the original paper are generating many questions.
First of all, Charles Vacanti’s name does not appear on the protocol. He was the corresponding author of the original paper. Therefore the absence of his name raises some eyebrows. Secondly, the authors seem to have backed off a few of their original claims.
For example one of the statements toward the beginning of the protocol says, “Despite its seeming simplicity, this procedure requires special care in cell handling and culture conditions, as well as in the choice of the starting cell population.” Whereas the original paper, on the first reading at least, seemed to convey that making STAP cells was fairly straightforward, this seems to no longer be the case, if the words of this protocol are taken at face value.
Also, the protocol notes that cultured cells do not work with their protocol. The authors write, “Primary cells should be used. We have found that it is difficult to reprogram mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEF) that have been expanded in vitro, while fresh MEF are competent.” This would probably explain inability of several well-regarded stem cell laboratories to recapitulate this work, since the majority of them probably used cultured cells. This, however, seems to contradict claims made in the original paper that multiple, distinct cell types could be converted into STAP cells.
Another clarification that the protocol provides that was not made clear in the original paper is that STAP cells and STAP stem cells are not the same thing. According to the authors, the protocol provided at Nature Protocol Exchange produces STAP cells, which have the capacity to contribute to the embryo and the placenta. On the other hand, STAP stem cells, are made from STAP cells by growing them in ACTH-containing medium on feeder cells, after which the cells are switched to ESC media with 20% Fetal Bovine Serum. STAP stem cells have lost the ability to contribute to extra-embryonic tissues.
Of even greater concern is a point raised by Paul Knoepfler at UC Davis. Knoepfler noticed that the original paper argued that some of their STAP cells were made from mature T cells. T cells rearrange the genes that encode the T cell receptor. If these mature T cells were used to make STAP cells, then they should have rearranged T cell receptor genes. The paper by Vacanti and others shows precisely that in a figure labeled 1i. However, in the protocol, the authors state that their STAP cells were NOT made from T-cells. In Knoepfler’s words: “On a simple level to me this new statement seems like a red flag.”
Other comments from Knoepfler’s blog noted that the protocol does not work on mice older than one week old. Indeed, the protocol itself clearly states that “Cells from mice older than one week showed very poor reprogramming efficiency under the current protocol. Cells from male animals showed higher efficiency than those from female.” Thus the universe of cells that can be converted into STAP cells seems to have contracted by quite a bit.
From all this it seems very likely that the STAP paper will need to go through several corrections. Some think that the paper should be retracted altogether. I think I agree with Knoepfler and we should take a “wait and see” approach. If some scientists can get this protocol to work, then great. But even then, multiple corrections to the original paper will need to be submitted. Also, the usefulness of these procedure for regenerative medicine seems suspect, at least at the moment. The cells types that can be reprogrammed with this protocol are simply too few for practical use. Also, to date, we only have Vacanti’s word that this protocol works on human cells. Forgive me, but given the gaffes associated with this present paper, that’s not terribly reassuring.