iPSC Disease Modeling

Induced pluripotent stem cell technology has great potential to model human diseases, but faces many challenges. Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technology has provided previously unanticipated possibilities to model human disease in the culture dish. Reprogramming somatic cells from patients into an embryonic stem cell–like state (1) followed by differentiation into disease-relevant cell types can generate an unlimited source of human tissue carrying the genetic variations that caused or facilitated disease development (2). Yet, despite the excitement over this “disease-in-a-dish” approach, studying genetic disorders in patient-derived cells faces more challenges than studies using genetically well-defined model systems. Here we describe some of these limitations, and also present some solutions for ensuring that iPSC technology lives up to at least some of its promise.

[1]  G. Daley,et al.  New lessons learned from disease modeling with induced pluripotent stem cells. , 2012, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[2]  Jacob A. Tennessen,et al.  Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes , 2012, Science.

[3]  Claudio J. Verzilli,et al.  An Abundance of Rare Functional Variants in 202 Drug Target Genes Sequenced in 14,002 People , 2012, Science.

[4]  S. Yamanaka.  Induced pluripotent stem cells: past, present, and future. , 2012, Cell stem cell.

[5]  K. Eggan,et al.  Erosion of dosage compensation impacts human iPSC disease modeling. , 2012, Cell stem cell.

[6]  Yutao Du,et al.  Low incidence of DNA sequence variation in human induced pluripotent stem cells generated by nonintegrating plasmid expression. , 2012, Cell stem cell.

[7]  Rudolf Jaenisch,et al.  Reprogramming factor stoichiometry influences the epigenetic state and biological properties of induced pluripotent stem cells. , 2011, Cell stem cell.

[8]  Morgan L. Maeder,et al.  In Situ Genetic Correction of the Sickle Cell Anemia Mutation in Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Using Engineered Zinc Finger Nucleases , 2011, Stem cells.

[9]  A. Bradley,et al.  Targeted gene correction of α1-antitrypsin deficiency in induced pluripotent stem cells , 2011, Nature.

[10]  Susan Lindquist,et al.  Generation of Isogenic Pluripotent Stem Cells Differing Exclusively at Two Early Onset Parkinson Point Mutations , 2011, Cell.

[11]  Samira Kiani,et al.  Genetic engineering of human ES and iPS cells using TALE nucleases , 2011, Nature Biotechnology.

[12]  Michel Sadelain,et al.  miR-371-3 expression predicts neural differentiation propensity in human pluripotent stem cells. , 2011, Cell stem cell.

[13]  R. Stewart,et al.  Hotspots of aberrant epigenomic reprogramming in human induced pluripotent stem cells , 2011, Nature.

[14]  Riitta Lahesmaa,et al.  Copy number variation and selection during reprogramming to pluripotency , 2011, Nature.

[15]  Hynek Wichterle,et al.  A functionally characterized test set of human induced pluripotent stem cells , 2011, Nature Biotechnology.

[16]  Michael J. Ziller,et al.  Reference Maps of Human ES and iPS Cell Variation Enable High-Throughput Characterization of Pluripotent Cell Lines , 2011, Cell.

[17]  Jacek Majewski,et al.  The study of eQTL variations by RNA-seq: from SNPs to phenotypes. , 2011, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[18]  E. Kirkness,et al.  Somatic coding mutations in human induced pluripotent stem cells , 2011, Nature.

[19]  Rudolf Jaenisch,et al.  Parkinson's Disease Patient-Derived Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Free of Viral Reprogramming Factors , 2009, Cell.