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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Manzini, Stefano, Viiri, Leena E., Marttila, Suvi, Aalto-Setälä, Katriina
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