TY - JOUR
T1 - Transcriptomic and epigenomic differences in human induced pluripotent stem cells generated from six reprogramming methods
AU - Churko, Jared M.
AU - Lee, Jaecheol
AU - Ameen, Mohamed
AU - Gu, Mingxia
AU - Venkatasubramanian, Meenakshi
AU - Diecke, Sebastian
AU - Sallam, Karim
AU - Im, Hogune
AU - Wang, Gavin
AU - Gold, Joseph D.
AU - Salomonis, Nathan
AU - Snyder, Michael P.
AU - Wu, Joseph C.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 The Author(s).
PY - 2017/10/1
Y1 - 2017/10/1
N2 - Many reprogramming methods can generate human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) that closely resemble human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). This has led to assessments of how similar hiPSCs are to hESCs, by evaluating differences in gene expression, epigenetic marks and differentiation potential. However, all previous studies were performed using hiPSCs acquired from different laboratories, passage numbers, culturing conditions, genetic backgrounds and reprogramming methods, all of which may contribute to the reported differences. Here, by using high-throughput sequencing under standardized cell culturing conditions and passage number, we compare the epigenetic signatures (H3K4me3, H3K27me3 and HDAC2 ChIP-seq profiles) and transcriptome differences (by RNA-seq) of hiPSCs generated from the same primary fibroblast population by using six different reprogramming methods. We found that the reprogramming method impacts the resulting transcriptome and that all hiPSC lines could terminally differentiate, regardless of the reprogramming method. Moreover, by comparing the differences between the hiPSC and hESC lines, we observed a significant proportion of differentially expressed genes that could be attributed to polycomb repressive complex targets.
AB - Many reprogramming methods can generate human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) that closely resemble human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). This has led to assessments of how similar hiPSCs are to hESCs, by evaluating differences in gene expression, epigenetic marks and differentiation potential. However, all previous studies were performed using hiPSCs acquired from different laboratories, passage numbers, culturing conditions, genetic backgrounds and reprogramming methods, all of which may contribute to the reported differences. Here, by using high-throughput sequencing under standardized cell culturing conditions and passage number, we compare the epigenetic signatures (H3K4me3, H3K27me3 and HDAC2 ChIP-seq profiles) and transcriptome differences (by RNA-seq) of hiPSCs generated from the same primary fibroblast population by using six different reprogramming methods. We found that the reprogramming method impacts the resulting transcriptome and that all hiPSC lines could terminally differentiate, regardless of the reprogramming method. Moreover, by comparing the differences between the hiPSC and hESC lines, we observed a significant proportion of differentially expressed genes that could be attributed to polycomb repressive complex targets.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044898933&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044898933&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41551-017-0141-6
DO - 10.1038/s41551-017-0141-6
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85044898933
SN - 2157-846X
VL - 1
SP - 826
EP - 837
JO - Nature Biomedical Engineering
JF - Nature Biomedical Engineering
IS - 10
ER -