iPS研究：如何区分胚胎干细胞和iPS细胞(附pdf原文）

细胞海洋

- {, x0 f# F& T4 V6 P; Y

5 l: T+ p6 H! d% k3 h来自加州大学洛杉矶分校，俄亥俄州立大学等处的研究人员发现了胚胎干细胞和皮肤细胞重新编程，获得胚胎状细胞这两者具有内源性分子区别，这首次证明了这两种细胞类型具有明显的不同。这一研究成果公布在《Cell Stem Cell》杂志上。2 c! a7 Q" k+ T
" S8 t- i+ u  G- S" ^3 b

& g, \; E# R# z* P" ~
' d" a0 S6 O+ @研究数据表明胚胎干细胞和重新编程获得的细胞，后者即诱导多能干细胞，这两者之间虽然有重叠，但是仍然具有明显的基因表达差异。文章通讯作者，Broad干细胞研究中心的Bill Lowry认为，无论这些细胞系由何处来，用的是何种方法，分离的是哪一种物种，这种差别都是存在的。
. Q+ B) P& M' d/ [" X, _* T! u犹他大学病理学系博士解析“第二代测序前的序列捕获芯片及比较基因组杂交芯片在临床诊断中的应用”，诚邀您参与>> >>6 y; c1 y1 J8 |% K5 [/ a8 e; c
, x  a3 N/ z& w# b3 d5 h, w

+ B  A# L' ~3 \) q- u2008年美国和日本的两个科学小组同时宣布，它们的研究人员成功地将人体皮肤细胞改造成了几乎可以和胚胎干细胞相媲美的干细胞。这一成果有望使胚胎干细胞研究避开一直以来面临的伦理争议，从而大大推动与干细胞有关的疾病疗法研究。该项研究突破分别发表在《Cell》和《Science》杂志上。这种细胞就是iPS细胞，与胚胎干细胞相似，具有能分化成生物体内所有组织的潜力，但是iPS细胞并不需要破坏胚胎。
9 ]  E' \! D. [8 i6 l- c4 }6 Q/ U, }  ~" K: `( M
这项研究由Lowry与加州大学洛杉矶分校研究人员Kathrin Plath合作完成，这两位科学家都参与了加州大学首次将人类皮肤细胞重新编程为诱导多能干细胞的研究。在这项研究中，两位科学家利用芯片对胚胎干细胞和iPS细胞进行基因表达谱分析，同时分析成千上万的基因表达，全面了解了细胞功能。/ ~2 L# d. K" p) H) F* Z" S. Q' g
# A! M7 L! a( H7 ?6 S0 V
Lowry和Plath发现，当进行分子标签比较的时候，胚胎干细胞中某些基因的表达明显与iPS细胞不同，之后他们又将这些数据与国立健康研究院数据库中的数据进行了比对，分析是否有其它实验室的遗传学数据支持他们的论点，从中发现了一些重叠，但又显著不同的基因表达。
+ z) p3 Y/ a1 s3 v, u* p
& x& R9 L( |2 f4 V  j& J; f6 I2 J3 r原文检索：
9 _3 \# I$ ~: a" h" t3 K
/ t- C, ]; ], k4 @! ?6 `Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells and Embryonic Stem Cells Are Distinguished by Gene Expression Signatures
- N" z9 `5 d5 ]5 ^" N( w! p+ ], h% B! s1 u: M: c# Y
Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) outwardly appear to be indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells (ESCs). A study of gene expression profiles of mouse and human ESCs and iPSCs suggests that, while iPSCs are quite similar to their embryonic counterparts, a recurrent gene expression signature appears in iPSCs regardless of their origin or the method by which they were generated. Upon extended culture, hiPSCs adopt a gene expression profile more similar to hESCs; however, they still retain a gene expression signature unique from hESCs that extends to miRNA expression. Genome-wide data suggested that the iPSC signature gene expression differences are due to differential promoter binding by the reprogramming factors. High-resolution array profiling demonstrated that there is no common specific subkaryotypic alteration that is required for reprogramming and that reprogramming does not lead to genomic instability. Together, these data suggest that iPSCs should be considered a unique subtype of pluripotent cell.

xiaoheilong

附上该文

刘实

这是“新”发现吗？如果这些作者诚实点就会知道他们是在重复我老刘早就得出的结论，请看9 E& e/ ?' r( u; e1 c7 j0 ^) u
Are iPS Cells Really Induced from Differentiated Cells? （http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A1_iPS4.htm；http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A1_iPS4.pdf）' e5 t0 N& t. P/ @5 M, ~
8 o! n8 k% O8 f0 P
iPS Cells versus ES Cells8 `' m9 a, ?3 {2 C

: X3 [+ @. r6 W5 t(http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N2A1_iPS_ES.htm; http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N2A1_iPS_ES.pdf)
6 a; H+ [# t5 `2 K; p- j+ g# O2 y
Distinguishing Cancerous iPSCs from ESCs 8 K; R% a8 q- P  i6 T
(http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/TW2009V4N1A8_CancerRisk.htm; http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/TW2009V4N1A8_CancerRisk.pdf)
- o) F  t- H( u6 o" r9 S2 C) C
4 U# T+ M% ^* qDistinctions between iPSCs and ESCs Published Earlier
! X9 ~- W8 q# V# A6 M(http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/1 ... istinctionShown.htm; http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/1 ... istinctionShown.pdf)9 H- _, W3 W! u( V0 E9 W

7 t6 y! J% ]# l' U$ Y+ y更多文章见 http://im1.biz/iPS.htm

刘实

以下是我既将投给CELL STEM CELL 的信的开场白：- b% `8 ~: o7 l# ?& J
SIR – a recent Report in your journal (Chin et al., 2009) reported a “discovery” of distinctions between induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and embryonic stem cells (ESCs) but made several invalid assertions including the followings:
4 x/ B% s( e6 [( r* r(1)        “To date, no one has described the full extent of differences between iPSCs and ESCs”;) S5 I+ I6 e9 T- b3 X+ Z
(2)        “To date, no one has described significant functional differences between hiPSCs and hESCs”;
: n7 r; Y5 y+ @9 K! E  v  d(3)        “Additionally, there are no published data to suggest that hiPSCs and hESCs function differently in the undifferentiated state”.
! f! S: T) i& h/ H2 \Without repeating all we have PUBLISHED (see incomplete lists at http://im1.biz/iPS.htm and http://im1.biz/StemCell.htm and http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm ), a selected presentation of some of our very related publications should be sufficient to prove the falsity of the above assertions.
5 W0 e; U* V  ?; \( L(1)        Are iPS cells really indistinguishable from ES cells? (Liu, 2007a);
/ H8 C$ ~8 [5 a' ~( K; N(2)        Further comments on the nature of iPS cells (Liu, 2007e); # ~* C' M/ w: {8 X6 k$ z8 G
(3)        Rebuttal against an authoritative but ungrounded peer review (Liu, 2007n);
$ q" Z( x8 k' L) X5 N! k, c; S(4)        Distinguishing Cancerous iPSCs from ESCs (Liu, 2009d);
. ?, q. A  ^& r; \. p2 M; ?7 U(5)        Distinctions between iPSCs and ESCs published earlier (Liu, 2009c);
. D! V$ i: D5 x) i8 y(6)        iPS cells versus ES cells (Liu, 2008h);7 e( U) O* S7 }( O, V: {9 u# `3 u
(7)        Embryonic stem cells versus adult stem cells: Similarities and differences (Liu, 2007d);
0 E6 J. K/ P" G+ k+ V! W/ i(8)        Toward a realistic re-assessment of iPSCs (Liu, 2009i);
" \" ^' R0 }4 w. z8 H0 e(9)        Embryonic and adult education on stem cells (Liu, 2009e);% m% v) t" V5 `% C/ Q4 Z2 o" _
(10)        Understanding the “reprogramming” process in “inducing” iPS cells (Liu, 2008n);' u8 Q9 V: I' n, y  M/ z
(11)        iPS cells are man-made cancer cells (Liu, 2008g);
) m5 n# n& Y6 U(12)        Further evidence that iPS cells are man-made cancer cells (Liu, 2008d); # K1 s+ k/ Q1 O7 J6 [
(13)        Cancer cell formation by iPS techniques: mechanisms and testing approaches (Zhang et al., 2009b).

刘实

不怕不识货，就怕货比货
8 S0 ?, |+ C/ g) ~: D7 L4 h- ~* W! o& L% P! t
上文所对应的参考文献# C8 m4 H3 h: Z# W  n/ y: M" E
References matching above citations:
- W7 H3 t& D! ]. QChin, M.H., Mason, M.J., Xie, W., Volinia, S., Singer, M., Peterson, C., Ambartsumyan, G., Aimiuwu, O., Richter, L., Zhang, J., et al. (2009). Induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells are distinguished by gene expression signatures. Cell Stem Cell 5, 111-123.& C% ]( B  p. H8 D0 y& O' V
Liu, S.V. (2007a). Are iPS cells really indistinguishable from ES cells? Logical Biology 7, 66-68.
* \/ ~6 B; K# g) ^4 qLiu, S.V. (2007d). Embryonic stem cells versus adult stem cells: Similarities and differences. Logical Biology 7, 87-90.
2 B( @4 M" j9 z  G, kLiu, S.V. (2007e). Further comments on the nature of iPS cells. Logical Biology 7, 69-72.$ l7 o8 X$ Q) Q6 t  w
Liu, S.V. (2007n). Rebuttal against an authoritative but ungrounded peer review. Logical Biology 7, 73-75.
9 z) P  J, v2 I, v) B& ?/ qLiu, S.V. (2008d). Further evidence that iPS cells are man-made cancer cells. Logical Biology 8, 66-68.7 N" l: [5 j; Q8 X' V, ?
Liu, S.V. (2008g). IPS cells are man-made cancer cells. Logical Biology 8, 16-18.9 C# R: t. r0 {0 t: W+ I* w5 K, s
Liu, S.V. (2008h). IPS cells versus ES cells. Logical Biology 8, 47-48.
* ]3 `0 U+ k3 CLiu, S.V. (2008n). Understanding the "reprogramming" process in "inducing" iPS cells. Logical Biology 8, 19-22.) B& h# g+ [; B$ n8 T" E
Liu, S.V. (2009c). Distinctions between iPSCs and ESCs published earlier. Top Watch 4, 18-19.% V& Q& w: V- j3 `
Liu, S.V. (2009d). Distinguishing cancerous iPSCs from ESCs. Top Watch 4, 20-23.
% R" J. Q3 {1 @2 tLiu, S.V. (2009e). Embryonic and adult education on stem cells. Logical Biology 9, 8-9.
$ i1 ?& F6 C0 e. B' w$ n. JLiu, S.V. (2009i). Toward a realistic re-assessment of iPSCs. Logical Biology 9, 6-7.
! E; q+ K# O& h' r: n3 YZhang, W.-K., Zhang, C., Zhang, J.J., and Liu, S.V. (2009b). Cancer cell formation by iPS techniques: Mechanisms and testing approaches. Logical Biology 9, 22-41.

yrcui

以上都是高手，谢谢分享~~~

大漠

谢谢分享]

nwsuaf863

版主厉害，向你学习。

yaner

很好啊

张也行

Thanks a lot!