Cargando…
A Comparative View on Easy to Deploy non-Integrating Methods for Patient-Specific iPSC Production
Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are routinely produced from dermal fibroblasts, with potential applications ranging from in vitro disease models to drug discovery and regenerative medicine. The need of eliminating the remaining reprogramming factors after iPSC production spurred the developme...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4653244/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26341105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12015-015-9619-3 |
_version_ | 1782401868613287936 |
---|---|
author | Manzini, Stefano Viiri, Leena E. Marttila, Suvi Aalto-Setälä, Katriina |
author_facet | Manzini, Stefano Viiri, Leena E. Marttila, Suvi Aalto-Setälä, Katriina |
author_sort | Manzini, Stefano |
collection | PubMed |
description | Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are routinely produced from dermal fibroblasts, with potential applications ranging from in vitro disease models to drug discovery and regenerative medicine. The need of eliminating the remaining reprogramming factors after iPSC production spurred the development of non-integrating viruses such as Sendai and other methods to deliver episomal vectors, which are progressively lost upon cell division. We compared four widespread methods (Sendai virus, Nucleofector, Neon transfection system and Lipofectamine 3000) to generate integration-free iPSC lines from primary human dermal fibroblasts (hDF) of three patients. Furthermore, we performed extensive characterization of the iPSC lines. We were able to produce iPSC lines with all tested methods with variable efficiency. Sendai virus method achieved the overall highest reprogramming rate, followed by electroporation-based methods Nucleofector and Neon transfection systems. Chemical-based Lipofectamine 3000 delivery resulted in the lowest number of iPSC colonies. We found the reprogramming rate to be intrinsically dependent on the individual hDFs but the amenability of each hDF to reprogramming showed consistency between methods. Regardless of the reprogramming strategy, iPSCs obtained did not reveal any significant differences in their morphology, expression of pluripotency markers, EB formation, karyotype or gene expression profiles. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12015-015-9619-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4653244 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46532442015-11-27 A Comparative View on Easy to Deploy non-Integrating Methods for Patient-Specific iPSC Production Manzini, Stefano Viiri, Leena E. Marttila, Suvi Aalto-Setälä, Katriina Stem Cell Rev Article Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are routinely produced from dermal fibroblasts, with potential applications ranging from in vitro disease models to drug discovery and regenerative medicine. The need of eliminating the remaining reprogramming factors after iPSC production spurred the development of non-integrating viruses such as Sendai and other methods to deliver episomal vectors, which are progressively lost upon cell division. We compared four widespread methods (Sendai virus, Nucleofector, Neon transfection system and Lipofectamine 3000) to generate integration-free iPSC lines from primary human dermal fibroblasts (hDF) of three patients. Furthermore, we performed extensive characterization of the iPSC lines. We were able to produce iPSC lines with all tested methods with variable efficiency. Sendai virus method achieved the overall highest reprogramming rate, followed by electroporation-based methods Nucleofector and Neon transfection systems. Chemical-based Lipofectamine 3000 delivery resulted in the lowest number of iPSC colonies. We found the reprogramming rate to be intrinsically dependent on the individual hDFs but the amenability of each hDF to reprogramming showed consistency between methods. Regardless of the reprogramming strategy, iPSCs obtained did not reveal any significant differences in their morphology, expression of pluripotency markers, EB formation, karyotype or gene expression profiles. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12015-015-9619-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2015-09-05 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4653244/ /pubmed/26341105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12015-015-9619-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Article Manzini, Stefano Viiri, Leena E. Marttila, Suvi Aalto-Setälä, Katriina A Comparative View on Easy to Deploy non-Integrating Methods for Patient-Specific iPSC Production |
title | A Comparative View on Easy to Deploy non-Integrating Methods for Patient-Specific iPSC Production |
title_full | A Comparative View on Easy to Deploy non-Integrating Methods for Patient-Specific iPSC Production |
title_fullStr | A Comparative View on Easy to Deploy non-Integrating Methods for Patient-Specific iPSC Production |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparative View on Easy to Deploy non-Integrating Methods for Patient-Specific iPSC Production |
title_short | A Comparative View on Easy to Deploy non-Integrating Methods for Patient-Specific iPSC Production |
title_sort | comparative view on easy to deploy non-integrating methods for patient-specific ipsc production |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4653244/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26341105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12015-015-9619-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT manzinistefano acomparativeviewoneasytodeploynonintegratingmethodsforpatientspecificipscproduction AT viirileenae acomparativeviewoneasytodeploynonintegratingmethodsforpatientspecificipscproduction AT marttilasuvi acomparativeviewoneasytodeploynonintegratingmethodsforpatientspecificipscproduction AT aaltosetalakatriina acomparativeviewoneasytodeploynonintegratingmethodsforpatientspecificipscproduction AT manzinistefano comparativeviewoneasytodeploynonintegratingmethodsforpatientspecificipscproduction AT viirileenae comparativeviewoneasytodeploynonintegratingmethodsforpatientspecificipscproduction AT marttilasuvi comparativeviewoneasytodeploynonintegratingmethodsforpatientspecificipscproduction AT aaltosetalakatriina comparativeviewoneasytodeploynonintegratingmethodsforpatientspecificipscproduction |