SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Comparative study of efficacy of dopaminergic neuron differentiation between embryonic stem cell and protein-based induced pluripotent stem cell.

PLoS One · 2014-01-22

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085736PMID: 24465672

Open accessComparative Study; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

In patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), stem cells can serve as therapeutic agents to restore or regenerate injured nervous system. Here, we differentiated two types of stem cells; mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) and protein-based iPS cells (P-iPSCs) generated by non-viral methods, into midbrain dopaminergic (mDA) neurons, and then compared the efficiency of DA neuron differentiation from these two cell types. In the undifferentiated stage, P-iPSCs expressed pluripotency markers as ES cells did, indicating that protein-based reprogramming was stable and authentic. While both stem cell types were differentiated to the terminally-matured mDA neurons, P-iPSCs showed higher DA neuron-specific markers' expression than ES cells. To investigate the mechanism of the superior induction capacity of DA neurons observed in P-iPSCs compared to ES cells, we analyzed histone modifications by genome-wide ChIP sequencing analysis and their corresponding microarray results between two cell types. We found that Wnt signaling was up-regulated, while SFRP1, a counter-acting molecule of Wnt, was more suppressed in P-iPSCs than in mESCs. In PD rat model, transplantation of neural precursor cells derived from both cell types showed improved function. The present study demonstrates that P-iPSCs could be a suitable cell source to provide patient-specific therapy for PD without ethical problems or rejection issues.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.