Recent advances in lineage differentiation from stem cells: hurdles and opportunities?

Joke Terryn; Tine Tricot; Madhavsai Gajjar; Catherine Verfaillie

doi:10.12688/f1000research.12596.1

Home Browse Recent advances in lineage differentiation from stem cells: hurdles...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Review

Recent advances in lineage differentiation from stem cells: hurdles and opportunities?

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Joke Terryn¹, Tine Tricot¹, Madhavsai Gajjar¹, Catherine Verfaillie ¹

PUBLISHED 23 Feb 2018

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Development and Regeneration, Stem Cell Institute Leuven, KU Leuven, Belgium

Joke Terryn
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Tine Tricot
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Madhavsai Gajjar
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Catherine Verfaillie
Roles: Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Pluripotent stem cells have the property of long-term self-renewal and the potential to give rise to descendants of the three germ layers and hence all mature cells in the human body. Therefore, they hold the promise of offering insight not only into human development but also for human disease modeling and regenerative medicine. However, the generation of mature differentiated cells that closely resemble their in vivo counterparts remains challenging. Recent advances in single-cell transcriptomics and computational modeling of gene regulatory networks are revealing a better understanding of lineage commitment and are driving modern genome editing approaches. Additional modification of the chemical microenvironment, as well as the use of bioengineering tools to recreate the cellular, extracellular matrix, and physical characteristics of the niche wherein progenitors and mature cells reside, is now being used to further improve the maturation and functionality of stem cell progeny.

Keywords

Stem cells, disease modeling, regenerative medicine, genome editing

Corresponding author: Catherine Verfaillie

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This research was supported by the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT SBO iPSCAF - 150031). Joke Terryn is a recipient of the IWT SB (141228), and Tine Tricot is a recipient of the FWO (1185918N) grant.

Copyright: © 2018 Terryn J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Terryn J, Tricot T, Gajjar M and Verfaillie C. Recent advances in lineage differentiation from stem cells: hurdles and opportunities? [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7(F1000 Faculty Rev):220 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12596.1) First published: 23 Feb 2018, 7(F1000 Faculty Rev):220 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12596.1) Latest published: 23 Feb 2018, 7(F1000 Faculty Rev):220 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12596.1)

Introduction

Stem cells have the remarkable property of long-term self-renewal, and at the same time they can give rise to progressively more lineage-committed cells. Pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) are multipotent as they can generate all mature cells of the body. Although murine PSCs were already isolated in the 1980s¹, it was not until 1998 that human PSCs (hPSCs) were first isolated from human blastocysts, termed embryonic stem cells (ESCs)². This accomplishment, and, even more so, the creation of so-called ‘induced pluripotent stem cells’, or iPSCs, from mouse³ and then human⁴ fibroblasts in 2006–2007, opened up the possibility of generating any cell type for regenerative medicine. In addition, the availability of human ESCs (hESCs) and iPSCs (collectively termed PSCs) now provides us with tools to better understand human development as well as create models to study human diseases. Fully exploiting that potential, however, remains challenging. Although new stem cell differentiation protocols are published on a weekly basis, many hurdles remain regarding how to create mature stem cell progeny. In this review, we will discuss the current state of the art of stem cell culture and lineage differentiation from stem cells. Current limitations in creating mature PSC progeny are steering investigators to explore novel avenues in stem cell research. We discuss the roads that are being taken and need to be taken to improve the functionality of PSC-derived human tissue cells and ultimately exploit the full potential of hPSCs.

Pluripotency matters

The derivation and culture of hESCs and human iPSCs (hiPSCs) use conditions that differ from those used to isolate their murine counterparts. This results in the capture of cells at different stages of embryonic development. Murine PSCs can be isolated by using several culture methods from mouse embryos. These include culture on mouse embryonic fibroblasts or using mTeSR and LIF, resulting in a population of cells containing chiefly ESCs but also extra-embryonic endoderm progenitors⁵. More recently, it has been demonstrated that murine ESCs can be isolated and maintained in a ‘naïve’ ground state (termed 2i/LIF conditions) that resembles pre-implantation pluripotency wherein fate allocation in specific cell populations has not yet occurred. Unlike their murine counterparts, human PSCs in standard culture conditions resemble post-implantation, ‘primed’ epiblast stem cells, wherein initial fate allocation has occurred⁶. When post-implantation murine or rat embryos are used, a similar epiblast-like cell type can be isolated as well⁷. Such primed human and mouse ESCs have already undergone X-chromosome inactivation. Moreover, the generation of hiPSCs does not lead to reactivation of the X-chromosome. This X-chromosome inactivation state, however, is unstable, as long-term culture of female ‘primed’ hESCs or hiPSCs has been shown to cause ‘X-chromosome erosion’; that is, the inactivation of the silenced X-chromosome is progressively lost. X-chromosome erosion is associated with decreased differentiation potential, and this is inherited by the differentiated progeny^8–11. In addition, excessive X-chromosome skewing is frequently seen^12–15, yielding skewed progeny that could manifest or lose disease phenotypes. For example, in the case of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, female carriers of a dystrophin gene mutation rarely manifest with muscular dystrophy because the random nature of X-chromosome inactivation leads to a mixture of cells expressing either the wild-type or the disease gene. In this case, in vitro X-chromosome skewing could misrepresent the in vivo situation¹⁶. Together with the fact that primed cells are not lineage-neutral, this may be a major contributing factor to the variability observed within and between different cell lines¹⁷.

During the last 3 years, a number of protocols have been described in which primed hPSCs can be reset to a naïve state or which allow reprogramming of somatic cells to naïve hPSCs (reviewed in 18). However, such human naïve PSCs are more resistant to differentiation, and a step wherein naïve PSCs are committed to an intermediate primed state is required, at least in some studies^19–21. For instance, transitioning through a more naïve state proved to be especially beneficial in the case of germ line cell differentiation. The initial fate allocation of regular primed hPSCs significantly dampens germ line competence, but converting hESCs to a more naïve state, using a protocol developed by Gafni et al.²², drastically improved the efficiency of generating primordial germ cells²³. However, recent reports sound a cautionary note by reporting that naïve hPSCs are genetically unstable^11,24. Hence, they are not good candidates to start lineage differentiation for either disease modeling or regenerative medicine. However, recent insights into the hierarchy of pluripotency during development have led to the identification of an additional cell population, to which the term ‘formative PSCs’ was assigned, that appears to be located in between naïve and primed PSCs²⁵ (Figure 1). Such putative formative PSCs²⁶ are, like naïve PSCs, lineage-neutral; however, unlike naïve PSCs, they are hypothesized to be able to differentiate efficiently into all different cell lineages. Furthermore, they also appear to be genetically more stable than naïve hPSCs and, because they have higher levels of methyltransferase activities than primed PSCs²⁷, also may not be subject to X-chromosome erosion. Therefore, developing methods that allow capturing and maintaining hPSCs in this formative state will likely be of great importance to enable robust and controlled lineage differentiation.

Figure 1. Pluripotent stem cell (PSC) hierarchy.

Hypothesized hierarchy of human PSCs and their properties.

Lineage differentiation: current state of the art and shortcomings

To induce lineage differentiation from PSCs, investigators have used insights gained from development. Initially, this comprised the generation of embryoid bodies, wherein differentiation occurs spontaneously as a result of signals emanating from the different cell populations that spontaneously develop²⁵. To control the differentiation process better, subsequent studies have used step-wise addition of growth factors and cytokines, or inhibitors thereof, known to play a role during certain steps of differentiation, combined in the majority in cases with monolayer culture systems. This has enabled the generation of a number of cell types, including cells with features of neural subpopulations (for example, glutamatergic cortical neurons²⁸, cholinergic neurons²⁹, dopaminergic neurons³⁰, oligodendrocytes³¹, and astrocytes³²), cardiac muscle^33–36, or hepatocytes^37–39, among many others. However, these cells resemble fetal tissue more than adult tissue in the majority of cases. Reasons for this are numerous and will be discussed below.

First, although we have some insight into the progressive maturation of cells in a tissue, this knowledge is based on quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or genome-wide transcriptome studies throughout development, assessing gene expression in bulk populations of cells. However, as was already suggested by immunofluorescence staining for a limited number of marker proteins, not all cells in a tissue are equal. This is likely also true for developing cell populations, although such studies in human embryos are, for obvious reasons, not readily feasible. Nevertheless, thanks to the advent of single-cell RNAseq, single-cell variability in mature and developing tissues (the latter chiefly in mouse) can now be further elucidated (reviewed in 40,41). For instance, it is now clear that neurons and astrocytes are brain region-specific, and transcriptional signatures for these are becoming available (reviewed in 42). Therefore, as has been done for neuronal differentiation protocols, different approaches will likely be needed to generate regionally specific astrocytes.

Second, although the mature phenotype of certain cells, such as hepatocytes, has been well established and can be used to define the maturation state of these cells, this is not the case for all cell types⁴³. Using astrocytes as an example, the definition of a ‘mature’ astrocyte remains unclear (reviewed in 44). Although in general the presence of glial fibrillary acidic protein or S100β or both has been used to define astrocytes, this is insufficient, as there are other neural precursors, such as radial glia, that could, on the basis of these markers alone, be classified as astrocytes⁴⁵. Therefore, markers or assays that reveal the functional properties of these cells, including propagation of calcium waves, glutamate handling, and inflammatory responses, should be used to define astrocytes^46–48.

Third, standard culture conditions constitute a major roadblock in lineage differentiation, as they do not provide all of the necessary environmental cues. During embryogenesis, cells from different germ layers co-develop in response not only to graded and continuously changing concentrations of chemical factors generated by neighboring cells and cells at some distance⁴⁹ but also to cell–cell- and cell–extracellular matrix (ECM)-mediated signals. Although growth factor addition, in what we would call a ‘purist’ approach to a single-cell-type-at-a-time differentiation, tries to recreate the in vivo chemical signals, it is very crude and fails to recreate the subtle progressively changing levels of growth factors and morphogens present in vivo. Obviously, by attempting to make pure populations of differentiated cells, we preclude the influence on cell commitment and maturation of neighboring cells derived from the same or even a distinct germlayer. In addition, differentiation performed in 2D culture is generally in culture plastic wells coated with an ECM such as collagen, laminin, or matrigel. This does not start to recreate the complex and changing ECM or the physical characteristics of developing ‘soft’ organs. In addition, numerous other environmental cues affect cell differentiation—such as electrophysiological activity that regulates cardiac muscle or neural cell maturation⁵⁰; mechanical stimulation inducing cardiac differentiation⁵¹; flow/shear force that affects endothelial differentiation⁵²; or nutrient composition of the blood that affects zonation of cells in the liver⁵³—all of which are only now starting to be evaluated to enhance lineage maturation.

Finally, the duration of many differentiation protocols does not reflect human gestation. It may not be surprising that differentiated progeny resembles fetal tissue more than adult tissue. For instance, during development, neurogenesis switches to gliogenesis late during gestation⁵⁴, which underlies the fact that very lengthy cultures are required to derive astrocytes from PSCs.

Another example is that PSC-derived hepatocytes usually harvested after 3–5 weeks continue to express the fetal hepatocyte gene, alpha-fetoprotein⁵⁵, and do not express markers associated with mature hepatic function, such as the detoxifying enzymes of the cytochrome P450 family (CYPs)⁵⁶. Although the fetal phenotype of PSC-derived hepatocytes allows disease modeling of, for instance, hepatotropic viruses such as dengue, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C^57–60, their fetal metabolic signature limits their usefulness in drug toxicity studies⁴³. In contrast, in the field of regenerative medicine, the immaturity and plasticity of progenitor cells can be advantageous as, for example, dopaminergic neuronal progenitors still hold the ability to migrate and integrate when transplanted in Parkinson’s disease⁶¹. Several clinical trials, conducted between 1990 and 2003, have tested the feasibility and clinical benefit of transplanting fetal mesencephalic grafts in the basal ganglia of patients with Parkinson’s disease^61,62. Though not all equally successful, these trials served as a proof of principle and paved the way for trials using hPSC-derived progeny⁶³. Nevertheless, the use of incomplete differentiated progeny from PSCs may hold the risk of causing unwanted excessive proliferation⁶⁴ or even teratoma formation⁶⁵.

Lineage differentiation: ways forward

Genome editing

As stated above, the incomplete lineage differentiation from PSCs for many cell types is caused by our incomplete understanding of developmental processes. However, the newly available high-throughput single-cell transcriptomics and computational modeling of gene regulatory networks now allow in-depth characterization of cellular identity and lineage commitment, not only in adult tissues but also throughout development (the latter at least in mouse development)^66–68. These studies start to identify previously underestimated heterogeneity in cell populations, in the adult as well as during development^69,70, and in the meantime provide key targets and knowledge of transcriptional dynamics⁶⁸.

Such single-cell RNAseq data combined with novel genome engineering approaches, especially the Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) technology (reviewed in 71), allow investigators to ‘engineer’ PSC progeny toward specific lineages. CRISPR technology significantly enhances the frequency of homologous recombination in hPSCs. This is all the more important to create reporter cell lines, enabling the enrichment of precursors or mature cells from mixed populations. However, even more important for lineage differentiation approaches is the ability to exploit the CRISPR system to activate or interfere with gene expression, using CRIPSR-activation (CRISPRa) and CRIPSR-interfering (CRISPRi) approaches. For CRISPRa, a dead Cas (dCas), unable to cause double-strand breaks, is linked to a transactivator sequence, such as multiple herpes simplex virus protein VP16 repeats (VP64)⁷², or VP64 fused with p65, a subunit of the ubiquitous NF-κB transcription factor complex (p65) and the Epstein-Barr virus R transactivator (Rta) (so-called VPR)⁷³, among others. The VPR transactivator, for instance, allows the activation of endogenous gene transcription by a median of 150-fold. Alternatively, the dCas can be fused with a gene repressor such as the Krüppel-associated box (KRAB) domain of Kox1⁷⁴ or four copies of the mSin3 domain (termed SID4X)⁷¹ to inhibit gene transcription by up to 15-fold. The CRISPR–dCas-activator/repressor can be integrated into a safe harbor locus⁷⁵ and be driven by different inducible promoters to enable the expression of either the transactivator or the repressor. In addition, the use of diverse dCas9 orthologues from different bacteria and their respective single-guide RNA⁷⁶ further enhances the possibilities for sequential or combinatorial induction (or both) of transcription factors (TFs) that are insufficiently expressed in PSC progeny while inhibiting TFs that are incorrectly expressed in differentiated progeny. The latter could be either pluripotency TFs but also TFs for lineages other than the desired lineage that are incorrectly activated during the in vitro differentiation process^{43,72,77–81}.

Chemical engineering of the culture medium

A number of studies have started to test libraries of small molecules to identify factors that enhance differentiation. A good example is pancreatic-beta cell differentiation from PSCs, wherein more than 20 different molecules have been used to create insulin-responsive cells⁸². Similar examples can be found in the literature for other cell types, including hepatic, neuronal, or cardiac progeny^36,83,84. However, an often-overlooked characteristic of the culture medium is the nutrient microenvironment. It is, however, well known that medium composition can greatly affect cellular behavior in vitro. Several studies demonstrated that nutrient metabolism is one of the major regulators of stem cell fate. For instance, central carbon metabolism plays an important role in PSC maintenance, proliferation, differentiation, and lineage specialization (reviewed in 85). Indeed, PSCs have a glycolytic phenotype⁸⁶, and failure to induce glycolysis prevents iPSC generation⁸⁷. By contrast, many differentiated progeny—especially, neural cells⁸⁸, cardiomyocytes⁸⁹, and hepatocytes⁹⁰—are dependent on oxidative phosphorylation for energy production. As the latter is fueled by fatty acids or amino acids or both, it will be paramount to analyze the nutrient requirements of precursor populations generated from PSCs and ultimately develop culture media that support these nutrient needs⁹¹ to allow generation of mature lineage-specific cells and simultaneously avoid alternate cell faiths. An example of the latter approach is the eradication of hESCs/iPSCs from cultures by the transient depletion of methionine⁹².

Recreation of the stem cell, precursor, and mature cell niche

As discussed above, the ‘purist’ approach to lineage differentiation from PSCs has been to develop differentiation protocols based on monolayer systems coated with a generic ECM layer supplemented with growth factors, morphogens, and cytokines. However, culture in 2D of numerous mature primary cells—such as hepatocytes⁹³ or glia⁴⁶, to name a few—is incompatible with maintaining a mature, differentiated phenotype in vitro. Therefore, it is not surprising that such culture conditions are not suitable for the generation of mature PSC-derived progeny. Hence, researchers are investigating approaches such as co-culture of one or more cell types in 3D culture systems or PSC-derived organoid cultures to better mimic the environment, also named ‘niche’, wherein cell fating and differentiation occur during development and wherein mature cells reside within an organ.

Although organoids from undifferentiated PSCs allow evaluation of the initial steps of cell fating and the spontaneously developing interactions between neighboring cells and their niches, as is thought to occur in vivo, it remains difficult to control these steps, and the creation of mature functional cells from stem cell organoids is not easily achieved. A very good example is the self-organizing brain organoid, initially described by Lancaster and Knoblich, that allows the generation of a variety of brain regional identities, including hindbrain, midbrain, forebrain, and even retinal tissue⁹⁴. However, even if this allows the creation of some of the complexity of the brain, inherent to spontaneous development is that the organoids are highly variable within a single experiment and between experiments, and cells do not achieve a terminally differentiated state.

As an alternative, organoids can be generated from different PSC-derived lineage precursors embedded or not in functionalized hydrogels, in combination with chemical signals (growth factors) to recreate the physicochemical properties of the organ wherein the maturing cells reside. This enables greater control of the cell types present in the 3D culture compared with the spontaneous, less controlled differentiation occurring in undifferentiated PSC organoid cultures^95,96. Until recently, 3D organoid cultures were exclusively performed in matrigel, a poorly defined and largely proteinaceous mixture whose properties cannot be readily modulated and therefore do not allow the evaluation of cell–ECM interactions or do not allow one to understand the role of mechanical forces in cell fate decisions. While many cell types are not intrinsically mechanically active, they encounter and respond to a range of mechanical forces such as shear stress, matrix topography, and rigidity. While we intuitively accept that differentiation induces changes in cell shape, controlling cell shape also affects differentiation^97,98. Mechano-sensation affects cell morphology, cytoskeletal structure, adhesion, and function, emphasizing the importance of cell–ECM interactions^99,100. The advent of highly tunable hydrogels based on poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG)¹⁰¹ or natural gellan gum (GG)¹⁰² has significantly increased the flexibility of probing the role of the microenvironment in specifying stem cell fate. A number of teams have developed ECM component libraries wherein matrix stiffness, matrix degradability, and soluble and ECM peptide factors can be combinatorially and systematically tested in high-throughput approaches. This has resulted in the definition of improved PSC culture and differentiation conditions^103,104.

The above-mentioned hydrogel technology not only can be used to embed spontaneous assembly of different cell types but also can be combined with bioprinting, allowing the creation of stem cell niches. Bioprinting, such as bioextrusion¹⁰⁵, inkjet bioprinting¹⁰⁶, and microvalve-based bioprinting^107,108, has already been used to create 3D tissue and organs from stem cells. However, the spatial resolution of these approaches is in the 50-μm range, not allowing the precise recreation of cell niches. However, this may be feasible when using laser-guided printing^109,110, wherein laser settings and droplet size allow very high-precision printing to the single-cell level. This theoretically should allow one to precisely recreate the cellular niches and to probe the effect of the microenvironment (cell–ECM and cell–cell contact) on cellular differentiation.

As cells also respond differentially to the organization and ultrastructure of the ECM, topographical cues embedded in ECM can further guide tissue development. For instance, hPSC-derived cardiomyocytes grown on microgrooves, that topographically resemble aligned collagen fibers in the developing heart, aligned to the substrate, which resulted in improved sarcomere length^111,112. Therefore, synthetic nanopatterned substrates with well-defined properties are also assessed for their effect on differentiation^113,114.

Mechanical and electrical engineering

The controlled addition of growth factors and small molecules in conjunction with tailored hydrogels can mimic the physicochemical properties of the immediate in vivo environment. However, developing cells are also subjected to electromechanical forces exerted by the organ in which they develop (reviewed in 115). Therefore, a number of studies have started to test the additional effect of electrical or mechanical stimulation (or both) on cardiac and neural differentiation, as electrical activity is a fundamental property of these cell types^50,51,116. For instance, stimulation paradigms have been well described for both rat and mouse primary cultures^117,118, suggesting that integrating electrical stimulation to enhance the maturation of hPSC-derived neurons is feasible. However, such an approach has not yet been widely applied to human culture systems. Continuous electrical stimulation also improved cardiac differentiation, significantly enhanced connexin expression and sarcomeric structure, and instructed cardiomyocytes to adapt their beating rate⁵¹, a sign of electrophysiological maturity¹¹⁹. As electrical activity is coupled to contraction in cardiomyocytes, the role of cyclic stress in cardiac muscle maturation is also being tested. Although applying mechanical stimulation improved the transcriptional and functional profile of hPSC-derived cardiomyocytes¹²⁰, less is known about the influence of mechanical stimulation on the maturation of other cell types.

Engineering perfusion

The final and perhaps most arduous addition to the 3D-derived models is to integrate the vascular network, to allow the delivery of nutrients and oxygen to the microtissue and to allow re-circulation of endogenous factors and hence aid in specifying cells within a tissue (for example, zonation in a liver sinusoid). Vascular networks have, for instance, already been printed, integrated into skin tissue or on a cardiac patch^109,121, or incorporated in self-assembling 3D tissues⁹⁶. When implanted in rodents, the murine blood vessels of the implant connected with the vascular network, integrating blood vessels into the vascular system of the host⁹⁶. In addition, microfluidic systems have been generated allowing the continuous manipulation of, for instance, pre-defined oxygen gradients, the delivery/removal of specific factors or functional components to/from the microtissue, and the alteration of mechanical forces exerted on the tissue¹²². For example, Giobbe et al. differentiated hPSCs directly on a chip under perfusion to hepatocytes and cardiomyocytes, which presented with significantly increased functionality as compared with unperfused control cells¹²³. Even though perfusion is of such importance for the differentiation of PSCs and their derivatives, a major challenge remains to connect very small (micrometer-diameter) capillaries^109,121 to microfluidic channels that are commonly 5 to 10 times wider than capillaries.

Conclusions

The generation of mature PSC-derived progeny, resembling their in vivo counterpart, is desperately needed in the field of disease modeling and regenerative medicine. The availability of high-throughput single-cell transcriptomics, computational modeling of gene regulatory networks, and new genome editing tools now allows in-depth characterization of cellular identity and lineage commitment. These advances highlight a previously underestimated heterogeneity in cell populations but in the meantime provide key targets and knowledge of cellular state and function. This increased understanding has been one of the driving forces behind the continuous generation of new differentiation protocols. In addition, progress made in the field of (bio)engineering now allows the creation of hydrogels with mechanical stiffness similar to that of a given organ. It also allows one to decorate the gels with ECM components as well as chemical guides, aside from electromechanical stimuli, to drive differentiation in a 3D configuration. In addition, bioprinting techniques have evolved such that specific ECM topologies that instruct differentiation can be recreated, specific cell-to-cell interactions can be incorporated at the (near) single-cell level, and capillary networks can be co-embedded between different cells to enable continuous nutrient support and removal of breakdown products. All of these tools are starting to recreate different aspects of the niches wherein progenitors and mature cells reside, although much is still to be learned about these niches before we will be able to fully recreate them (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Schematic overview for the advances in lineage differentiation.

Induced pluripotent stem cells (PSCs), for studies of human disease or to create differentiated cells for regenerative medicine, can be generated from any somatic cell, from which the desired cell can be differentiated. However, current differentiation systems generate immature progeny. Recent advances in genome editing (CRISPRa/i), chemical screens, and bioengineering—extracellular matrix (ECM) functionalized hydrogels, bioprinting, and microfluidics—are being used to allow the derivation of more mature and functional PSC progeny, which resemble their in vivo counterparts better, and can be used for personalized and regenerative medicines. CRISPR, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats.

As we are starting to move away from standard ‘petri dish’ culture systems to high-complexity systems, not only will it be important to ensure reproducibility but also the main challenge will be to adapt these advanced culture systems to medium- and high-throughput formats in a cost-effective way. Thus, even if great strides have been made toward lineage differentiation of stem cells, many challenges are still ahead before it will be possible to generate fully mature and functional cell types.

Abbreviations

CRISPR, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats; CRISPRa, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats-activation; dCas, dead Cas; ECM, extracellular matrix; ESC, embryonic stem cell; hESC, human embryonic stem cell; hiPSC, human induced pluripotent stem cell; hPSC, human pluripotent stem cell; iPSC, induced pluripotent stem cell; PSC, pluripotent stem cell; TF, transcription factor; VP64, virus protein VP16 repeats (4 times repeat); VPR, VP64 fused with p65, a subunit of the ubiquitous NF-κB transcription factor complex (p65) and the Epstein-Barr virus reverse transactivator.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Grant information

This research was supported by the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT SBO iPSCAF - 150031). Joke Terryn is a recipient of the IWT SB (141228), and Tine Tricot is a recipient of the FWO(1185918N) grant.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Martin GR: Isolation of a pluripotent cell line from early mouse embryos cultured in medium conditioned by teratocarcinoma stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981; 78(12): 7634–8. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
2. Thomson JA, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro SS, et al.: Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science. 1998; 282(5391): 1145–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S: Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006; 126(4): 663–76. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
4. Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, et al.: Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell. 2007; 131(5): 861–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
5. Lo Nigro A, de Jaime-Soguero A, Khoueiry R, et al.: PDGFRα⁺ Cells in Embryonic Stem Cell Cultures Represent the In Vitro Equivalent of the Pre-implantation Primitive Endoderm Precursors. Stem Cell Reports. 2017; 8(2): 318–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Nichols J, Smith A: Naive and primed pluripotent states. Cell Stem Cell. 2009; 4(6): 487–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Brons IG, Smithers LE, Trotter MW, et al.: Derivation of pluripotent epiblast stem cells from mammalian embryos. Nature. 2007; 448(7150): 191–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Mekhoubad S, Bock C, de Boer AS, et al.: Erosion of dosage compensation impacts human iPSC disease modeling. Cell Stem Cell. 2012; 10(5): 595–609. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
9. Nazor KL, Altun G, Lynch C, et al.: Recurrent variations in DNA methylation in human pluripotent stem cells and their differentiated derivatives. Cell Stem Cell. 2012; 10(5): 620–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
10. Patel S, Bonora G, Sahakyan A, et al.: Human Embryonic Stem Cells Do Not Change Their X Inactivation Status during Differentiation. Cell Rep. 2017; 18(1): 54–67. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
11. Sahakyan A, Kim R, Chronis C, et al.: Human Naive Pluripotent Stem Cells Model X Chromosome Dampening and X Inactivation. Cell Stem Cell. 2017; 20(1): 87–101. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
12. Dhara SK, Benvenisty N: Gene trap as a tool for genome annotation and analysis of X chromosome inactivation in human embryonic stem cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004; 32(13): 3995–4002. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
13. Geens M, Seriola A, Barbé L, et al.: Female human pluripotent stem cells rapidly lose X chromosome inactivation marks and progress to a skewed methylation pattern during culture. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016; 22(4): 285–98. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
14. Lengner CJ, Gimelbrant AA, Erwin JA, et al.: Derivation of pre-X inactivation human embryonic stem cells under physiological oxygen concentrations. Cell. 2010; 141(5): 872–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
15. Liu W, Yin Y, Jiang Y, et al.: Genetic and epigenetic X-chromosome variations in a parthenogenetic human embryonic stem cell line. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011; 28(4): 303–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Miyagoe-Suzuki Y, Nishiyama T, Nakamura M, et al.: Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from a Manifesting Carrier of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Characterization of Their X-Inactivation Status. Stem Cells Int. 2017; 2017: 7906843. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
17. Osafune K, Caron L, Borowiak M, et al.: Marked differences in differentiation propensity among human embryonic stem cell lines. Nat Biotechnol. 2008; 26(3): 313–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Davidson KC, Mason EA, Pera MF: The pluripotent state in mouse and human. Development. 2015; 142(18): 3090–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Guo G, von Meyenn F, Santos F, et al.: Naive Pluripotent Stem Cells Derived Directly from Isolated Cells of the Human Inner Cell Mass. Stem Cell Reports. 2016; 6(4): 437–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
20. Guo G, von Meyenn F, Rostovskaya M, et al.: Epigenetic resetting of human pluripotency. Development. 2017; 144(15): 2748–63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
21. Takashima Y, Guo G, Loos R, et al.: Resetting transcription factor control circuitry toward ground-state pluripotency in human. Cell. 2014; 158(6): 1254–69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
22. Gafni O, Weinberger L, Mansour AA, et al.: Derivation of novel human ground state naive pluripotent stem cells. Nature. 2013; 504(7479): 282–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
23. Irie N, Weinberger L, Tang WW, et al.: SOX17 is a critical specifier of human primordial germ cell fate. Cell. 2015; 160(1–2): 253–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
24. Pastor WA, Chen D, Liu W, et al.: Naive Human Pluripotent Cells Feature a Methylation Landscape Devoid of Blastocyst or Germline Memory. Cell Stem Cell. 2016; 18(3): 323–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
25. Hough SR, Thornton M, Mason E, et al.: Single-cell gene expression profiles define self-renewing, pluripotent, and lineage primed states of human pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Reports. 2014; 2(6): 881–95. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Smith A: Formative pluripotency: the executive phase in a developmental continuum. Development. 2017; 144(3): 365–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Kalkan T, Olova N, Roode M, et al.: Tracking the embryonic stem cell transition from ground state pluripotency. Development. 2017; 144(7): 1221–1234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Shi Y, Kirwan P, Smith J, et al.: Human cerebral cortex development from pluripotent stem cells to functional excitatory synapses. Nat Neurosci. 2012; 15(3): 477–86, S1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
29. Maury Y, Côme J, Piskorowski RA, et al.: Combinatorial analysis of developmental cues efficiently converts human pluripotent stem cells into multiple neuronal subtypes. Nat Biotechnol. 2015; 33(1): 89–96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Cajánek L, Ribeiro D, Liste I, et al.: Wnt/beta-catenin signaling blockade promotes neuronal induction and dopaminergic differentiation in embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells. 2009; 27(12): 2917–27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Douvaras P, Fossati V: Generation and isolation of oligodendrocyte progenitor cells from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Protoc. 2015; 10(8): 1143–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
32. Shaltouki A, Peng J, Liu Q, et al.: Efficient generation of astrocytes from human pluripotent stem cells in defined conditions. Stem Cells. 2013; 31(5): 941–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Laflamme MA, Chen KY, Naumova AV, et al.: Cardiomyocytes derived from human embryonic stem cells in pro-survival factors enhance function of infarcted rat hearts. Nat Biotechnol. 2007; 25(9): 1015–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
34. Mummery C, Ward-van Oostwaard D, Doevendans P, et al.: Differentiation of human embryonic stem cells to cardiomyocytes: role of coculture with visceral endoderm-like cells. Circulation. 2003; 107(21): 2733–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Kehat I, Kenyagin-Karsenti D, Snir M, et al.: Human embryonic stem cells can differentiate into myocytes with structural and functional properties of cardiomyocytes. J Clin Invest. 2001; 108(3): 407–14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
36. Burridge PW, Matsa E, Shukla P, et al.: Chemically defined generation of human cardiomyocytes. Nat Methods. 2014; 11(8): 855–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
37. Roelandt P, Vanhove J, Verfaillie C: Directed differentiation of pluripotent stem cells to functional hepatocytes. Methods Mol Biol. 2013; 997: 141–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
38. Schwartz RE, Linehan JL, Painschab MS, et al.: Defined conditions for development of functional hepatic cells from human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells Dev. 2005; 14(6): 643–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
39. Basma H, Soto-Gutiérrez A, Yannam GR, et al.: Differentiation and transplantation of human embryonic stem cell-derived hepatocytes. Gastroenterology. 2009; 136(3): 990–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
40. Kumar P, Tan Y, Cahan P: Understanding development and stem cells using single cell-based analyses of gene expression. Development. 2017; 144(1): 17–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
41. Wen L, Tang F: Single-cell sequencing in stem cell biology. Genome Biol. 2016; 17: 71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
42. Poulin J, Tasic B, Hjerling-Leffler J, et al.: Disentangling neural cell diversity using single-cell transcriptomics. Nat Neurosci. 2016; 19: 1131–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
43. Godoy P, Schmidt-Heck W, Natarajan K, et al.: Gene networks and transcription factor motifs defining the differentiation of stem cells into hepatocyte-like cells. J Hepatol. 2015; 63(4): 934–42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
44. Engel M, Do-Ha D, Muñoz SS, et al.: Common pitfalls of stem cell differentiation: a guide to improving protocols for neurodegenerative disease models and research. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2016; 73(19): 3693–709. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
45. Bramanti V, Tomassoni D, Avitabile M, et al.: Biomarkers of glial cell proliferation and differentiation in culture. Front Biosci (Schol Ed). 2010; 2: 558–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
46. Krencik R, Weick JP, Liu Y, et al.: Specification of transplantable astroglial subtypes from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2011; 29(6): 528–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
47. Serio A, Bilican B, Barmada SJ, et al.: Astrocyte pathology and the absence of non-cell autonomy in an induced pluripotent stem cell model of TDP-43 proteinopathy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110(12): 4697–702. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
48. Roybon L, Lamas NJ, Garcia AD, et al.: Human stem cell-derived spinal cord astrocytes with defined mature or reactive phenotypes. Cell Rep. 2013; 4(5): 1035–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
49. Watt FM, Hogan BL: Out of Eden: stem cells and their niches. Science. 2000; 287(5457): 1427–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
50. Park SY, Park J, Sim SH, et al.: Enhanced differentiation of human neural stem cells into neurons on graphene. Adv Mater. 2011; 23(36): H263–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
51. Eng G, Lee BW, Protas L, et al.: Autonomous beating rate adaptation in human stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes. Nat Commun. 2016; 7: 10312. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
52. Adamo L, Naveiras O, Wenzel PL, et al.: Biomechanical forces promote embryonic haematopoiesis. Nature. 2009; 459(7250): 1131–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
53. Kietzmann T: Metabolic zonation of the liver: The oxygen gradient revisited. Redox Biol. 2017; 11: 622–30. Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
54. Yamaguchi M, Seki T, Imayoshi I, et al.: Neural stem cells and neuro/gliogenesis in the central nervous system: understanding the structural and functional plasticity of the developing, mature, and diseased brain. J Physiol Sci. 2016; 66(3): 197–206. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
55. Vanhove J, Pistoni M, Welters M, et al.: H3K27me3 Does Not Orchestrate the Expression of Lineage-Specific Markers in hESC-Derived Hepatocytes In Vitro. Stem Cell Reports. 2016; 7(2): 192–206. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
56. Baxter M, Withey S, Harrison S, et al.: Phenotypic and functional analyses show stem cell-derived hepatocyte-like cells better mimic fetal rather than adult hepatocytes. J Hepatol. 2015; 62(3): 581–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
57. Lang J, Vera D, Cheng Y, et al.: Modeling Dengue Virus-Hepatic Cell Interactions Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Hepatocyte-like Cells. Stem Cell Reports. 2016; 7(3): 341–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
58. Xia Y, Carpentier A, Cheng X, et al.: Human stem cell-derived hepatocytes as a model for hepatitis B virus infection, spreading and virus-host interactions. J Hepatol. 2017; 66(3): 494–503. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
59. Shlomai A, Schwartz RE, Ramanan V, et al.: Modeling host interactions with hepatitis B virus using primary and induced pluripotent stem cell-derived hepatocellular systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(33): 12193–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
60. Roelandt P, Obeid S, Paeshuyse J, et al.: Human pluripotent stem cell-derived hepatocytes support complete replication of hepatitis C virus. J Hepatol. 2012; 57(2): 246–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
61. Kordower JH, Chu Y, Hauser RA, et al.: Lewy body-like pathology in long-term embryonic nigral transplants in Parkinson's disease. Nat Med. 2008; 14(5): 504–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
62. Olanow CW, Gracies JM, Goetz CG, et al.: Clinical pattern and risk factors for dyskinesias following fetal nigral transplantation in Parkinson's disease: a double blind video-based analysis. Mov Disord. 2009; 24(3): 336–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
63. Barker RA, Studer L, Cattaneo E, et al.: G-Force PD: a global initiative in coordinating stem cell-based dopamine treatments for Parkinson's disease. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2015; 1: 15017. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
64. Roy NS, Cleren C, Singh SK, et al.: Functional engraftment of human ES cell-derived dopaminergic neurons enriched by coculture with telomerase-immortalized midbrain astrocytes. Nat Med. 2006; 12(11): 1259–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
65. Lee AS, Tang C, Rao MS, et al.: Tumorigenicity as a clinical hurdle for pluripotent stem cell therapies. Nat Med. 2013; 19(8): 998–1004. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
66. Semrau S, Goldmann JE, Soumillon M, et al.: Dynamics of lineage commitment revealed by single-cell transcriptomics of differentiating embryonic stem cells. Nat Commun. 2017; 8(1): 1096. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
67. Collombet S, van Oevelen C, Sardina Ortega JL, et al.: Logical modeling of lymphoid and myeloid cell specification and transdifferentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(23): 5792–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
68. Smith ZD, Sindhu C, Meissner A: Molecular features of cellular reprogramming and development. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016; 17(3): 139–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
69. Dulken BW, Leeman DS, Boutet SC, et al.: Single-Cell Transcriptomic Analysis Defines Heterogeneity and Transcriptional Dynamics in the Adult Neural Stem Cell Lineage. Cell Rep. 2017; 18(3): 777–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
70. Yang L, Wang WH, Qiu WL, et al.: A single-cell transcriptomic analysis reveals precise pathways and regulatory mechanisms underlying hepatoblast differentiation. Hepatology. 2017; 66(5): 1387–401. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
71. Dominguez AA, Lim WA, Qi LS: Beyond editing: repurposing CRISPR-Cas9 for precision genome regulation and interrogation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016; 17(1): 5–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
72. Maeder ML, Linder SJ, Cascio VM, et al.: CRISPR RNA-guided activation of endogenous human genes. Nat Methods. 2013; 10(10): 977–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
73. Chavez A, Scheiman J, Vora S, et al.: Highly efficient Cas9-mediated transcriptional programming. Nat Methods. 2015; 12(4): 326–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
74. Gilbert LA, Larson MH, Morsut L, et al.: CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell. 2013; 154(2): 442–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
75. Ordovás L, Boon R, Pistoni M, et al.: Efficient Recombinase-Mediated Cassette Exchange in hPSCs to Study the Hepatocyte Lineage Reveals AAVS1 Locus-Mediated Transgene Inhibition. Stem Cell Reports. 2015; 5(5): 918–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
76. Esvelt KM, Mali P, Braff JL, et al.: Orthogonal Cas9 proteins for RNA-guided gene regulation and editing. Nat Methods. 2013; 10(11): 1116–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
77. Shalem O, Sanjana NE, Zhang F: High-throughput functional genomics using CRISPR-Cas9. Nat Rev Genet. 2015; 16(5): 299–311. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
78. Larson MH, Gilbert LA, Wang X, et al.: CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Nat Protoc. 2013; 8(11): 2180–96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
79. Konermann S, Brigham MD, Trevino AE, et al.: Genome-scale transcriptional activation by an engineered CRISPR-Cas9 complex. Nature. 2015; 517(7536): 583–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
80. Gilbert LA, Horlbeck MA, Adamson B, et al.: Genome-Scale CRISPR-Mediated Control of Gene Repression and Activation. Cell. 2014; 159(3): 647–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
81. Mandegar MA, Huebsch N, Frolov EB, et al.: CRISPR Interference Efficiently Induces Specific and Reversible Gene Silencing in Human iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell. 2016; 18(4): 541–53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
82. Pagliuca FW, Millman JR, Gürtler M, et al.: Generation of functional human pancreatic β cells in vitro. Cell. 2014; 159(2): 428–39. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
83. Siller R, Greenhough S, Naumovska E, et al.: Small-molecule-driven hepatocyte differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Reports. 2015; 4(5): 939–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
84. Charbord J, Poydenot P, Bonnefond C, et al.: High throughput screening for inhibitors of REST in neural derivatives of human embryonic stem cells reveals a chemical compound that promotes expression of neuronal genes. Stem Cells. 2013; 31(9): 1816–28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
85. Mathieu J, Ruohola-Baker H: Metabolic remodeling during the loss and acquisition of pluripotency. Development. 2017; 144(4): 541–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
86. Varum S, Rodrigues AS, Moura MB, et al.: Energy metabolism in human pluripotent stem cells and their differentiated counterparts. PLoS One. 2011; 6(6): e20914. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
87. Folmes CD, Nelson TJ, Martinez-Fernandez A, et al.: Somatic oxidative bioenergetics transitions into pluripotency-dependent glycolysis to facilitate nuclear reprogramming. Cell Metab. 2011; 14(2): 264–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
88. Wong-Riley MT: Cytochrome oxidase: an endogenous metabolic marker for neuronal activity. Trends Neurosci. 1989; 12(3): 94–101. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
89. Lopaschuk GD, Jaswal JS: Energy metabolic phenotype of the cardiomyocyte during development, differentiation, and postnatal maturation. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2010; 56(2): 130–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
90. Rui L: Energy metabolism in the liver. Compr Physiol. 2014; 4(1): 177–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
91. Monterey MD, Szerlip NJ, Mathupala SP: Low-cost media formulation for culture of brain tumor spheroids (neurospheres). Biotechniques. 2013; 55(2): 83–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
92. Shiraki N, Shiraki Y, Tsuyama T, et al.: Methionine metabolism regulates maintenance and differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells. Cell Metab. 2014; 19(5): 780–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
93. Heslop JA, Rowe C, Walsh J, et al.: Mechanistic evaluation of primary human hepatocyte culture using global proteomic analysis reveals a selective dedifferentiation profile. Arch Toxicol. 2017; 91(1): 439–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
94. Lancaster MA, Knoblich JA: Generation of cerebral organoids from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Protoc. 2014; 9(10): 2329–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
95. Koui Y, Kido T, Ito T, et al.: An In Vitro Human Liver Model by iPSC-Derived Parenchymal and Non-parenchymal Cells. Stem Cell Reports. 2017; 9(2): 490–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
96. Takebe T, Sekine K, Enomura M, et al.: Vascularized and functional human liver from an iPSC-derived organ bud transplant. Nature. 2013; 499(7459): 481–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
97. Yang C, Tibbitt MW, Basta L, et al.: Mechanical memory and dosing influence stem cell fate. Nat Mater. 2014; 13(6): 645–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
98. Sun Y, Yong KM, Villa-Diaz LG, et al.: Hippo/YAP-mediated rigidity-dependent motor neuron differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Mater. 2014; 13(6): 599–604. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
99. Engler AJ, Sen S, Sweeney HL, et al.: Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell. 2006; 126(4): 677–89. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
100. Yeung T, Georges PC, Flanagan LA, et al.: Effects of substrate stiffness on cell morphology, cytoskeletal structure, and adhesion. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 2005; 60(1): 24–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
101. Sala A, Hänseler P, Ranga A, et al.: Engineering 3D cell instructive microenvironments by rational assembly of artificial extracellular matrices and cell patterning. Integr Biol (Camb). 2011; 3(11): 1102–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
102. Cerqueira MT, da Silva LP, Santos TC, et al.: Gellan gum-hyaluronic acid spongy-like hydrogels and cells from adipose tissue synergize promoting neoskin vascularization. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2014; 6(22): 19668–79. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
103. Caiazzo M, Okawa Y, Ranga A, et al.: Defined three-dimensional microenvironments boost induction of pluripotency. Nat Mater. 2016; 15(3): 344–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
104. Ishihara K, Ranga A, Lutolf MP, et al.: Reconstitution of a Patterned Neural Tube from Single Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells. Methods Mol Biol. 2017; 1597: 43–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
105. Domingos M, Dinucci D, Cometa S, et al.: Polycaprolactone Scaffolds Fabricated via Bioextrusion for Tissue Engineering Applications. Int J Biomater. 2009; 2009: 239643. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
106. Gao G, Yonezawa T, Hubbell K, et al.: Inkjet-bioprinted acrylated peptides and PEG hydrogel with human mesenchymal stem cells promote robust bone and cartilage formation with minimal printhead clogging. Biotechnol J. 2015; 10(10): 1568–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
107. Blaeser A, Duarte Campos DF, Puster U, et al.: Controlling Shear Stress in 3D Bioprinting is a Key Factor to Balance Printing Resolution and Stem Cell Integrity. Adv Healthc Mater. 2016; 5(3): 326–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
108. Faulkner-Jones A, Fyfe C, Cornelissen DJ, et al.: Bioprinting of human pluripotent stem cells and their directed differentiation into hepatocyte-like cells for the generation of mini-livers in 3D. Biofabrication. 2015; 7(4): 044102. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
109. Gaebel R, Ma N, Liu J, et al.: Patterning human stem cells and endothelial cells with laser printing for cardiac regeneration. Biomaterials. 2011; 32(35): 9218–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
110. Guillotin B, Souquet A, Catros S, et al.: Laser assisted bioprinting of engineered tissue with high cell density and microscale organization. Biomaterials. 2010; 31(28): 7250–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
111. Carson D, Hnilova M, Yang X, et al.: Nanotopography-Induced Structural Anisotropy and Sarcomere Development in Human Cardiomyocytes Derived from Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2016; 8(34): 21923–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
112. Atmanli A, Domian IJ: Recreating the Cardiac Microenvironment in Pluripotent Stem Cell Models of Human Physiology and Disease. Trends Cell Biol. 2017; 27(5): 352–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
113. Kshitiz, Park J, Kim P, et al.: Control of stem cell fate and function by engineering physical microenvironments. Integr Biol (Camb). 2012; 4(9): 1008–18. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
114. Reimer A, Vasilevich A, Hulshof F, et al.: Scalable topographies to support proliferation and Oct4 expression by human induced pluripotent stem cells. Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 18948. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
115. Discher DE, Janmey P, Wang YL: Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science. 2005; 310(5751): 1139–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
116. Balikov DA, Fang B, Chun YW, et al.: Directing lineage specification of human mesenchymal stem cells by decoupling electrical stimulation and physical patterning on unmodified graphene. Nanoscale. 2016; 8(28): 13730–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
117. Wagenaar DA, Pine J, Potter SM: Searching for plasticity in dissociated cortical cultures on multi-electrode arrays. J Negat Results Biomed. 2006; 5: 16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
118. Bologna LL, Nieus T, Tedesco M, et al.: Low-frequency stimulation enhances burst activity in cortical cultures during development. Neuroscience. 2010; 165(3): 692–704. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
119. Denning C, Borgdorff V, Crutchley J, et al.: Cardiomyocytes from human pluripotent stem cells: From laboratory curiosity to industrial biomedical platform. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2016; 1863(7 Pt B): 1728–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
120. Ruan JL, Tulloch NL, Saiget M, et al.: Mechanical Stress Promotes Maturation of Human Myocardium From Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Progenitors. Stem Cells. 2015; 33(7): 2148–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
121. Michael S, Sorg H, Peck CT, et al.: Tissue engineered skin substitutes created by laser-assisted bioprinting form skin-like structures in the dorsal skin fold chamber in mice. PLoS One. 2013; 8(3): e57741. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
122. van Duinen V, Trietsch SJ, Joore J, et al.: Microfluidic 3D cell culture: from tools to tissue models. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2015; 35: 118–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
123. Giobbe GG, Michielin F, Luni C, et al.: Functional differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells on a chip. Nat Methods. 2015; 12(7): 637–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 23 Feb 2018

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Development and Regeneration, Stem Cell Institute Leuven, KU Leuven, Belgium

Joke Terryn
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Tine Tricot
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Madhavsai Gajjar
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Catherine Verfaillie
Roles: Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This research was supported by the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT SBO iPSCAF - 150031). Joke Terryn is a recipient of the IWT SB (141228), and Tine Tricot is a recipient of the FWO (1185918N) grant.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 23 Feb 2018, 7:220

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12596.1

Copyright

© 2018 Terryn J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Terryn J, Tricot T, Gajjar M and Verfaillie C. Recent advances in lineage differentiation from stem cells: hurdles and opportunities? [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7(F1000 Faculty Rev):220 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12596.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 23 Feb 2018

Views

0

Reviewer Report 23 Feb 2018

Gareth J Sullivan, Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.13640.r31140

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

0

Reviewer Report 23 Feb 2018

Amander T Clark, Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, Los Angeles, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.13640.r31139

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 23 Feb 2018

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 23 Feb 18	read	read

Amander T Clark, Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, Los Angeles, USA
Gareth J Sullivan, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

0 Views

23 Feb 2018 | for Version 1

Gareth J Sullivan, Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

0 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

0 Views

23 Feb 2018 | for Version 1

Amander T Clark, Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, Los Angeles, USA

0 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Martin GR: Isolation of a pluripotent cell line from early mouse embryos cultured in medium conditioned by teratocarcinoma stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981; 78(12): 7634–8. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Thomson JA, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro SS, et al.: Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science. 1998; 282(5391): 1145–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S: Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006; 126(4): 663–76. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[4] 4. Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, et al.: Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell. 2007; 131(5): 861–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[5] 5. Lo Nigro A, de Jaime-Soguero A, Khoueiry R, et al.: PDGFRα⁺ Cells in Embryonic Stem Cell Cultures Represent the In Vitro Equivalent of the Pre-implantation Primitive Endoderm Precursors. Stem Cell Reports. 2017; 8(2): 318–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Nichols J, Smith A: Naive and primed pluripotent states. Cell Stem Cell. 2009; 4(6): 487–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Brons IG, Smithers LE, Trotter MW, et al.: Derivation of pluripotent epiblast stem cells from mammalian embryos. Nature. 2007; 448(7150): 191–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Mekhoubad S, Bock C, de Boer AS, et al.: Erosion of dosage compensation impacts human iPSC disease modeling. Cell Stem Cell. 2012; 10(5): 595–609. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[9] 9. Nazor KL, Altun G, Lynch C, et al.: Recurrent variations in DNA methylation in human pluripotent stem cells and their differentiated derivatives. Cell Stem Cell. 2012; 10(5): 620–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] 10. Patel S, Bonora G, Sahakyan A, et al.: Human Embryonic Stem Cells Do Not Change Their X Inactivation Status during Differentiation. Cell Rep. 2017; 18(1): 54–67. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[11] 11. Sahakyan A, Kim R, Chronis C, et al.: Human Naive Pluripotent Stem Cells Model X Chromosome Dampening and X Inactivation. Cell Stem Cell. 2017; 20(1): 87–101. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[12] 12. Dhara SK, Benvenisty N: Gene trap as a tool for genome annotation and analysis of X chromosome inactivation in human embryonic stem cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004; 32(13): 3995–4002. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] 13. Geens M, Seriola A, Barbé L, et al.: Female human pluripotent stem cells rapidly lose X chromosome inactivation marks and progress to a skewed methylation pattern during culture. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016; 22(4): 285–98. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[14] 14. Lengner CJ, Gimelbrant AA, Erwin JA, et al.: Derivation of pre-X inactivation human embryonic stem cells under physiological oxygen concentrations. Cell. 2010; 141(5): 872–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[15] 15. Liu W, Yin Y, Jiang Y, et al.: Genetic and epigenetic X-chromosome variations in a parthenogenetic human embryonic stem cell line. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011; 28(4): 303–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Miyagoe-Suzuki Y, Nishiyama T, Nakamura M, et al.: Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from a Manifesting Carrier of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Characterization of Their X-Inactivation Status. Stem Cells Int. 2017; 2017: 7906843. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[17] 17. Osafune K, Caron L, Borowiak M, et al.: Marked differences in differentiation propensity among human embryonic stem cell lines. Nat Biotechnol. 2008; 26(3): 313–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Davidson KC, Mason EA, Pera MF: The pluripotent state in mouse and human. Development. 2015; 142(18): 3090–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Guo G, von Meyenn F, Santos F, et al.: Naive Pluripotent Stem Cells Derived Directly from Isolated Cells of the Human Inner Cell Mass. Stem Cell Reports. 2016; 6(4): 437–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[20] 20. Guo G, von Meyenn F, Rostovskaya M, et al.: Epigenetic resetting of human pluripotency. Development. 2017; 144(15): 2748–63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[21] 21. Takashima Y, Guo G, Loos R, et al.: Resetting transcription factor control circuitry toward ground-state pluripotency in human. Cell. 2014; 158(6): 1254–69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] 22. Gafni O, Weinberger L, Mansour AA, et al.: Derivation of novel human ground state naive pluripotent stem cells. Nature. 2013; 504(7479): 282–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[23] 23. Irie N, Weinberger L, Tang WW, et al.: SOX17 is a critical specifier of human primordial germ cell fate. Cell. 2015; 160(1–2): 253–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[24] 24. Pastor WA, Chen D, Liu W, et al.: Naive Human Pluripotent Cells Feature a Methylation Landscape Devoid of Blastocyst or Germline Memory. Cell Stem Cell. 2016; 18(3): 323–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[25] 25. Hough SR, Thornton M, Mason E, et al.: Single-cell gene expression profiles define self-renewing, pluripotent, and lineage primed states of human pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Reports. 2014; 2(6): 881–95. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. Smith A: Formative pluripotency: the executive phase in a developmental continuum. Development. 2017; 144(3): 365–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Kalkan T, Olova N, Roode M, et al.: Tracking the embryonic stem cell transition from ground state pluripotency. Development. 2017; 144(7): 1221–1234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] 28. Shi Y, Kirwan P, Smith J, et al.: Human cerebral cortex development from pluripotent stem cells to functional excitatory synapses. Nat Neurosci. 2012; 15(3): 477–86, S1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[29] 29. Maury Y, Côme J, Piskorowski RA, et al.: Combinatorial analysis of developmental cues efficiently converts human pluripotent stem cells into multiple neuronal subtypes. Nat Biotechnol. 2015; 33(1): 89–96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Cajánek L, Ribeiro D, Liste I, et al.: Wnt/beta-catenin signaling blockade promotes neuronal induction and dopaminergic differentiation in embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells. 2009; 27(12): 2917–27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Douvaras P, Fossati V: Generation and isolation of oligodendrocyte progenitor cells from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Protoc. 2015; 10(8): 1143–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Shaltouki A, Peng J, Liu Q, et al.: Efficient generation of astrocytes from human pluripotent stem cells in defined conditions. Stem Cells. 2013; 31(5): 941–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Laflamme MA, Chen KY, Naumova AV, et al.: Cardiomyocytes derived from human embryonic stem cells in pro-survival factors enhance function of infarcted rat hearts. Nat Biotechnol. 2007; 25(9): 1015–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[34] 34. Mummery C, Ward-van Oostwaard D, Doevendans P, et al.: Differentiation of human embryonic stem cells to cardiomyocytes: role of coculture with visceral endoderm-like cells. Circulation. 2003; 107(21): 2733–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Kehat I, Kenyagin-Karsenti D, Snir M, et al.: Human embryonic stem cells can differentiate into myocytes with structural and functional properties of cardiomyocytes. J Clin Invest. 2001; 108(3): 407–14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] 36. Burridge PW, Matsa E, Shukla P, et al.: Chemically defined generation of human cardiomyocytes. Nat Methods. 2014; 11(8): 855–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[37] 37. Roelandt P, Vanhove J, Verfaillie C: Directed differentiation of pluripotent stem cells to functional hepatocytes. Methods Mol Biol. 2013; 997: 141–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Schwartz RE, Linehan JL, Painschab MS, et al.: Defined conditions for development of functional hepatic cells from human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells Dev. 2005; 14(6): 643–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[39] 39. Basma H, Soto-Gutiérrez A, Yannam GR, et al.: Differentiation and transplantation of human embryonic stem cell-derived hepatocytes. Gastroenterology. 2009; 136(3): 990–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[40] 40. Kumar P, Tan Y, Cahan P: Understanding development and stem cells using single cell-based analyses of gene expression. Development. 2017; 144(1): 17–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[41] 41. Wen L, Tang F: Single-cell sequencing in stem cell biology. Genome Biol. 2016; 17: 71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[42] 42. Poulin J, Tasic B, Hjerling-Leffler J, et al.: Disentangling neural cell diversity using single-cell transcriptomics. Nat Neurosci. 2016; 19: 1131–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Godoy P, Schmidt-Heck W, Natarajan K, et al.: Gene networks and transcription factor motifs defining the differentiation of stem cells into hepatocyte-like cells. J Hepatol. 2015; 63(4): 934–42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[44] 44. Engel M, Do-Ha D, Muñoz SS, et al.: Common pitfalls of stem cell differentiation: a guide to improving protocols for neurodegenerative disease models and research. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2016; 73(19): 3693–709. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[45] 45. Bramanti V, Tomassoni D, Avitabile M, et al.: Biomarkers of glial cell proliferation and differentiation in culture. Front Biosci (Schol Ed). 2010; 2: 558–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. Krencik R, Weick JP, Liu Y, et al.: Specification of transplantable astroglial subtypes from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2011; 29(6): 528–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[47] 47. Serio A, Bilican B, Barmada SJ, et al.: Astrocyte pathology and the absence of non-cell autonomy in an induced pluripotent stem cell model of TDP-43 proteinopathy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110(12): 4697–702. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[48] 48. Roybon L, Lamas NJ, Garcia AD, et al.: Human stem cell-derived spinal cord astrocytes with defined mature or reactive phenotypes. Cell Rep. 2013; 4(5): 1035–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[49] 49. Watt FM, Hogan BL: Out of Eden: stem cells and their niches. Science. 2000; 287(5457): 1427–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[50] 50. Park SY, Park J, Sim SH, et al.: Enhanced differentiation of human neural stem cells into neurons on graphene. Adv Mater. 2011; 23(36): H263–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[51] 51. Eng G, Lee BW, Protas L, et al.: Autonomous beating rate adaptation in human stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes. Nat Commun. 2016; 7: 10312. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[52] 52. Adamo L, Naveiras O, Wenzel PL, et al.: Biomechanical forces promote embryonic haematopoiesis. Nature. 2009; 459(7250): 1131–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[53] 53. Kietzmann T: Metabolic zonation of the liver: The oxygen gradient revisited. Redox Biol. 2017; 11: 622–30. Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[54] 54. Yamaguchi M, Seki T, Imayoshi I, et al.: Neural stem cells and neuro/gliogenesis in the central nervous system: understanding the structural and functional plasticity of the developing, mature, and diseased brain. J Physiol Sci. 2016; 66(3): 197–206. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[55] 55. Vanhove J, Pistoni M, Welters M, et al.: H3K27me3 Does Not Orchestrate the Expression of Lineage-Specific Markers in hESC-Derived Hepatocytes In Vitro. Stem Cell Reports. 2016; 7(2): 192–206. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[56] 56. Baxter M, Withey S, Harrison S, et al.: Phenotypic and functional analyses show stem cell-derived hepatocyte-like cells better mimic fetal rather than adult hepatocytes. J Hepatol. 2015; 62(3): 581–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[57] 57. Lang J, Vera D, Cheng Y, et al.: Modeling Dengue Virus-Hepatic Cell Interactions Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Hepatocyte-like Cells. Stem Cell Reports. 2016; 7(3): 341–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[58] 58. Xia Y, Carpentier A, Cheng X, et al.: Human stem cell-derived hepatocytes as a model for hepatitis B virus infection, spreading and virus-host interactions. J Hepatol. 2017; 66(3): 494–503. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[59] 59. Shlomai A, Schwartz RE, Ramanan V, et al.: Modeling host interactions with hepatitis B virus using primary and induced pluripotent stem cell-derived hepatocellular systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(33): 12193–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[60] 60. Roelandt P, Obeid S, Paeshuyse J, et al.: Human pluripotent stem cell-derived hepatocytes support complete replication of hepatitis C virus. J Hepatol. 2012; 57(2): 246–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[61] 61. Kordower JH, Chu Y, Hauser RA, et al.: Lewy body-like pathology in long-term embryonic nigral transplants in Parkinson's disease. Nat Med. 2008; 14(5): 504–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[62] 62. Olanow CW, Gracies JM, Goetz CG, et al.: Clinical pattern and risk factors for dyskinesias following fetal nigral transplantation in Parkinson's disease: a double blind video-based analysis. Mov Disord. 2009; 24(3): 336–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[63] 63. Barker RA, Studer L, Cattaneo E, et al.: G-Force PD: a global initiative in coordinating stem cell-based dopamine treatments for Parkinson's disease. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2015; 1: 15017. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[64] 64. Roy NS, Cleren C, Singh SK, et al.: Functional engraftment of human ES cell-derived dopaminergic neurons enriched by coculture with telomerase-immortalized midbrain astrocytes. Nat Med. 2006; 12(11): 1259–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[65] 65. Lee AS, Tang C, Rao MS, et al.: Tumorigenicity as a clinical hurdle for pluripotent stem cell therapies. Nat Med. 2013; 19(8): 998–1004. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[66] 66. Semrau S, Goldmann JE, Soumillon M, et al.: Dynamics of lineage commitment revealed by single-cell transcriptomics of differentiating embryonic stem cells. Nat Commun. 2017; 8(1): 1096. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[67] 67. Collombet S, van Oevelen C, Sardina Ortega JL, et al.: Logical modeling of lymphoid and myeloid cell specification and transdifferentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(23): 5792–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[68] 68. Smith ZD, Sindhu C, Meissner A: Molecular features of cellular reprogramming and development. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016; 17(3): 139–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[69] 69. Dulken BW, Leeman DS, Boutet SC, et al.: Single-Cell Transcriptomic Analysis Defines Heterogeneity and Transcriptional Dynamics in the Adult Neural Stem Cell Lineage. Cell Rep. 2017; 18(3): 777–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[70] 70. Yang L, Wang WH, Qiu WL, et al.: A single-cell transcriptomic analysis reveals precise pathways and regulatory mechanisms underlying hepatoblast differentiation. Hepatology. 2017; 66(5): 1387–401. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[71] 71. Dominguez AA, Lim WA, Qi LS: Beyond editing: repurposing CRISPR-Cas9 for precision genome regulation and interrogation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016; 17(1): 5–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[72] 72. Maeder ML, Linder SJ, Cascio VM, et al.: CRISPR RNA-guided activation of endogenous human genes. Nat Methods. 2013; 10(10): 977–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[73] 73. Chavez A, Scheiman J, Vora S, et al.: Highly efficient Cas9-mediated transcriptional programming. Nat Methods. 2015; 12(4): 326–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[74] 74. Gilbert LA, Larson MH, Morsut L, et al.: CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell. 2013; 154(2): 442–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[75] 75. Ordovás L, Boon R, Pistoni M, et al.: Efficient Recombinase-Mediated Cassette Exchange in hPSCs to Study the Hepatocyte Lineage Reveals AAVS1 Locus-Mediated Transgene Inhibition. Stem Cell Reports. 2015; 5(5): 918–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[76] 76. Esvelt KM, Mali P, Braff JL, et al.: Orthogonal Cas9 proteins for RNA-guided gene regulation and editing. Nat Methods. 2013; 10(11): 1116–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[77] 77. Shalem O, Sanjana NE, Zhang F: High-throughput functional genomics using CRISPR-Cas9. Nat Rev Genet. 2015; 16(5): 299–311. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[78] 78. Larson MH, Gilbert LA, Wang X, et al.: CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Nat Protoc. 2013; 8(11): 2180–96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[79] 79. Konermann S, Brigham MD, Trevino AE, et al.: Genome-scale transcriptional activation by an engineered CRISPR-Cas9 complex. Nature. 2015; 517(7536): 583–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[80] 80. Gilbert LA, Horlbeck MA, Adamson B, et al.: Genome-Scale CRISPR-Mediated Control of Gene Repression and Activation. Cell. 2014; 159(3): 647–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[81] 81. Mandegar MA, Huebsch N, Frolov EB, et al.: CRISPR Interference Efficiently Induces Specific and Reversible Gene Silencing in Human iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell. 2016; 18(4): 541–53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[82] 82. Pagliuca FW, Millman JR, Gürtler M, et al.: Generation of functional human pancreatic β cells in vitro. Cell. 2014; 159(2): 428–39. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[83] 83. Siller R, Greenhough S, Naumovska E, et al.: Small-molecule-driven hepatocyte differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Reports. 2015; 4(5): 939–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[84] 84. Charbord J, Poydenot P, Bonnefond C, et al.: High throughput screening for inhibitors of REST in neural derivatives of human embryonic stem cells reveals a chemical compound that promotes expression of neuronal genes. Stem Cells. 2013; 31(9): 1816–28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[85] 85. Mathieu J, Ruohola-Baker H: Metabolic remodeling during the loss and acquisition of pluripotency. Development. 2017; 144(4): 541–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[86] 86. Varum S, Rodrigues AS, Moura MB, et al.: Energy metabolism in human pluripotent stem cells and their differentiated counterparts. PLoS One. 2011; 6(6): e20914. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[87] 87. Folmes CD, Nelson TJ, Martinez-Fernandez A, et al.: Somatic oxidative bioenergetics transitions into pluripotency-dependent glycolysis to facilitate nuclear reprogramming. Cell Metab. 2011; 14(2): 264–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[88] 88. Wong-Riley MT: Cytochrome oxidase: an endogenous metabolic marker for neuronal activity. Trends Neurosci. 1989; 12(3): 94–101. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[89] 89. Lopaschuk GD, Jaswal JS: Energy metabolic phenotype of the cardiomyocyte during development, differentiation, and postnatal maturation. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2010; 56(2): 130–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[90] 90. Rui L: Energy metabolism in the liver. Compr Physiol. 2014; 4(1): 177–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[91] 91. Monterey MD, Szerlip NJ, Mathupala SP: Low-cost media formulation for culture of brain tumor spheroids (neurospheres). Biotechniques. 2013; 55(2): 83–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[92] 92. Shiraki N, Shiraki Y, Tsuyama T, et al.: Methionine metabolism regulates maintenance and differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells. Cell Metab. 2014; 19(5): 780–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[93] 93. Heslop JA, Rowe C, Walsh J, et al.: Mechanistic evaluation of primary human hepatocyte culture using global proteomic analysis reveals a selective dedifferentiation profile. Arch Toxicol. 2017; 91(1): 439–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[94] 94. Lancaster MA, Knoblich JA: Generation of cerebral organoids from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Protoc. 2014; 9(10): 2329–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[95] 95. Koui Y, Kido T, Ito T, et al.: An In Vitro Human Liver Model by iPSC-Derived Parenchymal and Non-parenchymal Cells. Stem Cell Reports. 2017; 9(2): 490–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[96] 96. Takebe T, Sekine K, Enomura M, et al.: Vascularized and functional human liver from an iPSC-derived organ bud transplant. Nature. 2013; 499(7459): 481–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[97] 97. Yang C, Tibbitt MW, Basta L, et al.: Mechanical memory and dosing influence stem cell fate. Nat Mater. 2014; 13(6): 645–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[98] 98. Sun Y, Yong KM, Villa-Diaz LG, et al.: Hippo/YAP-mediated rigidity-dependent motor neuron differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Mater. 2014; 13(6): 599–604. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[99] 99. Engler AJ, Sen S, Sweeney HL, et al.: Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell. 2006; 126(4): 677–89. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[100] 100. Yeung T, Georges PC, Flanagan LA, et al.: Effects of substrate stiffness on cell morphology, cytoskeletal structure, and adhesion. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 2005; 60(1): 24–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[101] 101. Sala A, Hänseler P, Ranga A, et al.: Engineering 3D cell instructive microenvironments by rational assembly of artificial extracellular matrices and cell patterning. Integr Biol (Camb). 2011; 3(11): 1102–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[102] 102. Cerqueira MT, da Silva LP, Santos TC, et al.: Gellan gum-hyaluronic acid spongy-like hydrogels and cells from adipose tissue synergize promoting neoskin vascularization. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2014; 6(22): 19668–79. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[103] 103. Caiazzo M, Okawa Y, Ranga A, et al.: Defined three-dimensional microenvironments boost induction of pluripotency. Nat Mater. 2016; 15(3): 344–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[104] 104. Ishihara K, Ranga A, Lutolf MP, et al.: Reconstitution of a Patterned Neural Tube from Single Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells. Methods Mol Biol. 2017; 1597: 43–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[105] 105. Domingos M, Dinucci D, Cometa S, et al.: Polycaprolactone Scaffolds Fabricated via Bioextrusion for Tissue Engineering Applications. Int J Biomater. 2009; 2009: 239643. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[106] 106. Gao G, Yonezawa T, Hubbell K, et al.: Inkjet-bioprinted acrylated peptides and PEG hydrogel with human mesenchymal stem cells promote robust bone and cartilage formation with minimal printhead clogging. Biotechnol J. 2015; 10(10): 1568–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[107] 107. Blaeser A, Duarte Campos DF, Puster U, et al.: Controlling Shear Stress in 3D Bioprinting is a Key Factor to Balance Printing Resolution and Stem Cell Integrity. Adv Healthc Mater. 2016; 5(3): 326–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[108] 108. Faulkner-Jones A, Fyfe C, Cornelissen DJ, et al.: Bioprinting of human pluripotent stem cells and their directed differentiation into hepatocyte-like cells for the generation of mini-livers in 3D. Biofabrication. 2015; 7(4): 044102. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[109] 109. Gaebel R, Ma N, Liu J, et al.: Patterning human stem cells and endothelial cells with laser printing for cardiac regeneration. Biomaterials. 2011; 32(35): 9218–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[110] 110. Guillotin B, Souquet A, Catros S, et al.: Laser assisted bioprinting of engineered tissue with high cell density and microscale organization. Biomaterials. 2010; 31(28): 7250–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[111] 111. Carson D, Hnilova M, Yang X, et al.: Nanotopography-Induced Structural Anisotropy and Sarcomere Development in Human Cardiomyocytes Derived from Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2016; 8(34): 21923–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[112] 112. Atmanli A, Domian IJ: Recreating the Cardiac Microenvironment in Pluripotent Stem Cell Models of Human Physiology and Disease. Trends Cell Biol. 2017; 27(5): 352–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[113] 113. Kshitiz, Park J, Kim P, et al.: Control of stem cell fate and function by engineering physical microenvironments. Integr Biol (Camb). 2012; 4(9): 1008–18. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text

[114] 114. Reimer A, Vasilevich A, Hulshof F, et al.: Scalable topographies to support proliferation and Oct4 expression by human induced pluripotent stem cells. Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 18948. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[115] 115. Discher DE, Janmey P, Wang YL: Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science. 2005; 310(5751): 1139–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[116] 116. Balikov DA, Fang B, Chun YW, et al.: Directing lineage specification of human mesenchymal stem cells by decoupling electrical stimulation and physical patterning on unmodified graphene. Nanoscale. 2016; 8(28): 13730–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[117] 117. Wagenaar DA, Pine J, Potter SM: Searching for plasticity in dissociated cortical cultures on multi-electrode arrays. J Negat Results Biomed. 2006; 5: 16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[118] 118. Bologna LL, Nieus T, Tedesco M, et al.: Low-frequency stimulation enhances burst activity in cortical cultures during development. Neuroscience. 2010; 165(3): 692–704. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[119] 119. Denning C, Borgdorff V, Crutchley J, et al.: Cardiomyocytes from human pluripotent stem cells: From laboratory curiosity to industrial biomedical platform. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2016; 1863(7 Pt B): 1728–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[120] 120. Ruan JL, Tulloch NL, Saiget M, et al.: Mechanical Stress Promotes Maturation of Human Myocardium From Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Progenitors. Stem Cells. 2015; 33(7): 2148–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[121] 121. Michael S, Sorg H, Peck CT, et al.: Tissue engineered skin substitutes created by laser-assisted bioprinting form skin-like structures in the dorsal skin fold chamber in mice. PLoS One. 2013; 8(3): e57741. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[122] 122. van Duinen V, Trietsch SJ, Joore J, et al.: Microfluidic 3D cell culture: from tools to tissue models. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2015; 35: 118–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[123] 123. Giobbe GG, Michielin F, Luni C, et al.: Functional differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells on a chip. Nat Methods. 2015; 12(7): 637–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Recent advances in lineage differentiation from stem cells: hurdles and opportunities?

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Pluripotency matters

Figure 1. Pluripotent stem cell (PSC) hierarchy.

Lineage differentiation: current state of the art and shortcomings

Lineage differentiation: ways forward

Genome editing

Chemical engineering of the culture medium

Recreation of the stem cell, precursor, and mature cell niche

Mechanical and electrical engineering

Engineering perfusion

Conclusions

Figure 2. Schematic overview for the advances in lineage differentiation.

Abbreviations

Competing interests

Grant information

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated