Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Regenerative Biology and Medicine’ Category

Microgravity Expanded Stem Cells

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curtor

LPBI

 

 

Application of Microgravity Expanded Stem Cells in Regenerative Medicine

Author: Abba C Zubair MD PhD   Mayo Clinic      http://medical.wesrch.com/pdfME1LYYYIWQLGL

Description: Application of Microgravity Expanded Stem Cells in Regenerative Medicine:- Regrettably I have no financial disclosures, However, I am available if any company is interested. MSCs for Hemorrhagic Stroke.Oxygen-Glucose Deprivation Model (OGD).Effect of MSC on OGD-Stressed Neurons. Mechanism of MSC induced neuro-recovery.Mechanism of MSC induced immune regulation.

ICH model:- Autologous blood withdraw from femoral Artery MSCs or medium infusion via femoral vein With the help of stereotactic frame and microinjection pump autologous blood will be injected to right baal ganglia, 10µl/min total 100µl.Brain sections @D1 after ICH:- 100ul autologous blood Right basal ganglion Coordinates: 0.2 mm anterior, 5.5mm ventral, and 3.5 mm lateral to bregma. Arrow shows hematoma initiated location.Behavior test includes Forelimb Use Asymmetry test and Rotometer test. Behavior (Forelimb Use Asymmetry Test)- Media, MSC infusion (1×10^6/kg).

Stem Cells in Microgravity- No effective method to expand human stem cells, Need about 200 to 500 million stem cells to achieve effective therapy.Objectives- Measure cell proliferation in microgravity versus gravity of Earth, Observe cell growth and morphological characteristics in microgravity, Analyze gene expression profiles of cells grown in microgravity, Use viable cells grown in microgravity in a variety of downstream in vitro and in vivo experiments on Earth.BioCell Cassettes:- Created by BioServe Space -Aerospace Engineering and Sciences Department at …Please navigate Paper pages for more details

http://medical.wesrchcdn.com/User_images/Pdf/315/1446880640/pdf_jpegs/14LYY_1446880640_2.jpg

 

http://medical.wesrchcdn.com/User_images/Pdf/315/1446880640/pdf_jpegs/14LYY_1446880640_3.jpg

 

http://medical.wesrchcdn.com/User_images/Pdf/315/1446880640/pdf_jpegs/14LYY_1446880640_4.jpg

Read Full Post »

Keeping Stem Cells in Check

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

Researchers track gene that keeps stem cells in check      

“Prkci” influences whether stem cells self-renew or differentiate into more specialized cell types

http://news.usc.edu/88168/researchers-probe-a-gene-that-keeps-stem-cells-in-check/

Prkci gene

http://news.usc.edu/files/2015/10/nestin_tuj_ratreated_escells_WEB-824×549.jpg

When it comes to stem cells, too much of a good thing isn’t wonderful: Producing too many new stem cells may lead to cancer; producing too few inhibits the repair and maintenance of the body.

In a paper published in Stem Cell Reports, USC researcher In Kyoung Mah, who works in the lab of Francesca Mariani, and colleagues at the University of California, San Diego, describe a key gene that maintains this critical balance. Called Prkci, the gene influences whether stem cells self-renew to produce more stem cells or differentiate into more specialized cell types, such as blood or nerves.

In their experiments, the team grew mouse embryonic stem cells, which lacked Prkci, into embryo-like structures in the lab. Without Prkci, the stem cells favored self-renewal, generating large numbers of stem cells and, subsequently, an abundance of secondary structures.

Upon closer inspection, the stem cells lacking Prkci had many activated genes typical of stem cells, and some activated genes typical of neural, cardiac and blood-forming cells. Therefore, the loss of Prkci can also encourage stem cells to differentiate into the progenitor cells that form neurons, heart muscle and blood.

Follow the pathway

Prkci achieves these effects by activating or deactivating a well-known group of interacting genes that are part of the “Notch signaling pathway.” In the absence of Prkci, the Notch pathway produces a protein that signals to stem cells to make more stem cells. In the presence of Prkci, the Notch pathway remains silent, and stem cells differentiate into specific cell types.

These findings have implications for developing patient therapies. Even though Prkci can be active in certain skin cancers, inhibiting it might lead to unintended consequences, such as tumor overgrowth. However, for patients with certain injuries or diseases, it could be therapeutic to use small molecule inhibitors to block the activity of Prkci, thus boosting stem cell production.

“We expect that our findings will be applicable in diverse contexts and make it possible to easily generate stem cells that have typically been difficult to generate,” said Mariani, principal investigator at the Eli and Edythe Broad Center for Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at USC.

Additional co-authors on the study include Rachel Soloff and Stephen Hedrick from UCSD. The research was supported by USC and the Robert E. and May R. Wright Foundation.

PRKCI protein kinase C, iota [ Homo sapiens (human) ]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/5584

Official Symbol PRKCIprovided by HGNCOfficial
Full Name protein kinase C, iota , provided by HGNC

Primary source HGNC:HGNC:9404
See relatedEnsembl:ENSG00000163558; HPRD:02105; MIM:600539; Vega:OTTHUMG00000150214
Gene type protein coding RefSeq status

REVIEWED

Organism Homo sapiens
Lineage – Eukaryota; Metazoa; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Euteleostomi; Mammalia; Eutheria; Euarchontoglires; Primates; Haplorrhini; Catarrhini; Hominidae; Homo
Also known asPKCI; DXS1179E; nPKC-iota
Summary: This gene encodes a member of the protein kinase C (PKC) family of serine/threonine protein kinases. The PKC family comprises at least eight members, which are differentially expressed and are involved in a wide variety of cellular processes. This protein kinase is calcium-independent and phospholipid-dependent. It is not activated by phorbolesters or diacylglycerol. This kinase can be recruited to vesicle tubular clusters (VTCs) by direct interaction with the small GTPase RAB2, where this kinase phosphorylates glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPD/GAPDH) and plays a role in microtubule dynamics in the early secretory pathway. This kinase is found to be necessary for BCL-ABL-mediated resistance to drug-induced apoptosis and therefore protects leukemia cells against drug-induced apoptosis. There is a single exon pseudogene mapped on chromosome X. [provided by RefSeq, Jul 2008]

A Prkci gene keeps stem cells in check

Date:
October 30, 2015
Source:
University of Southern California – Health Sciences
Summary:
When it comes to stem cells, too much of a good thing isn’t wonderful: producing too many new stem cells may lead to cancer; producing too few inhibits the repair and maintenance of the body. Medical researchers now describe a key gene in maintaining this critical balance between producing too many and too few stem cells.

Newly-discovered gene controls stem cell production

|

A scientific team from the University of Southern California (USC) and the University of California, San Diego have described an important gene that maintains a critical balance between producing too many and too few stem cells. Called Prkci, the gene influences whether stem cells self-renew to produce more stem cells, or differentiate into more specialized cell types, such as blood or nerves.

When it comes to stem cells, too much of a good thing isn’t necessarily a benefit: producing too many new stem cells may lead to cancer; making too few inhibits the repair and maintenance of the body.

In their experiments, the researchers grew mouse embryonic stem cells, which lacked Prkci, into embryo-like structures in the laboratory. Without Prkci, the stem cells favored self-renewal, generating large numbers of stem cells and, subsequently, an abundance of secondary structures.

Upon closer inspection, the stem cells lacking Prkci had many activated genes typical of stem cells, and some activated genes typical of neural, cardiac, and blood-forming cells. Therefore, the loss of Prkci can also encourage stem cells to differentiate into the progenitor cells that form neurons, heart muscle, and blood.

Prkci achieves these effects by activating or deactivating a well-known group of interacting genes that are part of the Notch signaling pathway. In the absence of Prkci, the Notch pathway produces a protein that signals to stem cells to make more stem cells. In the presence of Prkci, the Notch pathway remains silent, and stem cells differentiate into specific cell types.

These findings have implications for developing patient therapies. Even though Prkci can be active in certain skin cancers, inhibiting it might lead to unintended consequences, such as tumor overgrowth. However, for patients with certain injuries or diseases, it could be therapeutic to use small molecule inhibitors to block the activity of Prkci, thus boosting stem cell production.

“We expect that our findings will be applicable in diverse contexts and make it possible to easily generate stem cells that have typically been difficult to generate,” said Francesca Mariani, Ph.D., principal investigator at the Eli and Edythe Broad Center for Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at USC.

Their study (“Atypical PKC-iota Controls Stem Cell Expansion via Regulation of the Notch Pathway”) was published in a Stem Cell Reports.

Atypical PKC-iota Controls Stem Cell Expansion via Regulation of the Notch Pathway
In Kyoung Mah,1 Rachel Soloff,2,3 Stephen M. Hedrick,2 and Francesca V. Mariani1, *
*Correspondence: fmariani@usc.edu    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.09.021

Mah et al., Atypical PKC-iota Controls Stem Cell Expansion via Regulation of the Notch Pathway, Stem Cell Reports (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.09.021

The number of stem/progenitor cells available can profoundly impact tissue homeostasis and the response to injury or disease. Here, we propose that an atypical PKC, Prkci, is a key player in regulating the switch from an expansion to a differentiation/maintenance phase via regulation of Notch, thus linking the polarity pathway with the control of stem cell self-renewal. Prkci is known to influence symmetric cell division in invertebrates; however a definitive role in mammals has not yet emerged. Using a genetic approach, we find that loss of Prkci results in a marked increase in the number of various stem/progenitor cells. The mechanism used likely involves inactivation and symmetric localization of NUMB, leading to the activation of NOTCH1 and its downstream effectors. Inhibition of atypical PKCs may be useful for boosting the production of pluripotent stem cells, multipotent stem cells, or possibly even primordial germ cells by promoting the stem cell/progenitor fate.

The control of asymmetric versus symmetric cell division in stem and progenitor cells balances self-renewal and differentiation to mediate tissue homeostasis and repair and involves key proteins that control cell polarity. In the case of excess symmetric division, too many stem-cell-like daughter cells are generated that can lead to tumor initiation and growth. Conversely, excess asymmetric cell division can severely limit the number of cells available for homeostasis and repair (Go´mez-Lo´pez et al., 2014; Inaba and Yamashita, 2012). The Notch pathway has been implicated in controlling stem cell self-renewal in a number of different contexts (Hori et al., 2013). However, how cell polarity, asymmetric cell division, and the activation of determinants ultimately impinges upon the control of stem cell expansion and maintenance is not fully understood. In this study, we examine the role of an atypical protein kinase C (aPKC), PRKCi, in stem cell self-renewal and, in particular, determine whether PRKCi acts via the Notch pathway.

PKCs are serine-threonine kinases that control many basic cellular processes and are typically classified into three subgroups—conventional, novel, and the aPKCs iota and zeta, which, in contrast to the others, are not activated by diacylglyceride or calcium. The aPKC proteins are best known for being central components of an evolutionarily conserved Par3-Par6-aPKC trimeric complex that controls cell polarity in C. elegans, Drosophila, Xenopus, zebrafish, and mammalian cells (Suzuki and Ohno, 2006).

Before Notch influences stem cell self-renewal, the regulation of cell polarity, asymmetric versus symmetric cell division, and the segregation of cell fate determinants such as NUMB may first be required (Knoblich, 2008). For example, mutational analysis in Drosophila has demonstrated that the aPKC-containing trimeric complex is required for maintaining polarity and for mediating asymmetric cell division during neurogenesis via activation and segregation of NUMB (Wirtz-Peitz et al., 2008). NUMB then functions as a cell fate determinant by inhibiting Notch signaling and preventing self-renewal (Wang et al., 2006). In mammals, the PAR3-PAR6-aPKC complex also can bind and phosphorylate NUMB in epithelial cells and can regulate the unequal distribution of Numb during asymmetric cell division (Smith et al., 2007). During mammalian neurogenesis, asymmetric division is also thought to involve the PAR3-PAR6-aPKC complex, NUMB segregation, and NOTCH activation (Bultje et al., 2009).

Mice deficient in Prkcz are grossly normal, with mild defects in secondary lymphoid organs (Leitges et al., 2001). In contrast, deficiency of the Prkci isozyme results in early embryonic lethality at embryonic day (E)9.5 (Seidl et al., 2013; Soloff et al., 2004). A few studies have investigated the conditional inactivation of Prkci; however, no dramatic changes in progenitor generation were detected in hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) or the brain (Imai et al., 2006; Sengupta et al., 2011), although one study found evidence of a role for Prkci in controlling asymmetric cell division in the skin (Niessen et al., 2013). Analysis may be complicated by functional redundancy between the iota and zeta isoforms and/or because further studies perturbing aPKCs in specific cell lineages and/or at specific developmental stages are needed. Therefore, a complete picture for the requirement of aPKCs at different stages of mammalian development has not yet emerged.

Here, we investigate the requirement of Prkci in mouse cells using an in vitro system that bypasses early embryonic lethality. Embryonic stem (ES) cells are used to make embryoid bodies (EBs) that develop like the early post-implantation embryo in terms of lineage specification and morphology and can also be maintained in culture long enough to observe advanced stages of cellular differentiation (Desbaillets et al., 2000). Using this approach, we provide genetic evidence that inactivation of Prkci signaling leads to enhanced generation of pluripotent cells and some types of multipotent stem cells, including cells with primordial germ cell (PGC) characteristics. In addition, we provide evidence that aPKCs ultimately regulate stem cell fate via the Notch pathway

Figure 1. Prkci/ EBs Contain Cells with Pluripotency Characteristics (A and A0 ) Day (d) 12 heterozygous EBs have few OCT4/E-CAD+ cells, while null EBs contain many in clusters at the EB periphery. Inset: OCT4 (nucleus)/E-CAD (cytoplasm) double-positive cells. (B and B0 ) Adjacent sections in a null EB show that OCT4+ cells are likely also SSEA1+. (C) Dissociated day-12 Prkci/ EBs contain five to six times more OCT4+ and approximately three times more SSEA1+ cells than heterozygous EBs (three independent experiments). (D and D0 ) After 2 days in ES cell culture, no colonies are visible in null SSEA1 cultures while present in null SSEA1+ cultures (red arrows). (E–E00) SSEA1+ sorted cells can be maintained for many passages, 27+. (E) Prkci+/ sorted cells make colonies with differentiated cells at the outer edges (n = 27/35). (E0 ) Null cells form colonies with distinct edges (n = 39/45). (E00) The percentage of undifferentiated colonies is shown. ***p < 0.001.
(F) Sorted null cells express stem cell and differentiation markers at similar levels to normal ES cells (versus heterozygous EBs) (three independent experiments). (G) EBs made from null SSEA1+ sorted cells express germ layer marker genes at the indicated days. Error bars indicate mean ± SEM, three independent experiments. Scale bars, 100 mm in (A, D, and E); 25 mm in (B). See also Figure S1.

Prkci/ Cultures Have More Pluripotent Cells Even under Differentiation Conditions First, we compared Prkci null EB development to that of Prkci/ embryos. Consistent with another null allele (Seidl et al., 2013), both null embryos and EBs fail to properly cavitate (Figures S1A and S1B). The failure to cavitate is unlikely to be due to the inability to form one of the three germ layers, as null EBs express germ-layer-specific genes (Figure S1E). A failure of cavitation could alternatively be caused by an accumulation of pluripotent cells. For example, EBs generated from Timeless knockdown cells do not cavitate and contain large numbers of OCT4-expressing cells (O’Reilly et al., 2011). In addition, EBs generated with Prkcz isoform knockdown cells contain OCT4+ cells under differentiation conditions (Dutta et al., 2011; Rajendran et al., 2013). Thus, we first evaluated ES colony differentiation by alkaline phosphatase (AP) staining. After 4 days without leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF), Prkci/ ES cell colonies retained crisp boundaries and strong AP staining. In contrast, Prkci+/ colonies had uneven colony boundaries with diffuse AP staining (Figures S1F–S1F00). To definitively detect pluripotent cells, day-12 EBs were assayed for OCT4 and E-CADHERIN (E-CAD) protein expression. Prkci+/ EBs had very few OCT4/E-CAD double-positive cells (Figure 1A); however, null EBs contained large clusters of OCT4/E-CAD double-positive cells, concentrated in a peripheral zone (Figure 1A0 ). By examining adjacent sections, we found that OCT4+ cells could also be positive for stage-specific embryonic antigen 1 (SSEA1) (Figures 1B and 1B0 ). Quantification by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) analysis showed that day-12 Prkci/ EBs had more OCT4+ and SSEA1+ cells than Prkci+/ EBs (Figure 1C). We did not find any difference between heterozygous and wild-type cells with respect to the number of OCT4+ or SSEA1+ cells or in their levels of expression for Oct4, Nanog, and Sox2 (Figures S1I, S1I0 and S1J). However, we did find that Oct4, Nanog, and Sox2 were highly upregulated in OCT4+ null cells (Figure S1G). Thus, together, these data indicate that Prkci/ EBs contain large numbers of pluripotent stem cells, despite being cultured under differentiation conditions.

Functional Pluripotency Tests If primary EBs have a pluripotent population with the capacity to undergo self-renewal, they can easily form secondary EBs (O’Reilly et al., 2011). Using this assay, we found that more secondary EBs could be generated from Prkci/ versus Prkci+/ EBs, especially at days 6, 10, and 16; even when plated at a low density to control for aggregation (Figure S1H). To test whether SSEA1+ cells could maintain pluripotency long term, FACS-sorted Prkci/ SSEA1+ and SSEA1 cells were plated at a low density and maintained under ES cell culture conditions. SSEA1 cells were never able to form identifiable colonies and could not be maintained in culture (Figure 1D). SSEA1+ cells, however, formed many distinct colonies after 2 days of culture, and these cells could be maintained for over 27 passages (Figures 1D0 , 1E0 , and 1E00). Prkci+/ SSEA1+ cells formed colonies that easily differentiated at the outer edge, even in the presence of LIF (Figure 1E). In contrast Prkci/ SSEA1+ cells maintained distinct round colonies (Figure 1E0 ). Next, we determined whether null SSEA1+ cells expressed pluripotency and differentiation markers similarly to normal ES cells. Indeed, we found that Oct4, Nanog, and Sox2 were upregulated in both null SSEA1+ EB cells and heterozygous ES cells. In addition, differentiated markers (Fgf5, T, Wnt3, and Afp) and tissue stem/progenitor cell markers (neural: Nestin, Sox1, and NeuroD; cardiac: Nkx2-5 and Isl1; and hematopoietic: Gata1 and Hba-x) were downregulated in both SSEA1+ cells and heterozygous ES cells (Figure 1F). SSEA1+ cells likely have a wide range of potential, since EBs generated from these cells expressed markers for all three germ layers (Figure 1G). In addition, as expected, EBs made from null SSEA1+ cells were (F) Sorted null cells morphologically abnormal, similar to the EBs made from unsorted Prkci/ ES cells (Figure S1G0 ). Thus, taken together, several assays indicate that the OCT4 and SSEA1+ populations enriched in null EBs represent pluripotent stem cells that can self-renew and have broad differentiation capacity.

ERK1/2 Signaling during EB Development Stem cell self-renewal has been shown to require the activation of the JAK/STAT3 and PI3K/AKT pathways and the inhibition of ERK1/2 and GSK3 pathways (Kunath et al., 2007; Niwa et al., 1998; Sato et al., 2004; Watanabe et al., 2006). We found that both STAT3 and phosphorylated STAT3 levels were not grossly altered and that the p-STAT3/STAT3 ratio was similar between heterozygous and null ES cells and EBs (Figures S2A and S2B). In addition we did not see any difference in AKT, pAKT, or b-CATENIN levels when comparing heterozygous to null ES cells or EBs (Figures S2A and S2C). Thus, the effects observed by the loss of Prkci are unlikely to be due to a significant alteration in the JAK/STAT3, PI3K/AKT, or GSK3 pathways.

Next, we investigated ERK1/2 expression and activation. Consistent with other studies showing ERK1/2 activation to be downstream of Prkci in some mammalian cell types (Boeckeler et al., 2010; Litherland et al., 2010), pERK1/2 was markedly inactivated in Prkci null versus heterozygous ES cells. In addition, during differentiation, null EBs displayed strong pERK1/2 inhibition early (until day 6). Later, pERK1/2 was activated strongly, as the EB began differentiating (Figures 2A and 2B). By immunofluorescence, pERK1/2 was strongly enriched in the columnar epithelium of control EBs, while overall levels were much lower in Prkci/ EBs (Figure 2C). In addition, high OCT4 expression correlated with a marked inactivation of pERK1/2 (Figure 2C). Next, we examined Prkci/ SSEA1+ cells by western blot. We found that SSEA1+ cells isolated from day-12 null EBs had pSTAT3 expression levels similar to whole EBs, while pERK1/2 levels were low (Figure 2D). Thus, these experiments indicate that the higher numbers of pluripotent cells in null EBs correlate with a strong inactivation of ERK1/2.

Figure 2. Prkci and Pluripotency Pathways (A) ERK1/2 phosphorylation (Y202/Y204) is reduced in null ES cells and early day (d)-6 null EBs compared to heterozygous EBs and strongly increased at later stages. The first lane shows ES cells activated (A) by serum treatment 1 day after serum depletion. (B) Quantification of pERK1/2 normalized to non-phosphorylated ERK1/2 (three independent experiments; mean ± SEM; **p < 0.01). (C) pERK1/2 Y202/Y204 is strongly expressed in the columnar epithelium of heterozygous EBs that have just cavitated. Null EBs have lower expression. OCT4 and pERK1/2 expression do not co-localize. Scale bar, 100 mm. (D) pERK1/2Y202/Y204 levels are lower in null SSEA1+ sorted cells than in heterozygous or in null day-12 EBs that have undergone further differentiation. pSTAT3 and STAT levels are unchanged. See also Figure S2.

Neural Stem Cell Fate Is Favored in Prkci/ EBs It is well known that ERK/MEK inhibition is not sufficient for pluripotent stem cell maintenance (Ying et al., 2008); thus, other pathways are likely involved. Therefore, we used a TaqMan Mouse Stem Cell Pluripotency Panel (#4385363) on an OpenArray platform to investigate the mechanism of Prkci action. Day 13 and day 20 Prkci/ EBs expressed high levels of pluripotency and stemness markers versus heterozygous EBs, including Oct4, Utf1, Nodal, Xist, Fgf4, Gal, Lefty1, and Lefty2. However, interestingly, EBs also expressed markers for differentiated cell types and tissue stem cells, including Sst, Syp, and Sycp3 (neural-related genes), Isl1 (cardiac progenitor marker), Hba-x, and Cd34 (hematopoietic markers). Based on this first-pass test, we sought to determine whether loss of Prkci might favor the generation of neural, cardiac, and hematopoietic cell types and/or their progenitors.

First, we found that null EBs contained many more NESTIN- and PAX6-positive cells than heterozygous EBs (Figures 3A and 3B; Figures S3A and S3B) (neural stem A and progenitor markers) (Sansom et al., 2009; Tohyama et al., 1992). In addition, quantification of PAX6 immuno- fluorescence (easier to quantify because of its nuclear localization) using a pixel count method (Fogel et al., 2012) revealed more abundant PAX6+ cells in null EBs versus heterozygous EBs. This difference was no longer evident at day 16, presumably because most of the new neural progenitors had differentiated (Figure 3D). Indeed, differentiated neuronal markers MAP2 and TUJ1 could be expressed in null cell cultures (Figures 3C and 3C0 ). Retinoic acid (RA) treatment both in EBs and ES cells promotes neurogenesis (Xu et al., 2012). We found that, even under RA induction, null cultures contained a larger population of NESTIN+ and a smaller population of TUJ1+ cells when compared to heterozygous cultures (Figures 3E and 3F). Again, null neural progenitors were capable of undergoing some differentiation, since we could find cells expressing NEUROD, NEUN, and MAP2 (Figures 3F0 –3F000). We also assessed neurogenesis in monolayer culture, using media that promotes neural stem cell generation supplemented with a low concentration of RA (Xu et al., 2012). Similar to the EB assay, we found that null ES cells generated a larger NESTIN+ and smaller TUJ1+ population compared to heterozygous ES cells (Figures S3C and S3D). Like in EBs, MAP2- and TUJ1-positive cells could still be found in the null cultures (Figure S3D0 ). Thus, using several different neural-induction assays, we found that the absence of Prkci correlates with the production of more neural progenitors and that, although these cells may favor self-renewal, they are still capable of progressing toward differentiation.

Figure 3. Neural Stem Cell Populations Are Increased in Null EBs (A–C0 ) Prkci/ EBs (B) have more NESTINpositive cells than Prkci+/ EBs (A). (C and C0 ) MAP2 and TUJ1 are expressed in null EBs, similarly to heterozygous EBs (data not shown). (D) EBs were assessed for PAX6 expression, and the images were used for quantification (Figures S3A and S3B). The pixel count ratio of PAX6+ cells in null EBs (green) is substantially higher than that found in heterozygous EBs (black) (three independent experiments; mean ± SEM; *p < 0.05). (E–F000) Day 4 after RA treatment, Prkci/ EBs have more NESTIN- than TUJ1-positive neurons (E and F). However, null cells can still terminally differentiate into NEUROD-, NEUN-, and MAP2-positive cells (F0 –F000). Scale bars, 25 mm in (A and C) and 50 mm in (E). See also Figure S3.

The Generation of Cardiomyocyte and Erythrocyte Progenitors Is Also Favored Next, we examined ISL1 expression (a cardiac stem cell marker) by immunofluorescence and found that Prkci/ EBs contained larger ISL1 clusters compared with Prkci+/ EBs; this was confirmed using an image quantification assay (Figures 4A, 4A0 , and 4C). Differentiated cardiac cells and ventral spinal neurons can also express ISL1 (Ericson et al., 1992); therefore, we also examined Nkx2-5 expression, a better stem cell marker and regulator of cardiac progenitor determination (Brown et al., 2004), by RT-PCR and immunofluorescence. In null EBs, Nkx2-5 was upregulated (Figure 4D). In addition, in response to RA, which can promote cardiac fates in vitro (Niebruegge et al., 2008), cells expressing NKX2-5 were more prevalent in null versus heterozygous EBs (Figures 4B and 4B0 ).The abundant cardiac progenitors found in null EBs were still capable of undergoing differentiation (Figures 4E–4F0 ). Indeed, more cells exhibited the striated pattern characteristic of a-ACTININ in null versus heterozygous EBs with RA induction (Figures 4F and 4F0 ). In addition, many more Prkci/ EBs were beating after days 6 and 12 of culture (Figure 4G).

Figure 4. Cardiomyocyte and Erythrocyte Progenitors Are Increased in Prkci/ EBs (A–F0 ) In (A, A0 , E, and E0 ), Prkci/ EBs cultured without LIF have more ISL1 (cardiac progenitor marker) and a-ACTININ-positive cells compared to heterozygous EBs. (C) At day (d) 9, the pixel count ratio for ISL1 expression indicates that null EBs (green) have larger ISL1 populations than heterozygous EBs (black) (three independent experiments, n = 20 heterozygous EBs, 21 null EBs total; mean ± SEM; *p < 0.05). In (B, B0 , D, F, and F0 ), RA treatment induces more NKX2-5 (both nuclear and cytoplasmic) and a-ACTININ expression in null EBs. Arrows point to fibers in (F0 ). (G) Null EBs (green) generate more beating EBs with RA treatment compared to heterozygous EBs (black) (four independent experiments; mean ± SEM; *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001). (H) Dissociated null EBs of different stages (green) generate more erythrocytes in a colony-forming assay (CFU-E) (four independent experiments; mean ± SEM; **p < 0.01). (I) Examples of red colonies. (J) Gene expression for primitive HSC markers is upregulated in null EBs (relative to heterozygous EBs) (three independent experiments; mean ± SEM). Scale bars, 50 mm in (A, B, and E); 100 mm in (F), and 25 mm in (I). See also Figure S4.

Hba-x expression is restricted to yolk sac blood islands and primitive erythrocyte populations (Lux et al., 2008; Trimborn et al., 1999). Cd34 is also a primitive HSC marker (Sutherland et al., 1992). Next, we determined whether the elevated expression of these markers observed with OpenArray might represent higher numbers of primitive hematopoietic progenitors. Using a colony-forming assay (Baum et al., 1992), we found that red colonies (indicative of erythrocyte differentiation; examples in Figure 4I) were produced significantly earlier and more readily from cells isolated from null versus heterozygous EBs (Figure 4H). By quantitative real-time PCR, upregulation of Hba-x and Cd34 genes confirmed the OpenArray results (Figure 4J). In addition, we found Gata1, an erythropoiesis-specific factor, and Epor, an erythropoietin receptor that mediates erythroid cell proliferation and differentiation (Chiba et al., 1991), to be highly upregulated in null versus heterozygous EBs (Figure 4J). These data suggest that the loss of Prkci promotes the generation of primitive erythroid progenitors that can differentiate into erythrocytes.

To determine whether the aforementioned tissue stem cells identified were represented in the OCT4+ population that we described earlier, we examined the expression of PAX6, ISL1, and OCT4 in adjacent EB sections. We found that cells expressing OCT4 appeared to represent a distinct population from those expressing PAX6 and ISL1 (although some cells were PAX6 and ISL1 double-positive) (Figures S4A–S4C).

Prkci/ Cells Are More Likely to Inherit NUMB/aNOTCH1 Symmetrically The enhanced production of both pluripotent and tissue stem cells suggests that the mechanism underlying the action of Prkci in these different contexts is fundamentally similar. Because the Notch pathway controls stem cell self-renewal in many contexts (Hori et al., 2013), and because previous studies implicated a connection between PRKCi function and the Notch pathway (Bultje et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2007), we examined the localization and activation of a key player in the Notch pathway, NUMB, (Inaba and Yamashita, 2012). Differences in NUMB expression were first evident in whole EBs, where polarized expression was evident in the ectodermal and endodermal epithelia of heterozygous EBs, while Prkci/ EBs exhibited a more even distribution (Figures 5A–5B0 ). To more definitively determine the inheritance of NUMB during cell division, doublets undergoing telophase or cytokinesis were scored for symmetric (evenly distributed in both cells) or asymmetric (unequally distributed) NUMB localization (examples: Figures 5C and 5C0 ). In dissociated day-10 EBs, Prkci+/ doublets displayed somewhat less symmetric versus asymmetric inheritance, while Prkci/ doublets exhibited nearly four times more symmetric versus asymmetric inheritance (Figure 5D). Although individual cells from null EBs that were OCT4+ or PAX6+ more likely to exhibit non-polarized NUMB distribution (Figures S5A and S5B), we decided to use an assay that allowed for FACS purifi- cation, followed by the more stringent doublet assay. Therefore, we chose CD24 (heat-stable antigen; BA-1), a cell-surface marker that is highly expressed in pre-differentiated neurons and neuroblasts (Pruszak et al., 2009), and tested this marker as a method to enrich for cells destined to differentiate into neurons (see Supplemental Experimental Procedures). To assess NUMB localization, FACSsorted CD24 cells isolated from the RA-treated EBs were then put in culture for 24 hr, and doublets were scored. Both Prkci/ CD24high and CD24low doublets exhibited more symmetric versus asymmetric NUMB localization when compared to Prkci+/ doublets (Figure 5E) (>23 more was observed for CD24low doublets; 1.5 ± 0.25 [null] versus 0.67 ± 0.2 [heterozygous]). Thus, in summary, loss of Prkci favors the generation of cells with symmetric NUMB distribution, even during EB differentiation. In addition, in situations where neurogenesis is stimulated (RA treatment), loss of Prkci favors symmetric NUMB distribution in both the CD24high/low subpopulations.

Because NUMB can be directly phosphorylated by aPKCs (both PRKCi and PRKCz) (Smith et al., 2007; Zhou et al., 2011), loss of Prkci might be expected to lead to decreased NUMB phosphorylation. Three NUMB phosphorylation sites—Ser7, Ser276, and Ser295—could be aPKC mediated (Smith et al., 2007). By immunofluorescence, we found that one of the most well-characterized sites (Ser276), was strongly inactivated in null versus heterozygous EBs, especially in the core (Figures 5F and 5G). Western analysis also confirmed that the levels of pNUMB (Ser276) were decreased in null versus heterozygous EBs (Figure S5F). Thus, genetic inactivation of Prkci leads to a marked decrease in the phosphorylation status of NUMB. Notch pathway inhibition by NUMB has been observed in flies and mammals (Berdnik et al., 2002; French et al., 2002). Therefore, we investigated whether reduced Numb activity in Prkci/ EBs might lead to enhanced NOTCH1 activity and the upregulation of the downstream transcriptional readouts (Meier-Stiegen et al., 2010). An overall increase in NOTCH1 activation was supported by western blot analysis showing that the level of activated NOTCH1 (aNOTCH1) was strongly increased in day 6 and day 10 null versus heterozygous EBs (Figure S5G). This was supported by immunofluorescence in EBs, where widespread strong expression of aNOTCH1 was seen in most null cells (Figures 5I and 5I0 ), while in heterozygous EBs, this pattern was observed only in the OCT4+ cells (Figures 5H and 5H0 ).

Figure 5. Prkci/ Cells Preferentially Inherit Symmetric Localization of NUMB and aNOTCH1 and Notch Signaling Is Required for Stem Cell Self-Renewal in Null Cells (A–B0 ) In (A and B), day (d)-7 heterozygous EBs have polarized NUMB localization within epithelia and strong expression in the endoderm, while null EBs have a more even distribution. (A0 and B0 ) Enlarged views. (C and C0 ) Asymmetric and symmetric NUMB expression examples. (D) Doublets from day-10 null EBs have more symmetric inheritance when compared to day-10 heterozygous doublets (three independent experiments; mean ± SEM; **p < 0.01). A red line indicates a ratio of 1 (equal percent symmetric and asymmetric). (E) CD24 high null doublets exhibited more symmetric NUMB inheritance than CD24 high heterozygous doublets (three independent experiments; mean ± SEM; *p < 0.05). A red line indicates where the ratio is 1. (F and G) Decreased pNUMB (Ser276) is evident in the core of null versus heterozygous EBs (n = 10 of each genotype). (H–I0 ) In (H and I), aNOTCH1 is strongly expressed in heterozygous EBs, including both OCT4+ and OCT4 cells, while strong aNOTCH1 expression is predominant in OCT4+ cells of null EBs (n = 10 of each genotype)). (H0 and I0 ) Enlarged views of boxed regions. OCT4+ cells are demarcated with dotted lines. (J and J0 ) OCT4+ cells express HES5 strongly in the nucleus (three independent experiments). (K) Null doublets from dissociated EBs have more symmetric aNOTCH1 inheritance compared to heterozygous doublets (three independent experiments; mean ± SEM; **p < 0.01). A red line indicates where the ratio is 1. (L) CD24high Prkci/ doublets exhibit more symmetric aNOTCH1 than CD24high heterozygous doublets (three independent experiments; mean ± SEM; *p < 0.05). A red line indicates where the ratio is 1. (M and M0 ) Examples of asymmetric and symmetric aNOTCH1 localization. (N and O) Day-3 DMSO-treated null ES colonies show strong AP staining all the way to the colony edge in (N). Treatment with 3 mM DAPT led to more differentiation in (O). (P–R) OCT4 is strongly expressed in day-4 DMSO-treated null ES cultures (P). With DAPT (Q,R), OCT4 expression is decreased. (S) Working model: In daughter cells that undergo differentiation, PRKCi can associate with PAR3 and PAR6. NUMB is recruited and directly phosphorylated. The activation of NUMB then leads to an inhibition in NOTCH1 activation and stimulation of a differentiation/maintenance program. In the absence of Prkci, the PAR3/PAR6 complex cannot assemble (although it may do so minimally with Prkcz). NUMB asymmetric localization and phosphorylation is reduced. Low levels of pNUMB are not sufficient to block NOTCH1 activation, and activated NOTCH1 preserves the stem cell self-renewal program. We suggest that PRKCi functions to drive differentiation by pushing the switch from an expansion phase that is symmetric to a differentiation and/or maintenance phase that is predominantly asymmetric. In situations of low or absent PRKCi, we propose that the expansion phase is prolonged. Scale bars, 50 mm in (A, B, F, G, H, I, J, J0 , P–R); 200 mm in (A0 and B0 ); 25 mm in (C, C0 , M, and M0 ); and 100 mm in (H0 , I0 , N, and O). See also Figure S5.

To examine the localization of aNOTCH1 and to better quantify the results seen in Figures 5H and 5I, doublets from dissociated EBs were scored. As seen with NUMB localization, null doublets were more likely to have symmetric localization of aNOTCH1 in comparison to heterozygous doublets (Figure 5K; examples in Figures 5M and 5M0 ). In addition, both CD24high and CD24low doublets from RA-treated null EBs were more likely to exhibit symmetric aNOTCH1 distribution versus doublets from RA-treated heterozygous EBs (Figure 5L; 3.46 ± 0.8 [null] versus 0.59 ± 0.06 [heterozygous] in CD24low doublets). In addition, by RT-PCR, the expression of Notch downstream genes Hes1, Hes5, Hey1, and Hey2 was increased in null versus heterozygous EBs (Figure S5I). Furthermore, HES5 by immunofluorescence was broadly expressed at similar levels in both null and heterozygous cells (Figures 5J and 5J0 ; Figures S5H and S5H0 ) but more strongly expressed in null OCT4+ cells (Figures 5J and 5J0 ). Thus, loss of Prkci is associated with NOTCH1 activation, aNOTCH1 symmetric localization, and the upregulation of Hes/Hey downstream genes in several assays.

To determine whether Notch pathway activation is required in the absence of Prkci, we examined AP activity and OCT4 expression while blocking the Notch pathway using DAPT to inhibit g-secretase (Sastre et al., 2001). DMSO-treated null ES cells stayed undifferentiated (sharp-edged colonies, strong AP staining); however, treatment of null ES cells with 3 mM DAPT led to more differentiation (AP-negative cells with cellular extensions) (Figures 5N, 5O, and S5J). In addition, OCT4 is strongly expressed in day-4 control ES cell cultures; however, in the presence of DAPT, OCT4 expression is much decreased both in monolayer culture (Figures 5P–5R) and in null EBs (48% lower OCT4+ signal versus DMSO controls, pixel counting on EB sections; data not shown). These results support the idea that activated Notch signaling is required in the absence of Prkci to see enhanced pluripotency.

Taken together, the combined effects of decreased NUMB activation, favored symmetric distribution of NUMB and aNOTCH1 and increased NOTCH1 activity support a model whereby loss of Prkci leads to sustained generation of pluripotent and some tissue stem cell populations (Figure 5S; and see Discussion).

Additional Loss of PRKCz Activity Boosts the Number of OCT4-, SSEA1-, and STELLA-Positive Cells The generation and maintenance of pluripotent stem cells from new sources or tissue stem cells for basic or translational research can be challenging, and there is need for new in vitro strategies. A PKC inhibitor (Go¨6983) that inhibits PKCa, -b, -g, -d, and -z has been used to help maintain mouse and rat ES cells in the absence of LIF (Dutta et al., 2011; Rajendran et al., 2013). Thus, we hypothesized that treating null cells with Go¨6983 might lead to better stem cell expansion compared to loss of just Prkci. In our hands, we found that, under differentiation conditions (no LIF), heterozygous ES cells treated with the inhibitor for 4 days still underwent differentiation (Figure 6A), while treated null ES cells largely stayed undifferentiated (Figure 6A0 ; Figure S6A). Drug treatment of heterozygous EBs boosted the generation of OCT4-expressing cells (Figure 6B), while treatment of null EBs resulted in an even larger OCT4+ population (Figure 6B0 ). NUMB localization was also moderately affected (Figure S6B). By cell sorting, we found that drug treatment significantly increased the percentage of OCT4+ cells in both Prkci+/ and Prkci/ EBs (Figures 6C and 6C0 ; Figures S6C and S6C0 ). Interestingly, Go¨6983 treatment also boosted the generation of SSEA1+ cells in both null and heterozygous EBs (Figures 6D and 6D0 ; Figures S6D and S6D0 ).

SSEA1 is expressed in BLIMP1-positive PGCs derived from mouse epiblast stem cells (Hayashi and Surani, 2009). Also, PGC-like cells can be derived from isolated SSEA1+/OCT4+ EB cells (Geijsen et al., 2004). Therefore, we speculated that the increase in SSEA1 and OCT4 due to Go¨6983 treatment could represent an increase in the generation of PGC-like cells instead of undifferentiated ES cells. Therefore, we examined the expression of STELLA (a PGC marker). As expected, heterozygous EBs contain small clusters of STELLA+ cells similar to EBs made of wild-type cells (Figure 6E) (Payer et al., 2006). The addition of Go¨6983 to Prkci+/ EBs induced a modest increase in the number of STELLA+ cells present in the clusters (Figure 6F). Without drug treatment, null EBs contained more clusters, and the clusters contained more STELLA+ cells when compared to heterozygous EBs (Figures 6E and 6G). Interestingly, when Prkci/ EBs were treated with Go¨6983, the generation of STELLA+ cells was strongly enhanced (Figure 6G versus Figure 6H). Because undifferentiated ES cells can still express STELLA (Payer et al., 2006), we co-stained Prkc EBs for VASA (a more differentiated PGC marker). We found many cells that were double positive (a little less than half) (Figure 6K) but also cells that expressed VASA only and STELLA only (23 more than VASA only) (Figures 6I–6K, red/green arrows). Therefore, the combined effect of loss of Prkci and PKC inhibition via Go¨6983 treatment leads to the production of STELLA and VASA+ PGC-like cells.

Figure 6. Additional Inhibition of PRKCz Results in an Even Higher Percentage of OCT4-, SSEA1-, and STELLA-Positive Cells (A and A0 ) After day 4 without LIF, heterozygous ES cells undergo differentiation in the presence of Go¨6983, while null ES cells stay as distinct colonies in (A0 ). (B and B0 ) Go¨6983 stimulates an increase in OCT4+ populations in heterozygous EBs and an even larger OCT4+ population in null EBs in (B0 , insets: green and red channels separately). (C–D0 ) An even higher percentage of cells are OCT4+ (C and C0 ) and SSEA1+ (D and D0 ) with Go¨6983 treatment (day 12, three independent experiments). (E and F) More STELLA+ clusters containing a larger number of cells are present in drugtreated heterozygous EBs. (G and H) Null EBs also have more STELLA+ clusters and cells. Drug-treated null EBs exhibit a dramatic increase in the number of STELLA+ cells. (I–K) Some cells are double positive for STELLA and VASA in drug-treated null EBs (yellow arrows). There are also VASAonly (green arrows) and STELLA-only cells (red arrows) (three independent experiments). (L–P) Treatment with ZIP results in an increase in OCT4+ and STELLA+ cells. ZIP treatment also results in more cells that are VASA+ (three independent experiments); n = 11 for Prkci+/, and n = 13 for Prkci+/ + ZIP; n = 14 for Prkci/, and n = 20 for Prkci/ + ZIP; eight EBs assayed for both STELLA and VASA expression). Scale bars, 100 mm in (A and A0 ); 50 mm in (B and B0 ); and 25 mm in (E, I, and L). See also Figure S6. 10 S.

Next, we examined whether the more specific aPKC inhibitor, ZIP, a myristolated aPKC pseudosubstrate with competitive binding to p62, had similar effects (Price and Ghosh, 2013; Tsai et al., 2015; Yao et al., 2013). We found that both heterozygous and null EBs treated with ZIP contained more OCT4+ cells compared to un-treated EBs (Figures 6L–6O). In addition, like Go¨6983, ZIP treatment resulted in a modest increase in the percentage of SSEA1+ cells found in heterozygous EBs and a strong increase in the percentage of SSEA1+ cells in null EBs (Figures S6E– S6F0 ). Furthermore, like Go¨6983, both STELLA+ and VASA+ populations were increased with ZIP treatment (Figure 6P). Thus, both pluripotent and PGC-like cells can be abundantly generated with Go¨6983 or ZIP treatment, suggesting that strategies that inhibit both PRKCi and/or PRKCz may be useful to maintain stem cell self-renewal and/or generate abundant PGC-like cells.

DISCUSSION In this report, we suggest that Prkci controls the balance between stem cell expansion and differentiation/maintenance by regulating the activation of NUMB, NOTCH1, and Hes /Hey downstream effector genes. In the absence of Prkci, the pluripotent cell fate is favored, even without LIF, yet cells still retain a broad capacity to differentiate. In addition, loss of Prkci results in enhanced generation of tissue progenitors such as neural stem cells and cardiomyocyte and erythrocyte progenitors. In contrast to recent findings on Prkcz (Dutta et al., 2011), loss of Prkci does not appear to influence STAT3, AKT, or GSK3 signaling but results in decreased ERK1/2 activation. We hypothesize that, in the absence of Prkci, although ERK1/2 inhibition may be involved, it is the decreased NUMB phosphorylation and increased NOTCH1 activation that promotes stem and progenitor cell fate. Thus, we conclude that PRKCi, a protein known to be required for cell polarity, also plays an essential role in controlling stem cell fate and generation via regulating NOTCH1 activation.

Notch Activation Drives the Decision to Self-Renew versus Differentiate Notch plays an important role in balancing stem cell selfrenewal and differentiation in a variety of stem cell types and may be one of the key downstream effectors of Prkci signaling. Sustained Notch1 activity in embryonic neural progenitors has been shown to maintain their undifferentiated state (Jadhav et al., 2006). Similarly, sustained constitutive activation of NOTCH1 stimulates the proliferation of immature cardiomyocytes in the rat myocardium (Collesi et al., 2008). In HSCs, overexpression of constitutively active NOTCH1 in hematopoietic progenitors and stem cells supports both primitive and definitive HSC selfrenewal (Stier et al., 2002). Together, these studies suggest that activation and/or sustained Notch signaling can lead to an increase in certain tissue stem cell populations. Thus, a working model for how tissue stem cell populations are favored in the absence of Prkci involves a sequence of events that ultimately leads to Notch activation. Recent studies have shown that aPKCs can be found in a complex with NUMB in both Drosophila and mammalian cells (Smith et al., 2007; Zhou et al., 2011); hence, in our working model (Figure 5S), we propose that the localization and phosphorylation of NUMB is highly dependent on the activity of PRKCi. When Prkci is downregulated or absent (as shown here), cell polarity is not promoted, leading to diffuse distribution and decreased phosphorylation of NUMB. Without active NUMB, NOTCH1 activation is enhanced, Hes/Hey genes are upregulated, and stem/progenitor fate generation is favored. To initiate differentiation, polarization could be stochastically determined but could also be dependent on external cues such as the presentation of certain ligands or extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins (Habib et al., 2013). When PRKCi is active and the cell becomes polarized, a trimeric complex is formed with PRKCi, PAR3, and PAR6. Numb is then recruited and phosphorylated, leading to Notch inactivation, the repression of downstream Hes/Hey genes, and differentiation is favored (see Figure 5S). Support for this working model comes from studies in Drosophila showing that the aPKC complex is essential for Numb activation and asymmetric localization (Knoblich, 2008; Smith et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2006). Additional studies on mouse neural progenitors show that regulating Numb localization and Notch activation is critical for maintaining the proper number of stem/progenitor cells in balance with differentiation (Bultje et al., 2009). Thus, an important function for PRKCi may be to regulate the switch between symmetric expansion of stem/progenitor cells to an asymmetric differentiation/maintenance phase. In situations of low or absent PRKCi, we propose that the expansion phase is favored. Thus, temporarily blocking either, or both, of the aPKC isozymes may be a powerful approach for expanding specific stem/progenitor populations for use in basic research or for therapeutic applications.

These studies, together with data presented here, provide genetic evidence that evolutionarily conserved polarity pathways may play a central role in NOTCH1 activation. and stem cell self-renewal in mammals. Further genetic studies using Cre transgenes that are specific for progenitors in the neural plate, primitive erythrocytes, cardiomyocytes, and other progenitors to ablate aPKC function will be needed to determine how generally this mechanism is used in diverse tissues.

Although we do not see changes in the activation status of the STAT3, AKT, or GSK3 pathway, loss of Prkci results in an inhibition of ERK1/2 (Figures 2A and 2B). This result is consistent with the findings that ERK1/2 inhibition is both correlated with and directly increases ES cell selfrenewal (Burdon et al., 1999). Modulation of ERK1/2 activity by Prkci has been observed in cancer cells and chondrocytes (Litherland et al., 2010; Murray et al., 2011). Although it is not clear whether a direct interaction exists between Prkci and ERK1/2, Prkcz directly interacts with ERK1/2 in the mouse liver and in hypoxia-exposed cells (Das et al., 2008; Peng et al., 2008). The Prkcz isozyme is still expressed in Prkci null cells but evidently cannot suf- ficiently compensate and activate the pathway normally. Furthermore, knocking down Prkcz function in ES cells does not result in ERK1/2 inhibition, suggesting that this isozyme does not impact ERK1/2 signaling in ES cells (Dutta et al., 2011). Therefore, although PRKCi may interact with ERK1/2 and be directly required for its activation, ERK1/2 inhibition could also be a readout for cells that are more stem-like. Further studies will be needed to address this question.

Utility of Inhibiting aPKC Function Loss of Prkci resulted in EBs that contained slightly more STELLA+ cells than EBs made from +/ cells. Furthermore, inhibition of both aPKC isozymes by treating Prkci null cells with the PKC inhibitor Go¨6983 or the more specific inhibitor, ZIP, strongly promoted the generation of large clusters of STELLA+ and VASA+ cells, suggesting that inhibition of both isozymes is important for PGC progenitor expansion (Figure 6). It is unclear what the mechanism for this might be; however, one possibility is that blocking both aPKCs is necessary to promote NOTCH1 activation in PGCs or in PGC progenitor cells that may ordinarily have strong inhibitions to expansion (Feng et al., 2014). Regardless of mechanism, the ability to generate PGC-like cells in culture is notoriously challenging, and our results provide a method for future studies on PGC specification and differentiation.

Expansion of stem/progenitor pools may not be desirable in the context of cancer. Prkci has been characterized as a human oncogene, a useful prognostic cancer marker, and a therapeutic target for cancer treatment. Overexpression of Prkci is found in epithelial cancers (Fields and Regala, 2007), and Prkci inhibitors are being evaluated as candidate cancer therapies (Atwood et al., 2013; Mansfield et al., 2013). However, because our results show that Prkci inhibition leads to enhanced stem cell production in vitro, Prkci inhibitor treatment as a cancer therapy might lead to unintended consequences (tumor overgrowth), depending on the context and treatment regimen. Thus, extending our findings to human stem and cancer stem cells is needed. In summary, here, we demonstrate that loss of Prkci leads to the generation of abundant pluripotent cells, even under differentiation conditions. In addition, we show that tissue stem cells such as neural stem cells, primitive erythrocytes, and cardiomyocyte progenitors can also be abundantly produced in the absence of Prkci. These increases in stem cell production correlate with decreased NUMB activation and symmetric NUMB localization and require Notch signaling. Further inhibition of Prkcz may have an additive effect and can enhance the production of PGC-like cells. Thus, Prkci (along with Prkcz) may play key roles in stem cell self-renewal and differentiation by regulating the Notch pathway. Furthermore, inhibition of Prkci and or Prkcz activity with specific small-molecule inhibitors might be a powerful method to boost stem cell production in the context of injury or disease.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Supplemental Information includes Supplemental Experimental Procedures, six figures, and two tables and can be found with this article online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr. 2015.09.021.

REFERENCES

Atwood, S.X., Li, M., Lee, A., Tang, J.Y., and Oro, A.E. (2013). GLI activation by atypical protein kinase C i/l regulates the growth of basal cell carcinomas. Nature 494, 484–488.

Baum, C.M., Weissman, I.L., Tsukamoto, A.S., Buckle, A.M., and Peault, B. (1992). Isolation of a candidate human hematopoietic stem-cell population. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89, 2804–2808.

Berdnik, D., To¨ro¨k, T., Gonza´lez-Gaita´n, M., and Knoblich, J.A. (2002). The endocytic protein alpha-Adaptin is required for numb-mediated asymmetric cell division in Drosophila.

Dev. Cell 3, 221–231. Boeckeler, K., Rosse, C., Howell, M., and Parker, P.J. (2010). Manipulating signal delivery – plasma-membrane ERK activation in aPKC-dependent migration. J. Cell Sci. 123, 2725–2732.

more….

USC offers a summer of stem cells for local high school students

The teens boost their scientific IQ by conducting research in USC labs

The goal of these unique programs is to educate bright young minds at the stage where they’re still formulating ideas and still open and receptive to new discoveries.

Andrew McMahon

Twenty-three local high school students spent their summer vacations in a very unusual place: the Eli and Edythe Broad CIRM Center for Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at USC.

The students celebrated their graduations this month from the USC Early Investigator High School (EiHS) and the USC CIRM Science, Technology and Research (STAR) programs. These are the only programs that offer comprehensive training in stem cell research to high school students.

“The goal of these unique programs is to educate bright young minds at the stage where they’re still formulating ideas and still open and receptive to new discoveries, and introduce them to the wonder and inspirational power of stem cell biology,” said Andrew McMahon, director of USC’s stem cell research center and the Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, and head of the university-wide USC Stem Cell initiative uniting more than 100 researchers from all disciplines.

Stem cells, ethics and public policy

Over the course of the summer, the high school students participated in either a 10-day training course or eight-week research internship, working with human stem cells in USC’s world-class laboratories. 

Under the mentorship of USC faculty and graduate students, the students learned about the latest advances in regenerative medicine and explored stem cells, ethics and public policy.

Roberta Diaz Brinton, director of the CIRM STAR program, paid tribute to the accomplishments of the students.

“We’re very impressed by the caliber of science and more impressed by the caliber of young minds. These young scientists are generating the new knowledge from which stem cell biology and stem cell therapies will progress in the future,” said Brinton, professor at the USC School of Pharmacy, the USC Viterbi School of Engineering and the Keck School of Medicine of USC, and an executive committee member of USC Stem Cell.

True teamwork

Victoria Fox, director of the EiHS program, extended her thanks to everyone who contributed to the experience.

“The EiHS program was made possible by a team of very incredible people that starts with my laboratory staff and includes donors, the students, the administrators of the stem cell research center and the mentors who take the students in their laboratories,” she said. “I’m very grateful to all of these people.”

This year’s participants were selected from Harvard-Westlake School, Lifeline Education Charter School, Chadwick School and Bravo Medical Magnet High School, and many received scholarships.

“The program has motivated our students to be college-ready by giving them the opportunity to work in a university setting,” said Obed Nartey, principal of Lifeline Education Charter School. “Many of these students are the first generation to graduate from high school. For these students, college was seen as being out of reach until they met and worked with Dr. Fox and her team.”

On graduation day, the students shared their transformative summer experiences with their mentors, friends, parents and teachers by presenting scientific posters and by contributing articles to the program’s new EiHS Journal, which will publish its first issue in October.

“Being able to contribute to a scientific project that can play an important role in someone’s life is an amazing opportunity, and I would not trade it for the world,” said Marialuisa Flores, a student from Lifeline Education Charter School. “It was a very enjoyable learning experience, which has made a great impact on my life and future career.”

“Being able to contribute to a scientific project that can play an important role in someone’s life is an amazing opportunity, and I would not trade it for the world,” said Marialuisa Flores, a student from Lifeline Education Charter School. “It was a very enjoyable learning experience, which has made a great impact on my life and future career.”

A retreat from everything but stem cells

BY Cristy Lytal

It wasn’t the pristine 27-hole course that drew more than 120 stem cell researchers from USC and beyond to the Desert Princess Golf Resort near Palm Springs, Calif. It was the sixth annual retreat for the Eli and Edy the Broad Center for Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at USC, which took place on Oct. 20-­21.

The two-day, overnight retreat featured a plenary lecture by Clive Svendsen, director of the Regenerative Medicine Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, about the contribution of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells to regenerative medicine, particularly to studying and developing treatments for neurological disorders.

The retreat also included presentations by winners of the first Regenerative Medicine Initiative (RMI) Awards, which provide up to two years of seed funding for multi-investigator research collaborations that harness the full potential of USC-affiliated faculty members. The three winning teams are using various stem/progenitor cells that might lead to future therapies for certain forms of deafness, bone defects and pediatric leukemia.

Many other principal investigators, postdoctoral and graduate students shared innovative research advancing several key areas of regenerative medicine.

Rong Lu, who will leave Stanford University to join USC’s stem cell research center as a principal investigator in January, talked about her new cellular “tracking system” for hematopoietic, or blood-forming stem cells. The system allows for the more effective study of blood and other types of cancers.

Min Yu, who will leave Massachusetts General Hospital at Harvard Medical School to accept a joint appointment as a principal investigator at USC’s stem cell research center and the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center in January, discussed how to filter out circulating cancer stem cells from billions of other blood cells to understand and stop cancer’s spread.

USC research associate Hu Zhao and research assistants Yichen Li and Yingxiao Shi gave presentations.

Postdoctoral students who presented research included Mohamed Hammad, Lori O’Brien, Sandeep Paul and Saaket Varma.

PhD student presenters included Wen-Hsuan Chang, Guanyi Huang, Sapna Jain, Erin Moran, Marie Rippen and Yuki Yamaguchi.

The retreat also showcased the USC stem cell research center’s core facilities for stem cell sorting, derivation, culture, iPS programming, imaging and therapeutic screening.

During the cocktail hour, guests exchanged new ideas while voting on their favorite posters, which introduced research opportunities related to the Development, Stem Cells, and Regenerative Medicine PhD program.

Retreat sponsors included the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine Amgen, Sanofi, Zeiss, Leica Microsystems, Fluidigm, Lonza and Novogenix Laboratories LLC.

“This year’s retreat was a great success,” said Andrew McMahon, who spearheads the USC Stem Cell initiative and directs the Broad Center. “It helped solidify USC Stem Cell as an interactive scientific community and build relationships with our colleagues at the university and beyond.”

$1.5M Goes to Stem Cell Research

$6.4M for Stem Cell Labs to USC, CHLA

$25 million Broad Foundation gift creates stem cell institute at USC

McMahon discusses central role of stem cell biology in medicine of the future

Andrew McMahon is a Provost Professor and inaugural holder of the W.M. Keck Professorship of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine at USC. (Photo/Philip Channing)

McMahon installed as chair of stem cell biology

Army Research Laboratory selects USC institute as base for breakthroughs in science and technology

Brainpower applied to understanding of neural stem cells

Cristy Lytal
BY Cristy Lytal   OCTOBER 24, 2013

How do humans and other mammals get so brainy? USC researcher Wange Lu and his colleagues shed new light on this question in a paper published in the journal Cell Reports on Oct. 24.

The researchers donned their thinking caps to explain how neural stem and progenitor cells differentiate into neurons and related cells called glia. Neurons transmit information through electrical and chemical signals; glia surround, support and protect neurons in the brain and throughout the nervous system. Glia do everything from holding neurons in place to supplying them with nutrients and oxygen to protect them from pathogens.

By studying the embryo neural stem cells of mice in a petri dish, Lu and his colleagues discovered that a protein called SMEK1 promotes the differentiation of neural stem and progenitor cells. At the same time, SMEK1 keeps these cells in check by suppressing their uncontrolled proliferation.

The researchers also determined that SMEK1 doesn’t act alone: It works in concert with Protein Phosphatase 4 to suppress the activity of PAR3, a third protein that discourages neurogenesis — the birth of new neurons. With PAR3 out of the picture, neural stem cells and progenitors are free to differentiate into new neurons and glia.

“These studies reveal the mechanisms of how the brain keeps the balance of stem cells and neurons when the brain is formed,” said Wange Lu, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the Eli and Edythe Broad Center for Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at USC. “If this process goes wrong, it leads to cancer or mental retardation or other neurological diseases.”

neural stem cells

Neural stem and progenitor cells offer tremendous promise as a future treatment for neurodegenerative disorders, and understanding their differentiation is the first step toward harnessing the cells’ therapeutic potential. This could offer new hope for patients with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and many other currently incurable diseases.

Co-authors from the Broad Center included Vicky Yamamoto, Si Ho Choi and Zhong Wei. Co-authors Hee-Ryang Kim and Choun-Ki Joo work at the Catholic University of Korea in Seoul, and first author Jungmook Lyu is affiliated with both institutions.

Funding for the study came from the National Institutes of Health (grant number 5R01NS067213).

Protein phosphatase 4 and Smek complex negatively regulate Par3 and promote neuronal differentiation of neural stem/progenitor cells.
Cell Rep. 2013 Nov 14;5(3):593-600. http://d.doi.org:/10.1016/j.celrep.2013.09.034. Epub 2013 Oct 24.
Neural progenitor cells (NPCs) are multipotent cells that can self-renew and differentiate into neurons and glial cells. However, mechanisms that control their fate decisions are poorly understood. Here, we show that Smek1, a regulatory subunit of the serine/threonine protein phosphatase PP4, promotes neuronal differentiation and suppresses the proliferative capacity of NPCs. We identify the cell polarity protein Par3, a negative regulator of neuronal differentiation, as a Smek1 substrate and demonstrate that Smek1 suppresses its activity. We also show that Smek1, which is predominantly nuclear in NPCs, is excluded from the nucleus during mitosis, allowing it to interact with cortical/cytoplasmic Par3 and mediate its dephosphorylation by the catalytic subunit PP4c. These results identify the PP4/Smek1 complex as a key regulator of neurogenesis.

Neural stem and progenitor cells located in the ventricular zone (VZ) of the embryonic neocortex are mitotically active, self-renewing cells with the potential to produce differentiated cell types (Temple, 2001). During cortical development, postmitotic neurons generated from NPCs migrate radially out of the VZ and form the cortical plate (CP) in an “inside-out pattern,” eventually establishing a six-layered cortex (Kriegstein et al., 2006). The timing of neuronal differentiation determines the size of the progenitor pool, the final number of neurons, and cortical thickness. However, the molecular mechanisms that control the switch from proliferation to neuronal differentiation of NPCs remain incompletely understood.

Studies of Drosophila neuroblasts show that the serine/threonine protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) inhibits self-renewal and promotes neuronal differentiation by regulating the phosphorylation status of cell fate determinants, including Numb (Wang et al., 2009). Bazooka, a key component of the Par protein complex, is a well-characterized PP2A substrate in Drosophila neuroblasts (Krahn et al., 2009; Ogawa et al., 2009). PP2A antagonizes phosphorylation of Bazooka by Par1 kinase to control its subcellular localization. In mammals, a protein called Partitioning-defective 3 (Par3), the ortholog of Bazooka, accumulates at the tip of a growing axon in neurons and controls axon specification (Shi et al., 2003). Recently, it has been shown that Par3, which is enriched in the apical domain of NPCs of the VZ (Imai et al., 2006), critically regulates proliferation versus differentiation during cortical development (Bultje et al., 2009; Costa et al., 2008).

PP4, which belongs to the PP2A family, is a protein complex comprised of a catalytic subunit PP4c plus regulatory subunits (Gingras et al., 2005). Smek (also termed PP4R3) has been identified as a PP4 regulatory subunit and implicated in activities as diverse as regulation of MEK (Mendoza et al., 2005), insulin/IGF-1 signaling (Wolff et al., 2006), H2AX phosphorylation (Chowdhury et al., 2008), and histone H3 and H4 acetylation (Lyu et al., 2011). A recent study reported that Falafel (Flfl), the Drosophila homolog of Smek, mediates localization of the adaptor protein Miranda and the cell fate determinant Prospero in neuroblasts (Sousa-Nunes et al., 2009). However, the direct substrate of Smek remains unclear. Here we identify Par3 as a direct substrate of the PP4/Smek1 complex in NPCs and report a novel role for Smek1 in regulating neuronal differentiation.

Smek1 is required for neuronal differentiation of NPCs

During mouse cortical development, Smek1 is expressed in a distinct temporal and spatial pattern. At E11.5, we observed that Smek1 protein is expressed in most NPCs at the apical side of the forebrain VZ (Figure 1Aand S1A). At E14.5, Smek1 protein was detectable primarily in CP neurons (Figure 1B and S1B), while weak Smek1 expression was seen in some NPCs undergoing mitosis at the ventricle surface (Figure 1B, boxes). Interestingly, VZ neurons that migrate to the CP also expressed Smek1 protein (Figure 1B, arrows). In postnatal forebrain, Smek1 protein expression remained detectable in cortical layers I-IV (Figure S1C). Moreover, E14 cortices of Smek1-depleted mice (Smek1gt/gt) exhibited an increase in the number of Pax6-positive cells (an NPC marker) and a decrease in the number of Tbr1-positive cells (a marker of cortical neurons) as compared to E14 cortices of wild-type (Smek1+/+) mice (Figure 1C and S1D).

Figure 1

Smek1 regulates neuronal differentiation in the early phase of NPC differentiation

To assess Smek1’ function in neurogenesis, we employed an in vitro culture system using NPCs isolated from the E11.5 mouse forebrain neocortex. NPCs transduced with lentivirus expressing shRNA againstSmek1 or control shRNA under control of a doxycycline-inducible promoter (Figure S1E) were cultured in medium containing doxycycline for 6 days under differentiating conditions and then assessed for neurogenesis using TUJ1 (a marker of immature neurons) or MAP2 (a marker of mature neurons). The number of TUJ1- or MAP2-positive cells significantly decreased in Smek1 knockdown cultures compared to cultures expressing control shRNA (Figure 1D), indicating a neuronal differentiation defect. A decrease in number of neurons can be caused by a defect in NPC proliferation or neuronal apoptotic cell death. While no significant difference in the number of apoptotic cell death (as determined by TUNEL staining) was observed between control and Smek1 knockdown cells cultured under differentiation condition (data not shown),Smek1 knockdown NPCs grown under proliferation conditions underwent hyperproliferation (Figure S1F and G). We then asked whether Smek1 regulated the transition of NPCs from proliferative to differentiation states by knocking down Smek1 in NPCs prior to placing them in differentiating culture conditions. Western blotting of cells expressing Smek1 shRNA showed decreased levels of TUJ1 protein relative to controls by day 1 of culture (Figure S1H). At this time point, we found that the percentage of undifferentiated NPCs expressing both Nestin (an NPC marker) and Ki67 (a marker of proliferation) or Pax6 increased in cultures expressing Smek1 shRNA compared to control cultures, while the percentage of TUJ1-positive cells significantly decreased (Figure 1E and F). These findings suggest that Smek1 is required for neuronal differentiation and suppression of NPC proliferative capacity at an early phase of differentiation.

Smek1 recruits PP4c to promote neuronal differentiation

To determine Smek1 as a regulatory subunit of PP4 in neurogenesis, we asked whether Smek1 binds to the catalytic subunit PP4c in NPCs using co-immunoprecipitation. Western blot analysis revealed PP4c in Smek1 but not control immunoprecipitates, indicating that Smek1 physically interacts with PP4c. Such interactions did not change during differentiation (Figure 2A). To examine whether PP4c functions in neurogenesis, NPCs were exposed to lentivirus expressing PP4c or control shRNA and cultured as described in Figure 1D. PP4c knockdown led to changes similar to those accompanying Smek1 knockdown: relative to control cultures TUJ1 expression and the number of TUJ1-positive neurons decreased while Pax6-positive NPCs increased (Figure 2B and S2A and B). We next mapped Smek1 domains required for PP4c interaction. Smek contains four conserved domains: an N-terminal Ran-binding domain (RanBD), a domain of unknown function 625 (DUF625), an armadillo (Arm) repeat region, and a C-terminal nuclear localization sequence (NLS). We constructed a series of Flag-tagged deletion mutants, including Smek1ΔRanBD (lacking amino acid (aa) 2–100), ΔDUF625 (lacking aa 162-355), ΔArm (lacking 350-653), and ΔNLS (lacking aa 809-820) (Figure 2C, top) and introduced them or a wild-type construct into NPCs. PP4c was not be detected in anti-Flag immunoprecipitates from NPCs expressing Flag-Smek1ΔArm (Figure 2C, bottom) but was detected in cells expressing wild-type or other deletion mutants, suggesting that PP4c/Smek1 complex formation requires the Arm repeats. We also found that, while expression of wild-type Smek1 or corresponding ΔNLS mutant in cultures lacking endogenous Smek1 rescued the neuronal differentiation defect, the other mutants did not (Figure 2D and S2C and D). These results indicate that Smek1 regulates neuronal differentiation via its Arm repeats region through PP4c and suggest that both RanBD and DUF625 domains also participate in neurogenesis.

Figure 2

PP4c is required for neuronal differentiation   
Smek1 binds to and mediates Par3 dephosphorylation

To identify PP4 substrates regulated by Smek1 in NPCs, we employed affinity purification to purify proteins interacting with Smek1. Mass spectrometry analysis identified potential Smek1-binding proteins, including Par3, Kinesin-like protein, coiled-coil domain-containing protein 30 (CCDC 30), heat shock protein 90 (HSP90), PKC lambda, and HDAC1 Figure S3A. Among these, Par3, an intrinsic regulator of neurogenesis, is a particularly attractive candidate (Bultje et al., 2009; Costa et al., 2008). Using an antibody that detects the major isoforms (180, 150, and 100 kDa) of Par3, Western blot analysis revealed the predominant expression of two isoforms, 180 and 100 kDa forms, in NPCs, and that only the 180 kDa Par3 was detectable in Smek1 immunoprecipitates (Figure 3A). To determine whether Smek1/Par3 binding was direct, we performed an in vitro pull-down assay using purified Flag-Smek1 and His-fused Par3 fragments, the latter containing the CR1 domain (aa 1-338), the PDZ domain (aa 343-733), the aPKC-BR domain (aa 711-1054), or the C-terminal coiled-coil region (aa 1055-1334) (Figure S3B). Western blot analysis revealed that Flag-Smek1 pulled down only the Par3 coiled-coil region (Figure 3B), indicating direct binding through that region. Moreover, Par3 was detected in Flag immunoprecipitates derived from NPCs transduced with lentivirus expressing Myc-Par3 plus lentivirus expressing Flag-Smek1 wild-type or Smek1ΔRanBD, Smek1ΔArm, or Smek1ΔNLS constructs but not from NPCs expressing Smek1ΔDUF625 (Figure 3C). This result indicates that Smek1 DUF625 domain is required for Smek1/Par3 interaction.

Figure 3

Smek1 interacts with Par3 and inhibits its function in neuronal differentiation

To assess potential dephosphorylation of Par3 by Smek1, we phosphorylayed Myc-Par3 protein in vitro by incubating it with an NPC lysate and 32P-ATP and then treated it with a complex containing Flag-Smek1 proteins (Figure 3D). 32P-labeling of Par3 was significantly decreased when Par3 protein was incubated with a complex containing wild-type Flag-Smek1 protein and PP4c (Figure 3D). By contrast, treatment with a Flag-Smek1ΔArm protein complex lacking PP4c binding significantly reduced Par3 dephosphorylation. Moreover, Western blot analysis of Par3 immunoprecipitates with an anti-phospho-serine/threonine antibody confirmed that Smek1 and PP4c regulate Par3 phosphorylation through serine/threonine residues (Figure S3C). Since the DUF625 and Arm repeats regions of Smek1 are required for binding to Par3 and PP4c respectively, we examined the Par3 phosphorylation state in NPCs expressing Flag-tagged wild-type or mutant Smek1 together with Myc-tagged Par3. Western blot analysis of Myc-Par3 immunoprecipitates using anti-phospho-serine/threonine antibody showed that overexpression of wild-type Smek1 or Smek1ΔNLS significantly decreased Par3 phosphorylation levels compared to controls, whereas overexpression of Smek1ΔRanBD, ΔDUF625, or ΔArm did not (Figure 3E). These results suggest that, in addition to the DUF625 and Arm, the RanBD domain of Smek1 participates in regulation of Par3 phosphorylation at serine/threonine residues.

Smek1 negatively regulates Par3 in neurogenesis

Next we asked whether Par3 is required for Smek1-mediated neurogenesis. To this end, we assessed the effect of Smek1 loss-or gain-of function on neuronal differentiation in the presence or absence of Par3. NPCs expressing either Smek1 shRNA or wild-type Smek1 were transduced with lentivirus expressing Par3 or control shRNA (Figure S3D). At day 1 after differentiation, in the presence of Par3, knockdown of Smek1 led to a decrease in the number of TUJ1-positive neurons and an increase in the number of Nestin/Ki67 double-positive NPCs, while overexpression of Smek1 had the opposite effect (Figure 3F and S3E). In the absence of Par3 by using shRNA, the number of TUJ1-positve cell was increased and the number of Nestin/Ki67 double positive NPCs was decreased. However, in these cultures knockdown or overexpression of Smek1 did not significantly alter the number of neurons or undifferentiated NPCs. In addition, we also observed increased expression of mRNAs encoding the Notch targets Hes1 and Hes5 in cells expressing Smek1 shRNA compared to control cells (Figure S3F). Moreover, analysis of Notch reporter gene activity revealed that wild-type Smek1 inhibited Notch signaling activity induced by Par3 overexpression, while Smek1ΔDUF625 did not (Figure S3G). Given that Par3 activates Notch signaling (Bultje et al., 2009), these results suggest that Smek1 acts upstream of Par3 to negatively regulate its activity in neurogenesis.

Par3 loss of function promotes neuronal differentiation (Costa et al., 2008), consistent with the effect seen following Smek1 overexpression (Figure 3F). To confirm that Smek1 promotes neurogenesis by suppressing Par3 function, we transduced NPCs with lentiviruses expressing Par3 alone or Par3 together with wild-type Smek1 or Smek1ΔDUF625, cultured them under differentiation conditions, and then neuronal differentiation was quantified by determining the percentage of TUJ1-positive and Nestin/Ki67 double-positive cells one day later. Par3 overexpression decreased the number of TUJ1-positive neurons and increased the number of Nestin/Ki67-positive undifferentiated NPCs compared with control cells (Figure 3G and S3H). As expected, wild-type Smek1 negated the effect of Par3 overexpression, as determined by comparing the percentage of TUJ1-positive and Nestin/Ki67 double-positive cells in cultures expressing both Smek1 and Par3 to cultures expressing Par3 alone. In comparison with wild-type Smek1, no significant change was seen in cultures transduced with Smek1ΔDUF625, which cannot bind Par3. These experiments further confirm that Smek1 negatively regulates Par3 in NPC differentiation.

Dynamic changes in Smek1 subcellular localization facilitate targeting of PP4 to Par3

Par3 localizes to the apical cortex of NPCs (Bultje et al., 2009), while Smek1 is predominantly nuclear (Figure 1A and C). To determine if changes in Smek1 subcellular localization occur in NPCs during neurogenesis, coronal sections from E11.5 forebrain were immunostained with anti-Smek1 and -α-tubulin (a cytoplasmic marker) antibodies. Smek1 co-localized with α-tubulin in cells on the ventricular surface (Figure 4A, arrows), indicating a cytoplasmic/cortical localization in mitotic NPCs. In mitotic cells, Par3 showed a similar localization (Figure S4A and B). Moreover, immunostaining of NPC cultures with anti-Smek1 and -α-tubulin antibodies showed that Smek1 undergoes dynamic changes in subcellular localization during mitosis. While Smek1 was nuclear in interphase and prophase cells, it showed a cytoplasmic/cortical localization from prometaphase to anaphase (Figure 4B and S4C). Metaphase and anaphase cells also showed Smek1 enrichment at spindle microtubules.

Figure 4

Smek1 regulates subcellular localization of PP4c but not Par3

The RanBD motif of the Dictyostelium discoideum Smek homolog is reportedly critical for its cytoplasmic/cortical localization (Mendoza et al., 2005). To test whether this was the case for mammalian Smek1, Smek1-depleted NPCs were transduced with constructs encoding Flag-tagged wild-type Smek1 or its deletion mutants and immunostained with anti-Flag and anti-phospho-histone H3 (a marker of mitosis and chromatin condensation). Consistent with results reported in Dictyostelium discoideum, the Smek1ΔRanBD mutant failed to localize to the cytoplasm/spindle during mitosis but rather localized in the nucleus and remained there in interphase (Figure 4C). The subcellular localization of other mutants tested resembled that of wild-type Smek1, with the exception of Smek1ΔNLS, which was expressed in both the nucleus and cytoplasm of interphase cells. Smek1ΔRanBD contains domains that can bind Par3 and PP4c, as shown by immunoprecipitation (Figure 2C and and3C).3C). We thus asked whether ectopic expression of Smek1ΔRanBD promoted mislocalization of Par3 and PP4c during mitosis. When we expressed Smek1ΔRanBD ectopically in Smek1-depleted NPCs, cytoplasmic/cortical Par3 remained unchanged while Smek1ΔRanBD was nuclear (Figure S4D). In addition, no difference in localization of Par3 between Smek1-depleted and wild-type Smek1 re-expressing cells was observed, suggesting that Smek1 does not alter Par3 localization. To evaluate PP4c subcellular localization, chromosome-associated and cytosolic protein fractions were isolated from M phase-synchronized NPCs and compared by Western analysis using indicated antibodies (Figure 4D). Interestingly, PP4c protein levels increased in the chromosomal fraction from cells expressing Flag-Smek1ΔRanBD compared to control cells or wild-type Flag-Smek1, while in the cytosolic fraction the level of PP4c protein decreased, indicating altered localization of cytoplasmic PP4c to the nucleus. Taken together, these results demonstrate that PP4c subcellular localization depends on Smek1 localization during mitosis and suggest that cytoplasmic/cortical localization of Smek1 targets PP4 to Par3.

DISCUSSION

Neural stem and progenitor cells have been suggested as potential therapeutics for neurodegenerative disorders. However, understanding molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying their differentiation is a prerequisite to manipulating stem cell behavior. We show that Smek1, an evolutionarily conserved regulatory subunit of PP4, regulates neuronal differentiation and reveal an unreported function of PP4 in mammalian neurogenesis. Moreover, identification of Par3 as a novel Smek1-interacting protein and characterization of its conserved domains reveals a molecular mechanism by which Smek1 targets PP4 to Par3 during mitosis and negatively regulates Par3 function in neurogenesis.

In this study we identify Par3 as a PP4 substrate. We propose that Smek1, through its DUF625 domain, binds directly to the Par3 C-terminus. In NPCs Par3 is primarily cytoplasmic in interphase and mitosis. Thus, nuclear export of Smek1 to the cytoplasm is required for its interaction with Par3. We show dynamic changes in Smek1 subcellular localization in NPCs. While Smek1 localizes exclusively to the nucleus in interphase, during mitosis it becomes cytoplasmic. The RanBD of several proteins reportedly recognizes GTP-bound Ran (RanGTP), which directs assembly of spindle microtubules allowing chromosomal segregation and cytokinesis in mitosis (Carazo-Salas et al., 2001). Smek1 enrichment at spindle microtubules in metaphase and anaphase cells suggests that its RanBD may function in a RanGTP-dependent pathway during mitosis. Notably, nuclear export of Smek1 to the cytoplasm was observed from prometaphase cells when microtubules invade the nuclear space, and deletion of the Smek1 RanBD abolished this effect, as seen by nuclear localization. Thus our data suggest that Smek1 subcellular localization is regulated through the RanBD and that this activity may depend on microtubule dynamics functioning in a Ran-dependent pathway.

Most Smek homologs physically interact with the catalytic subunit PP4c (Gingras et al., 2005; Chowdhury et al., 2008), suggesting that the PP4 complex is evolutionarily conserved. We show that PP4c recognizes the Arm repeats region of Smek1 and its subcellular localization depends on Smek1 localization. Thus, nuclear export of Smek1 during mitosis facilitates dephosphorylation of Par3. This idea is supported by our observation that, while expression of Smek1 induced Par3 dephosphorylation in NPCs, expression of Smek1 mutants lacking RanBD and Arm repeats region did not. Interestingly, studies of Drosophila neuroblasts previously revealed that cell fate specification is tightly linked with phosphorylation status of bazooka protein (Betschinger et al., 2003; Krahn et al., 2009). However, it is now yet clear whether Par3 dephosphorylation directly regulates NPC neurogenesis. Although we could not identify specific phosphorylation sites targeted by PP4, our data defines three conserved domains of Smek1, namely RanBD, DUF625, and Arm repeats, necessary to target PP4 to its substrate Par3 and provides insight into the molecular mechanism by Smek1 to regulate PP4 function in NPCs.

We here show that Smek1 suppresses Par3, a negative regulator of neuronal differentiation. Par3 acts upstream of Notch signaling (Bultje et al., 2009), which critically regulates cell fate decision of NPCs in cortical development (Gaiano and Fishell, 2002). Notch gain-of-function activity inhibits neuronal differentiation (Nye et al., 1994), an effect similar to Smek1 loss-of-function. Moreover, Smek1 inhibits Par3-induced Notch reporter gene activity. Although it remains unclear whether Smek1 inhibits Par3’s ability to activate Notch signaling during mitosis, ensuring a neuronal fate, our data demonstrate Smek1 as a negative regulator of Par3 in regulating neuronal differentiation and suggest a novel role for PP4 in mammalian neurogenesis.

Supplementary Material   Click here to view.(13M, pdf)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3855259/bin/NIHMS530096-supplement-01.pdf

Acknowledgments   We thank the USC Transgenic Core Facility for generating mutant mice. This research is funded by a NIH grant to W.L (5R01NS067213) and an NRF grant (NRF-2011-35B-E00015) to J.L.

References

  • Betschinger J, Mechtler K, Knoblich JA. The Par complex directs asymmetric cell division by phosphorylating the cytoskeletal protein Lgl. Nature. 2003;422:326–330. [PubMed]
  • Bultje RS, Castaneda-Castellanos DR, Jan LY, Jan YN, Kriegstein AR, Shi SH. Mammalian Par3 regulates progenitor cell asymmetric division via notch signaling in the developing neocortex. Neuron.2009;63:189–202. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Carazo-Salas RE, Gruss OJ, Mattaj IW, Karsenti E. Ran-GTP coordinates regulation of microtubule nucleation and dynamics during mitotic-spindle assembly. Nat Cell Biol. 2001;3:228–234. [PubMed]
  • Chowdhury D, Xu X, Zhong X, Ahmed F, Zhong J, Liao J, Dykxhoorn DM, Weinstock DM, Pfeifer GP, Lieberman J. A PP4-phosphatase complex dephosphorylates gamma-H2AX generated during DNA replication. Mol Cell. 2008;31:33–46. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Costa MR, Wen G, Lepier A, Schroeder T, Gotz M. Par-complex proteins promote proliferative progenitor divisions in the developing mouse cerebral cortex. Development. 2008;135:11–22.[PubMed]
  • more …

Read Full Post »

Noncanonical Neural Stem Cell Signaling Pathways

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

Concise Review: Reprogramming, Behind the Scenes: Noncanonical Neural Stem Cell Signaling Pathways Reveal New, Unseen Regulators of Tissue Plasticity With Therapeutic Implications

 

Interest is great in the new molecular concepts that explain, at the level of signal transduction, the process of reprogramming. Usually, transcription factors with developmental importance are used, but these approaches give limited information on the signaling networks involved, which could reveal new therapeutic opportunities. Recent findings involving reprogramming by genetic means and soluble factors with well-studied downstream signaling mechanisms, including signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) and hairy and enhancer of split 3 (Hes3), shed new light into the molecular mechanisms that might be involved. We examine the appropriateness of common culture systems and their ability to reveal unusual (noncanonical) signal transduction pathways that actually operate in vivo. We then discuss such novel pathways and their importance in various plastic cell types, culminating in their emerging roles in reprogramming mechanisms. We also discuss a number of reprogramming paradigms (mouse induced pluripotent stem cells, direct conversion to neural stem cells, and in vivo conversion of acinar cells to β-like cells). Specifically for acinar-to-β-cell reprogramming paradigms, we discuss the common view of the underlying mechanism (involving the Janus kinase-STAT pathway that leads to STAT3-tyrosine phosphorylation) and present alternative interpretations that implicate STAT3-serine phosphorylation alone or serine and tyrosine phosphorylation occurring in sequential order. The implications for drug design and therapy are important given that different phosphorylation sites on STAT3 intercept different signaling pathways. We introduce a new molecular perspective in the field of reprogramming with broad implications in basic, biotechnological, and translational research.

 

Reprogramming is a powerful approach to change cell identity, with implications in both basic and applied biology. Most efforts involve the forced expression of key transcription factors, but recently, success has been reported with manipulating signal transduction pathways that might intercept them. It is important to start connecting the function of the classic reprogramming genes to signaling pathways that also mediate reprogramming, unifying the sciences of signal transduction, stem cell biology, and epigenetics. Neural stem cell studies have revealed the operation of noncanonical signaling pathways that are now appreciated to also operate during reprogramming, offering new mechanistic explanations.

 

Progress in biomedical science has been hindered by the all too common difficulty in translating in vitro observations to in vivo systems [1]. This problem applies to both transformed and primary cell culture systems, suggesting a difficulty in modeling the in vivo signaling state of a cell inside a culture dish. Traditionally, highly cancerous or genetically altered cells have been used in research, because they are typically easier to grow than primary cells. Serum is often included in the culture medium as a generic growth stimulator, providing a plethora of undefined nutrients and signal transduction pathway modulators. However, the propensity of primary cells to irreversibly differentiate in these conditions has forced experimentalists to modify how these cells are maintained in vitro, removing serum and using specific mitogens, to preserve their self-renewal state [2]. The value of such culture systems is not merely a practical one allowing for their expansion, they also force cells to grow using particular signaling pathways (that promote self-renewal) at the expense of others (that promote differentiation) and can serve as formidable model systems by providing access to these pathways. Early indications revealed that a variety of immature and differentiated plastic cells use common, noncanonical signaling pathways, with implications in regenerative medicine, cancer, diabetes, and reprogramming technologies.

An example of a signaling pathway that can be identified through this rationale is the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis. It was originally characterized in neural stem cells (NSCs) and subsequently shown to regulate additional cell types, including prostate tumor-initiating cells, glioblastoma multiforme cancer stem cells (GBM CSCs), adrenomedullary chromaffin progenitors, and mouse insulinoma cell lines (Fig. 1A) [37]. In brief, at the center of the pathway is the phosphorylation of STAT3 on serine residue 727 (STAT3-Ser) [8]. This modification is largely redundant for many cell types but is of great importance to the survival of NSCs. STAT3-Ser is a convergence point for several other stimuli, including fibroblast growth factor (FGF), a noncanonical Notch signaling branch, the angiopoietin2/Tie2 system, and insulin. These lead to STAT3-Ser phosphorylation and subsequent transcriptional activation of Hes3, a transcription factor and passive repressor, with roles that are only now starting to be understood [911]. The pathway is opposed by Janus kinase (JAK) activity, a key component of the growth machinery of many cell types [12]. In addition to NSCs, pharmacological inhibitors of JAK promote the survival of human pluripotent stem cells and the developmentally equivalent mouse equivalent epiblast stem cell, further highlighting the stark differences in signal transduction preferences between most cell types studied and stem cell populations [13, 14].

Figure 1.

Noncanonical signaling pathway regulation during reprogramming. (A):Extracellular factors lead to the phosphorylation of STAT3-Tyr via JAK activation or STAT3-Ser via MAPK, Akt, and mTOR activation, and subsequent Hes3 transcription. The two pathways are opposing (e.g., JAK activity in neural stem cells [NSCs] suppresses induction of Hes3). Some cell types (e.g., primary NSCs) are confined to using the STAT3-Ser branch, because the STAT3-Tyr branch leads to their irreversible differentiation. Other cell types (e.g., primary cancer stem cells from glioblastoma multiforme patients and MIN6 cells) grow effectively using either pathway and, through repeated changes in cell culture conditions, can switch their signaling state back and forth. (B): Genes in the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis are regulated during mouse fibroblast reprogramming. Sox21, Hes3, and Shh gene expression increases as MEFs transition to SSEA1+ and then to Oct4+ populations during reprogramming to the pluripotent state. Hes3 and Shh are downregulated in resultant stable mouse iPS cells grown in culture conditions that activate JAK (lines not to scale; expression levels at the MEF stage normalized to help visualize patterns and trends). (C): Genes in the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis are regulated during neural specification of hES cells. The diagram summarizes the expression patterns of Hes3, Bmi1, and JAK1 over the course of a 77-day protocol to differentiate the human ES cell line WA09 to dorsal telencephalic neuronal fates (lines not to scale; expression levels at day 0 of ES cell stage normalized to help visualize patterns and trends). (B, C): The concepts shown are from gene expression data previously published and reanalyzed for the purposes of the present report [25]. Abbreviations: CNTF, ciliary neurotrophic factor; EGF, epidermal growth factor; hES, human embryonic stem (cell); Hes3, hairy and enhancer of split 3; JAK, Janus kinase; MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase; MEF, mouse embryonic fibroblasts; mIPS, mouse induced pluripotent stem (cell); SSEA1, stage-specific embryonic antigen 1; Shh, sonic hedgehog; STAT3, signal transducer and activator of transcription 3.

The therapeutic potential of manipulating the components of this pathway has been demonstrated in a series of studies showing powerful protective effects in the brain when pharmacological activators are introduced into the brain in various models of neurodegenerative disease [3, 8, 1517]. STAT3-Ser phosphorylation mediates carcinogenesis in xenotransplantation models of prostate cancer [6], suggesting that specific inhibitors directed against this site could be useful in treating certain cancer types, in particular those harboring CSC populations. Angiopoietin 2 is a powerful activator of the pathway, pointing toward new functions of angiogenic factors in tissue homeostasis, neurodegenerative disease, and cancer [17, 18]. The value of this pathway in drug discovery is also highlighted by the finding that the efficiency of a γ-secretase inhibitor as an anti-breast cancer drug was predicted by the levels of Hes3 in vivo [19]. That study, in particular has shown the disconnect between in vitro and in vivo effects, validating the idea that great care and thought is needed to appropriately model the signaling state of a cell in vitro. Overall, the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis is operational in cell types from several different tissues and might mediate important functions in the context of a wide range of diseases.

The relevance of this pathway to harnessing stem cell technologies for therapeutic benefit is also exhibited by the findings that its activation results in much improved yields and electrophysiological properties of neurons generated from NSCs derived from induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell sources [20]. More recently, Hes3 was implicated in the direct conversion of adult non-neural cells to the NSC state through a reprogramming method, along with other genes [21]. The STAT3 phosphorylation state is also critical to consider, because the differences between STAT3 tyrosine 705 (STAT3-Tyr) and STAT3-Ser phosphorylation requirements are clearly exhibited in embryonic stem (ES) and NSC systems. Mouse ES cells use STAT3-Tyr; thus, they are cultured in the presence of leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF). Human ES cells, however, do not rely on STAT3-Tyr to remain undifferentiated and are thus cultured in the presence of basic FGF (bFGF). In NSCs, STAT3-Tyr leads to gliogenic differentiation, but STAT3-Ser promotes survival.

In the present report, we discuss the aspects of signaling pathways that involve and/or intercept STAT3 that have been commonly assumed to be mediated by STAT3-Tyr but in reality might also be mediated by STAT3-Ser. We begin by the re-evaluating classic reprogramming paradigms (e.g., mouse embryonic fibroblasts [MEFs] to iPS). We also reanalyze the gene expression data in well-established paradigms of the differentiation of human embryonic stem cells to neurons, further supporting the operation of these pathways in cell conversion decisions. We extend this discussion by examining the conversion of acinar cells to insulin-producing cells, an exciting example of the transdifferentiation that can be induced both in vitro and in vivo. Revisiting the original studies, we reinterpret some of these assumptions and provide alternative interpretations, showing that STAT3-Ser could also be an important mediator in this process. Given the very strong impetus toward understanding the molecular mechanisms driving reprogramming and differentiation, state-of-the-art techniques that are already being applied in experimental therapies, it is essential to explore these new mechanisms of action. We do not aim to give an extensive account of the reprogramming field, which has been expertly provided elsewhere [22].

Is the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 Signaling Axis a Yet Undetected Mediator of Reprogramming?

To date, a common theme with this pathway is a role in the maintenance of the primitive state of cells capable of undergoing massive epigenetic decisions. This prompted us to ponder whether aspects of the pathway should be included in the thought process behind reprogramming. This is a very opportune time to do so, because, in addition to the many studies showing reprogramming using the classic developmental transcription factors, studies demonstrating reprogramming with soluble factors that activate distinct signaling pathways have also been reported. These pathways intercept the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis, consistent with its involvement. Furthermore, its involvement appears restricted to particular stages of a cell’s development, with NSCs offering a great example. Pathways that regulate their self-renewal, stimulated by bFGF, and those that regulate differentiation (ciliary neurotrophic factor [CNTF]-driven astrocyte differentiation), in fact, oppose the activity of one another. This is reminiscent of what happens in the case of mouse ES cells, in which LIF-induced STAT3-Tyr activity (a stimulus necessary to maintain pluripotency in these cells) blocks FGF-induced extracellular signal-regulated kinase (Erk) activity (a differentiation signal) [23].

At the transcriptional level, recent studies have defined intermediate cell populations during mouse iPS cell generation and identified an early c-Myc/KLF4 wave, followed by a second Oct4/Sox2/KLF4 transcriptional wave required for reprogramming [24]. In addition, we have shown that the SoxB transcription factor family member SOX21 is induced by SOX2 during reprogramming and that SOX21 is required for iPS cell generation [25]. Consistent with our findings, interrogation of the data sets from Polo et al. revealed that Sox21 expression is increased as cells transition toward the iPS cell state. Examination of the genes in the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis shows that Hes3 is at low levels in both parental MEFs and stable iPSCs but increases during initial reprogramming, peaking in early Oct4-positive cells (Fig. 1B). Hes3 abruptly decreases as the pluripotent state is locked in; interestingly, the mitogen/morphogen sonic hedgehog (Shh) shares this same expression profile. These data suggest that Hes3 is involved in the critical transition to the stable iPS state during reprogramming. The downregulation of Hes3 in the mouse pluripotent state is consistent with the dependence of mouse ES cells on the canonical JAK/STAT pathway, in contrast to other stem cell populations.

Analysis of RNAseq data sets from human ES cells [26] shows that they express Hes3 in the self-renewing state (as seen with NSCs) and display a marked increase in Hes3 expression during the first steps toward neurectodermal specification (Fig. 1C). The polycomb protein Bmi1 [2729], an important regulator of stem cell self-renewal, is also increased at this same time point and JAK1 expression is repressed. As these cells further commit and differentiate toward neural fates, Hes3 is rapidly downregulated. In cultures of fetal NSCs, Hes3 overexpression induces production of Shh, a known mitogen for NSCs [8]. Shh is also a positive modulator of BmI1, which leads to the transdifferentiation of mouse fibroblasts to NSC-like cells [30]. Taken together, these data suggest a possible Hes3-Bmi1-Shh axis that could also be involved in the reprogramming of cells to the NSC state.

Epigenetic reprogramming by genetic means has generated new sources for cell replacement strategies [22, 31, 32]. Reprogramming has also been achieved through the use of soluble factors. For example, intraperitoneal administration of a combination of epidermal growth factor (EGF) and CNTF converts acinar cells to β-like cells in vivo with consequences for regulating blood glucose in rodent models of diabetes [33]. These factors were chosen, in part, because of their broad range of functions in cell proliferation and gene regulation and because they have been implicated in various paradigms of regeneration and cell type conversion. This is of particular interest, because it provides a “handle” that is upstream of well-studied signaling pathways, providing both a molecular rationale and additional opportunities for manipulation within these signaling pathways. In a recent study, this logic led to the implementation of genetic overexpression of constitutively activated mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) (caMAPK; specifically, p42/44 also known as ERK1/2) and constitutively activated STAT3 (caSTAT3) in human acinar cells in vitro, which also resulted in the reprogramming of these cells to β-like cells [34].

The simple interpretation of these data is that caMAPK is a surrogate for EGF and that caSTAT3 is a surrogate for CNTF (Fig. 2A). This might well be correct; however, a series of observations suggest the involvement of additional, noncanonical signaling pathways in this reprogramming process and open the possibility that the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis might be involved. First, it is important to clarify that caSTAT3 models some, but not all, functions of tyrosine-phosphorylated STAT3. One of these functions is the dimerization of STAT3, which, in caSTAT3 is induced without the need for tyrosine phosphorylation. To achieve this, cysteine residues were engineered on the STAT3 monomer rendering it capable of dimerization through disulfide bonds without the need for tyrosine phosphorylation [35]. caSTAT3 can bind to DNA and activate the transcription of certain genes. However, when stimuli that lead to phosphorylation of STAT3 on tyrosine are used, such as interleukin-6 or v-src, the transcriptional activity of caSTAT3 is greatly enhanced, demonstrating the forced dimerization alone is insufficient in modeling the entire range of functions allocated to tyrosine-phosphorylated STAT3 [35, 36]. Likewise, caSTAT3, in which the tyrosine 705 residue has been mutated to phenylalanine (and cannot, therefore, be phosphorylated), fails to transactivate STAT3 target genes [37]. However, caSTAT3 was found to be serine phosphorylated, suggesting that it might be able to efficiently model the functions of this modification [35]. Therefore, the biological output after transduction with caSTAT3 cannot clearly allocate function to the phosphorylation event of one particular residue.

Figure 2.

Possible noncanonical signaling pathway involvement in reprogramming through modulators of STAT3 and MAPK. (A): Common view for the mechanism of reprogramming in acinar-to-β-cell reprogramming downstream of CNTF and EGF. STAT3-Tyr and activated MAPK induce vast transcriptional changes leading to fate specification changes. (B): Hes3 as a regulator of Ngn3 in the context of endocrine pancreas regeneration. A lack of Ngn3 expression induction in Hes3-null (Hes3−/−) mice 5 months after a low-dose streptozotocin regimen (5 consecutive daily injections at 50 mg/kg in phosphate-buffered saline [PBS]; vehicle controls received only PBS). (C): STAT3-Ser as a putative mediator of reprogramming of acinar-to-β cell conversion. Three possible alternative interpretations for the mechanism of action of CNTF- and EGF-induced reprogramming that involve the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis. (Both CNTF and EGF lead to the phosphorylation of STAT3-Ser and STAT3-Tyr; the diagrams highlight the particular phosphorylation event that might be driving a given function. It is not meant to suggest that only one residue is phosphorylated. Also, a predominant function of STAT3-Tyr phosphorylation is the dimerization of STAT3. For this reason, and for simplicity, the diagrams depict STAT3-Tyr phosphorylation to also represent STAT3 dimerization). (B): Image width: 534 μm. Abbreviations: CNTF, ciliary neurotrophic factor; DAPI, 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole; EGF, epidermal growth factor; Hes3, hairy and enhancer of split 3; JAK, Janus kinase; MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase; STAT3, signal transducer and activator of transcription 3; STZ, streptozotocin.

A clue to the possible involvement of the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis in reprogramming comes from observations of the induction of Ngn3 in pancreatic cells. These findings imply the onset of de- and transdifferentiation events, for example, in the conversion of acinar to β cells [38, 39]. Specifically, transduction with caMAPK and caSTAT3 induced Ngn3 only in acinar cells and not in β cells, although both cell types express Ngn3 [34]. In accordance with the involvement of the components of the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis in Ngn3 induction in these different cell populations, Hes3-null mice fail to induce Ngn3 in the regenerating pancreas after streptozotocin (STZ) damage. Wild-type mice exhibit Ngn3 expression in both pancreatic islet β cells and acinar cells. At 5 months after STZ-induced damage, Ngn3 expression in acinar cells is strongly upregulated, with no detectable changes in β cells (Fig. 2B). Like wild-type mice, nondamaged Hes3-null mice also exhibit Ngn3 expression in both β and acinar cells. However, after STZ damage, the upregulation of Ngn3 is greatly attenuated. These results suggest the involvement of Hes3 in the induction of Ngn3 in acinar cells and therefore support the hypothesis that caMAPK and caSTAT3 operate through the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis in this context.

Another clue is that the order of viral transduction matters. For reprogramming to work efficiently, caMAPK must be transduced before caSTAT3. Transduction of both constructs simultaneously resulted in lower efficiency. Transduction of caSTAT3 before caMAPK resulted in even lower efficiency. Each gene alone was insufficient for reprogramming. We present three alternative interpretations of these findings (Fig. 2C).

 

Alternative Interpretation 1: STAT3-Ser-Driven Reprogramming

It is possible that, in part, the effects of this reprogramming method involve STAT3-Ser phosphorylation. This would explain why the order of caMAPK first and caSTAT3 second is so important in the efficiency of reprogramming. caMAPK leads to powerful STAT3-Ser phosphorylation via several pathways [40]. Therefore, an initial overexpression of caMAPK would ensure that a subsequent overexpression of caSTAT3 would immediately result in high amounts of STAT3 that would be dimerized and serine phosphorylated. In contrast, the reverse order would result in high amounts of STAT3 that would be dimerized, with possibly submaximal serine phosphorylation, leading to potentially different gene regulation. It is also possible that caMAPK might contribute to reprogramming by elevating serine phosphorylation of endogenous STAT3. This could be tested with experiments in which serine-phosphomimetic constructs of STAT3 that cannot be tyrosine phosphorylated can be assessed for their potential to contribute to reprogramming.

 

Alternative Interpretation 2: JAK Titration

Although JAK activity is predominantly seen as a means of elevating STAT3-Tyr phosphorylation, JAK also leads to STAT3-Ser phosphorylation [40]. The distinction between these two phosphorylation events can be regulated by the levels of cytokine activity that lead to JAK activation [8]. For example, low levels of CNTF in NSC cultures result in the elevation of STAT3-Ser phosphorylation with no indication of an effect on STAT3-Tyr phosphorylation. Higher CNTF concentrations lead to abrupt increases in STAT3-Tyr phosphorylation [5]. Therefore, CNTF levels can be used either to promote STAT3-Ser phosphorylation in the absence of detectable STAT3-Tyr phosphorylation (and, therefore, promote NSC self-renewal and increase cell numbers) or to promote both serine and tyrosine phosphorylation (and, therefore, inhibit self-renewal and induce differentiation). In another example, the use of a JAK inhibitor in GBM CSCs can significantly increase the ratio of STAT3-Ser to STAT3-Tyr phosphorylation, and as a consequence, the expression of Hes3. This leads to changes in various properties of these cells, including the ability to achieve higher terminal cell densities in vitro [5]. In this scenario, specific levels of JAK activity—which can be regulated using a JAK inhibitor [34, 41]—might result in the stimulation of STAT3-Ser, in the absence of STAT3-Tyr, and promote reprogramming. Therefore, although the tyrosine site might be very important in this reprogramming paradigm, it is also possible that the serine site is also an important player in reprogramming.

 

Alternative Interpretation 3: A Two-Step Process

It is also possible that the serine and tyrosine phosphorylation of STAT3 represent two distinct events within the reprogramming process and that both are necessary for reprogramming. It is conceivable that the serine event must precede the tyrosine event, as suggested by the observations regarding the importance of order for caMAPK and caSTAT3.

STAT3-Ser/Hes3 in Cancer—Clues to a Role in Reprogramming

Key reprogramming factors are oncogenes, highlighting the similarities between developmental programs and transformation. Hes3 might belong to this category. Direct evidence for this comes from work showing that Hes3 RNA interference opposes the growth of putative CSCs from glioblastoma multiforme biopsies [5], and supporting its putative role in breast cancer, where in vivo Hes3 expression levels correlated with the efficacy of a γ-secretase inhibitor [19]. Other key components of the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis are also implicated in carcinogenesis. For example, STAT3-Ser phosphorylation in the absence of STAT3-Tyr phosphorylation has also been demonstrated to drive prostate carcinogenesis [6]. Therefore, the STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis might represent an oncogenic, noncanonical branch of the Notch signaling pathway, providing an explanation of the dual properties of Notch signaling as both an oncogene and a tumor suppressor [42, 43].

In line with a dynamic role for Hes3 in regulating the epigenetic state of a cell, Hes3 expression and subcellular localization are themselves dynamically and, in certain cases, reversibly, regulated. Hes3 expression and subcellular localization can also provide clues to its function and reveal information of the state of a cell. GBM CSCs and a mouse insulinoma cell line (MIN6) can be efficiently cultured under conditions that support nuclear Hes3 expression or prevent it [5, 7]. By changing the culture conditions, the cells can be repeatedly switched from one state to the other. For example, serum-free defined cultured conditions allow the nuclear expression of Hes3. Under these conditions, the cells grow independently of JAK activity. In fact, inclusion of a JAK inhibitor promotes GBM CSC growth. Primary, bona fide NSC cultures also exhibit Hes3 expression, which is lost when the cells are induced to differentiate, similar to GBM CSCs. In contrast, however, primary NSCs do not exhibit reversibility in their differentiation and Hes3 expression states, a property that has been proposed to characterize the CSC population [44]. It could be of use in assays determining the NSC state to include measurements of the irreversibility of the differentiation of these cells.

Conclusion

The STAT3-Ser/Hes3 signaling axis has been implicated in a number of phenomena, including improved culture conditions for plastic cell types, their activation in vivo in the context of neurodegenerative disease, as a target for brain CSCs, and as a mediator of pancreatic β-cell function and survival. More recently, the pathway has also been implicated in aspects of reprogramming to the NSC state. An understanding of this signaling pathway will provide possible molecular explanations for its function in the context of reprogramming. The possibility that Hes3 could prove to be an important player in different aspects of epigenetic reprogramming as manifested in the iPS and CSC fields warrants more investigation.

Read Full Post »

Artificial intestines created including nutrient-absorbing villi that might help humans with gut disorders

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

David Hackam spends much of his work day at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center removing blackened sections of dead intestine from sick babies. But someday the pediatric surgeon may have a way to restore ravaged intestines—thanks to his work growing the organ in the lab. Starting with stem cells from the small intestines of human infants and mice, Hackam and his colleagues have for the first time grown intestinal linings on gut-shaped scaffolds that could one day treat bowel disorders like necrotizing enterocolitis and Crohn’s disease. They have found that the tissue and scaffolding are not rejected, but instead readily assimilate in lab animals. Most strikingly, the scaffold allowed dogs to heal from damage to the colon lining, restoring healthy bowel function.

 

The study is a “great breakthrough,” says Hans Clevers, a stem cell biologist at the Hubrecht Institute in Utrecht, the Netherlands, who was not involved in the new research. Clevers was the first to identify stem cells in the intestine, and his lab developed the technique Hackam’s team used to grow intestinal tissue.

 

The idea of making replacement organs by growing cells on a scaffold is not new; other researchers have done so with bladders and blood vessels. But Hackam’s lab-grown intestine—described last week in Regenerative Medicine—comes closer to the shape and structure of a natural intestine than anything created before. In the past, gut lining has been grown on flat scaffolds or petri dishes, where it tended to curl into little balls with the food-absorbing surface trapped inside.

 

Hackam’s group overcame that with their scaffold, made from a material similar to surgical sutures that can be formed into any desired intestinal size and shape. Hackam’s scaffolds are tube-shaped like a real gut, with tiny projections on the inner surface to help the tissue grow into functional small intestine villi, tiny fingers of tissue that help absorb nutrients. “They can now make sheets of cells that can be clinically managed,” Clevers says. “Surgeons can handle these things and just stick them in.”

 

To grow the gut lining in the lab, the researchers painted the scaffold with a sticky substance containing collagen, dribbled it with a solution of small intestine stem cells, and then let it incubate for a week. They found that adding connective tissue cells, immune cells, and probiotics—bacteria that help maintain a healthy gut—helped stem cells mature and differentiate.

 

In one set of experiments, the researchers sewed intestines grown from mouse stem cells into the tissue surrounding the mice’s abdominal organs. The lab-grown intestines developed their own blood supply and normal gut structures, even though they were not connected to the animals’ digestive tract. “Using the mouse’s own stem cells, we can actually create something that looks just like the native intestine,” Hackam says. The next step, he says, is “to hook it up.”

 

First, though, they set out to test the new scaffold in dogs. Because the end of the digestive tract is easier to access than the small intestine, the researchers removed sections of colon lining from dogs and replaced it with pieces of scaffolding. The dogs made a complete recovery: Their gut lining regrew onto the scaffold and functioned normally to absorb water from the colon. Within weeks, the scaffolding dissolved and was replaced with normal connective tissue. “The scaffold was well tolerated and promoted healing by recruiting stem cells,” Hackam says. “[The dogs] had a perfectly normal lining after 8 weeks.”

Sourced through Scoop.it from: news.sciencemag.org

See on Scoop.itCardiovascular and vascular imaging

Read Full Post »

Revision of the Japanese Pharmaceutical Affairs Law: New Regulatory Framework of Regenerative Medicines – 11th DIA Japan Annual Conference

Reporter: Gerard Loiseau, ESQ

Akiko Hihara, Managing Editor, Regulatory Intelligence, Thomson Reuters

The 2 acts make a turning point for developing and marketing regenerative medicines in Japan. Some significant points include:

Law No. 84/2013:

  •   Product approval based on the laws is required from now on.
  •   Expedited approval system is introduced for regenerative medical products. Law No. 85/2013:
  •   It became mandatory for medical institutions to submit plans of research and treatment.
  •   It became possible to provide the products from other than medical institutes. In other words, cell culturecan be contracted to a cell culture factory, for example.
  •   A license system for a cell processing center (CPC) is introduced that should comply with GCTP (Good gene, Cell & Tissue Practice) regulating quality risk management; manufacturing control; quality control; and facility requirements of gene, cell, and tissue products.

Huge impact on R&D and marketing is expected from this new regulatory framework. Both academia and industry were excited about exploring the new opportunities in research and business.

Read more

{091f4153-2fc9-4262-a234-a9c51734fb7c}_11th_DIA_JAPAN_ANNUAL_Expectation_and_Challenge_for_New_Regulatory_Framework

Other Articles and e-Books on Regenerative Medicine Published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Senior Editor, Author and Curator

and

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, Editor and Curator

CVDSeriesAvolumeIVcover

Read Full Post »

Stem Cells and Cancer

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence

Series E. 2; 8.09

Cancer cells programmed back to normal by US scientists

By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor

Scientists have turned cancerous cells back to normal by switching back on the process which stops normal cells from replicating too quickly. Cancer cells could be stopped from replicating after scientists found how to switch on the brakes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11821334/Cancer-cells-programmed-back-to-normal-by-US-scientists.html

Cancer cells have been programmed back to normal by scientists in a breakthrough which could lead to new treatments and even reverse tumour growth.

For the first time aggressive breast, lung and bladder cancer cells have been turned back into harmless benign cells by restoring the function which prevents them from multiplying excessively and forming dangerous growths.

Scientists at the Mayo Clinic in Florida, US, said it was like applying the brakes to a speeding car.

So far it has only been tested on human cells in the lab, but the researchers are hopeful that the technique could one day be used to target tumours so that cancer could be ‘switched off’ without the need for harsh chemotherapy or surgery.

“We should be able to re-establish the brakes and restore normal cell function,” said Profesor Panos Anastasiadis, of the Department for Cancer Biology.

“Initial experiments in some aggressive types of cancer are indeed very promising.

“It represents an unexpected new biology that provides the code, the software for turning off cancer.”

Cells need to divide constantly to replace themselves. But in cancer the cells do not stop dividing leading to huge cell reproduction and tumour growth.

The scientists discovered that the glue which holds cells together is regulated by biological microprocessors called microRNAs. When everything is working normally the microRNAs instruct the cells to stop dividing when they have replicated sufficiently. They do this by triggering production of a protein called PLEKHA7 which breaks the cell bonds. But in cancer that process does not work.

Scientists discovered they could switch on cancer in cells by removing the microRNAs from cells and preventing them from producing the protein.

And, crucially they found that they could reverse the process switching the brakes back on and stopping cancer. MicroRNAs are small molecules which can be delivered directly to cells or tumours so an injection to increase levels could switch off disease.

“We have now done this in very aggressive human cell lines from breast and bladder cancer,” added Dr Anastasiadis.

“These cells are already missing PLEKHA7. Restoring either PLEKHA7 levels, or the levels of microRNAs in these cells turns them back to a benign state. We are now working on better delivery options.”

Cancer experts in Britain said the research solved a riddle that biologists had puzzled over for decades, why cells did not naturally prevent the proliferation of cancer.

“This is an unexpected finding,” said Dr Chris Bakal, a specialist in how cells change shape to become cancerous, at the Institute for Cancer Research in London.

“We have been trying to work out how normal cells might be suppressing cancer, and stopping dividing when they form contacts with each other, which has been a big mystery.

“Normal cells touch each other and form junctions then they shut down proliferation. If there is a way to turn that back on then that would be a way to stop tumours from growing.

“I think in reality it is unlikely that you could reverse tumours by reversing just one mechanism, but it’s a very interesting finding.”

Henry Scowcroft, Cancer Research UK’s senior science information manager, said: “This important study solves a long-standing biological mystery, but we mustn’t get ahead of ourselves.

“There’s a long way to go before we know whether these findings, in cells grown in a laboratory, will help treat people with cancer. But it’s a significant step forward in understanding how certain cells in our body know when to grow, and when to stop. Understanding these key concepts is crucial to help continue the encouraging progress against cancer we’ve seen in recent years.”

The research was published in the journal Nature Cell Biology.

Biomaterial Sponge-Like Impant Traps Spreading Cancer Cells

September 9, 2015 by mburatov http://wp.me/ptV19-1vG

Prof Lonnie Shea, from the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Michigan and his team have designed a small sponge-like implant that has the ability to mop up cancer cells as they move through the body. This device has been tested in mice, but there is hope that the device could act as an early warning system in patients, alerting doctors to cancer spread. The sponge-like implant also seemed to stop rogue cancer cells from reaching other areas where they could establish the growth of new tumors. Shea and others published their findings in the journal Nature Communications.

According to Cancer Research UK, nine in 10 cancer deaths are caused by the disease-spreading to other areas of the body. Stopping the spread of cancer cells, or metastasis, is one of the ways to prevent cancers from becoming worse. Complicating this venture is the fact that cancer cells that circulate in the bloodstream are rare and difficult to detect.

Shea’s device is about 5mm or 0.2 inches in diameter and made of a “biomaterial” already approved for use in medical devices. So far, this implant has so far been tested in mice with breast cancer. Implantation experiments showed that it can be placed either in the abdominal fat or under the skin and that it tended to suck up cancer cells that had started to circulate in the body.

The implant mimicked a process known as chemoattraction in which cells that have broken free from a tumor are attracted to other areas in the body by immune cells. Shea and others found that these immune cells are drawn to the implant where they “set up shop.” This is actually a natural reaction to any foreign body, and the presence of the immune cells also attracts the cancer cells to the implant.

Initially, Shea and others labeled cancer cells with fluorescent proteins that caused them to glow under certain lights, which allowed them to be easily spotted. However, they eventually went on to use a special imaging technique that can distinguish between cancerous and normal cells. They discovered that they could definitively detect cancer cells that had been caught within the implant.

Unexpectedly, when they measured cancer cells that had spread in mice with and without the implant, they showed that the implant not only captured circulating cancer cells, but it also reduced the numbers of cancer cells present at other sites in the body.

Shea, said that he and his team were planning the first clinical trials in humans fairly soon: “We need to see if metastatic cells will show up in the implant in humans like they did in the mice, and if it’s a safe procedure and that we can use the same imaging to detect cancer cells.”

Shea and his coworkers are continuing their work in animals to determine what the outcomes if the spread of the cancer spread was detected at a very early stage, which is something that is presently not yet fully understood.

Lucy Holmes, Cancer Research UK’s science information manager, said: “We urgently need new ways to stop cancer in its tracks. So far this implant approach has only been tested in mice, but it’s encouraging to see these results, which could one day play a role in stopping cancer spread in patients.”

 

U of Penn Group Releases Hopeful Results of CAR T-Cells Trial

Sept 8, 2015 by mburatov

https://beyondthedish.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/u-of-penn-group-releases-hopeful-results-of-car-t-cells-trial/

Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cells (CART-cells) are a type of genetically engineered type of immune cell that represents one of the most promising avenues of cancer therapy. Such treatments can induce sustained remissions in patients with stubborn disease.

Studies with CART-cells have been tested in patients with relapsed and stubborn chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Now a new publication by Porter and others reports the results of a clinical trial that examined CART-cells as a treatment for blood-based cancers. This study reports that infused CART-cells were functional up to 4 years after treatment. Patients also achieved completely remission, and no patient who achieved complete remission relapsed, and no minimal residual disease was detected, suggesting that in a subset of patients, CAR T cells may drive disease eradication.

Patients enrolled in this study suffered from CLL and had a poor prognosis. The CART-cells employed in this study targeted the molecule CD19. Porter and others report the mature results of the treatment of 14 patients with relapsed and refractory CLL.

The patient’s own T-Cells were extracted from circulating blood, and genetically engineered to express a CD19-directed receptor. Patients received doses of 0.14 × 10[8] to 11 × 10[8] CTL019 cells. Patients were monitored for toxicity, response, expansion, and persistence of circulating CTL019 T cells.

The overall response rate in these heavily pretreated CLL patients was 8 of 14 (57%), and there were 4 complete remissions (CR) and 4 partial remissions (PR). The expansion of the CAR T-cells in culture correlated with clinical responses; the better the engineered T-cells grew in culture the better they performed in the Patient’s bodies. Furthermore, the CAR T-cells persisted and remained functional beyond 4 years in the first two patients achieving Complete Remission. None of the patients who experienced Complete Remission have relapsed.

All the patients who responded to the treatment developed “B cell aplastic” (abnormally low B-cell levels) and experienced cytokine release syndrome, which was part and partial of T cell proliferation.

Minimal residual disease was not detectable in patients who achieved Complete Remission, suggesting that disease eradication may be possible in some patients with advanced CLL.

 

New Method to Regulate Stem Cell Differentiation

GEN News Highlights Sep 2, 2015
http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/new-method-developed-to-regulate-stem-cell-differentiation/81251707/

Researchers have developed a method that enables the regulation of a single gene’s behavior without changing the genome itself. [Professor Otonkoski Lab, University of Helsinki]

http://www.genengnews.com/Media/images/GENHighlight/thumb_Sep0915_UnivHelsinki_StemCellDifferentiationGraph3620321462.jpg

Scientists at the University of Helsinki in Finland say they have developed a new method that enables the activation of genes in a cell without changing the genome. Applications of the method include directing the differentiation of stem cells.

The method was developed by researchers Diego Balboa and Jere Weltner, who are working on their doctoral dissertations in the lab of  Timo Otonkoski, Ph.D., at the Meilahti medical campus of the University of Helsinki. The research study (“Conditionally Stabilized dCas9 Activator for Controlling Gene Expression in Human Cell Reprogramming and Differentiation”) was published in Stem Cell Reports.

The hottest topics in stem cell research at the moment are methods that can regulate the differentiation of cells. The differentiation process is based on how genes in a cell are activated and deactivated, so researchers are looking for ways to control the activation of the genes. The researchers dream of being able to activate and deactivate genes precisely at specific moments.

“We can produce undifferentiated stem cells from specialized cells, also known as iPS, or induced pluripotent stem cells, and we can regulate the differentiation of these cells by providing them with the right kinds of growth environments. However, we cannot control the differentiation process sufficiently. The process may go smoothly, but then at the very end, a single gene won’t activate at the necessary time, and the cell remains immature,” Dr. Otonkoski explains.

Researchers in Dr. Otonkoski’s laboratory have now developed a method that enables the regulation of a single gene’s behavior without changing the genome itself. The method employs CRISPR technology, but the regulation itself is controlled by the addition of chemicals. The desired gene is made receptive to the drug by introducing bits of RNA into the cell that will bind to the activator protein and the gene’s regulatory area. The gene will then activate in the desired way when the chemicals that regulates the activator protein are provided to the cell.

“In our research, we used two common antibiotics, doxycycline and trimethoprim, and these chemicals enabled us to regulate the expression of many genes precisely and effectively. The method worked on all cells we tested, including stem cells. We used human cells in our development,” continued Dr. Otonkoski, who emphasized that the method is currently being used in experimental models. It is far too early to discuss therapeutic applications.

“The basic idea has now been developed, and the method has been demonstrated to be viable, and I believe that it can become a very important research tool. In my laboratory we use the method to regulate the differentiation of stem cells, but it has many potential applications in other research fields, for example, in cancer biology.”

 

Single Cell Analysis (SCA): Expanding in Importance in Life Science Research — circa 2015

Technologies Impacting SCA and Driving Translation Towards Single Cell-based Diagnostics

GEN Sep 2, 2015  http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-intelligence/single-cell-analysis-sca-expanding-in-importance-in-life-science-research-circa-2015/77900516/

The focus of this GEN Market & Tech Analysis report is Single Cell Analysis (SCA) Trends.

  • Select Biosciences performed a study of the en bloc Single Cell Analysis (SCA) space in August 2015 to reveal trends in this evolving field—the results from these analyses are presented in this GENReport
  • The field is evolving as it is permeating into life sciences research as well as diagnostics development — this represents the translation of SCA and is evidenced for instance by the increasing penetrance of circulating tumor cell (CTC) research in the SCA space
  • The field of SCA is intersecting with nucleic acid and protein characterizing approaches/technologies which suggests that the “cargo” of single cells is a current area of study
  • The utilization of microfluidics approaches in SCA is a key and growing theme and suggests that the use of microfluidics for single cell capture and interrogation is gaining momentum

Shedding Light On Century-Old Biochemical Mystery

Aug 20, 2015  http://www.technologynetworks.com/Metabolomics/news.aspx?ID=182141

Yale scientists have used magnetic resonance measurements to show how glucose is metabolized in yeast to answer the puzzle of the “Warburg Effect.”

Given plenty of glucose and oxygen, yeast and cancer cells do not burn it all to produce energy but convert much of it to the byproducts ethanol and lactate, respectively.

In the 1920s Nobel laureate Otto Heinrich Warburg asked why these cells were so wasteful of energy. He suggested that this seemingly inefficient cellular use of resources was a root cause of cancer, a hypothesis that has been the subject of research ever since.

Almost a century later, two Yale scientists have used magnetic resonance measurements showing how glucose is metabolized in yeast to answer the puzzle of the “Warburg Effect.” The production of these byproducts is a result of the cell’s need to keep its internal state constant during glucose consumption, they report.

This biochemical response is an example of homeostasis, a fundamental need of all life forms.

“It’s the cell’s way of saying it has enough to eat,” said Robert Shulman, professor emeritus of molecular biophysics and biochemistry.

In the 1980s, Shulman conducted pioneering studies of metabolism in yeast using magnetic resonance spectroscopy, a method then confined to the study of cells but now used routinely in patients.

More recently, Shulman and co-author Douglas Rothman, professor of diagnostic radiology and of biomedical engineering, reviewed the data applying new methods of analyzing metabolic control. They found key intermediate molecular steps involved in the conversion of glucose to ethanol as well as to ATP, the chief energy source of cells. When these molecular switches that maintained homeostasis were disabled by mutations, the cells died from accumulated excesses of both byproducts and ATP.

This chemical balancing act explains why yeast and likely cancer cells do not convert all available fuel to energy that they could use to divide and flourish.

“Cancer cells have to survive first,” Rothman said.

Shulman and Rothman point out that their results open a new direction for cancer researchers — identifying metabolic homeostasis mechanisms and targeting them for treatment.

“By taking another look at the in vivo data available from magnetic resonance experiments, I think we can revitalize research efforts in a host of areas,” Shulman said.

Orchestrating Organoids

A guide to crafting tissues in a dish that reprise in vivo organs

By Kelly Rae Chi | Sep 1, 2015 http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/43842/title/Orchestrating-Organoids/

In 2009, at the Hubrecht Institute in Utrecht, Netherlands, Hans Clevers and postdoc Toshiro Sato took adult stem cells from the mouse intestine and created the first mini-guts they called organoids—three-dimensional organized clusters of cells that would allow the researchers to glean new insights into the biology of gut health and disease, including colorectal cancer.

This method inspired many other scientists, working with both mouse and human tissues, to create a rapidly expanding palette of organoids that now includes kidney, brain, liver, prostate, and pancreas. These cultured clumps are tiny enough to be sustained without a blood supply, but large and diverse enough in their cell compositions to tell us something about tissue development and whole-organ physiology.

A typical organoid protocol starts with isolated embryonic or pluripotent stem cells. Scientists culture the cells in a proteinaceous matrix (such as Matrigel) that supports three-dimensional growth. After a set period of time the organoids grow mature enough for study, or for engrafting into a mouse to allow them to further develop. Researchers then harvest the organoids and slice them for immunohistochemistry, funnel them through a flow cytometer to study their cell surface markers, or blend them for PCR.

Of course, the devil’s in the details. Although the field of organoid research is maturing rapidly (see “2013’s Big Advances in Science,” The Scientist, December 24, 2013), with some organoids already moving into clinical studies to test drug efficacy, culture methods are still in their infancy, says Michael Shen, professor of medicine and of genetics and development at Columbia University in New York City. “Certainly there are different ways to pursue organoid culture, and some of these are just beginning to be explored. I don’t think we’re at the point yet where this is all entirely cookbook.”

The Scientist talked with researchers about how they’re producing organoids, and what beginners should know. Here’s what we learned.

BRAIN BEADS
Researcher: Madeline Lancaster, group leader, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, U.K.

Project: Understanding early brain development and disease using organoids cultured from human stem cells

Background: In 2013, as a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of Jürgen Knoblich at the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology in Vienna, Austria, Lancaster developed organoids from neural stem cells that she had been studying in 2-D culture conditions. She used the method to coax human induced pluripotent stem cells into brain organoids in order to understand the biology of microcephaly, a disorder that is difficult to re-create in animal models (Nature, 501:373-79, 2013).

Researchers have adopted Lancaster’s methods to create models of embryonic brain development, analogous to what happens in the first trimester of pregnancy, and to probe the molecular mechanisms of brain disorders, including autism, schizophrenia, and neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

Getting started: The group’s protocol addresses some of the common questions asked by new users and provides photos showing the appearance of healthy organoids (Nat Protoc, 9:2329-40, 2014).

For those well versed in cell and tissue culture, the time and financial investment required to delve into organoids is minimal, Lancaster says. You need two main things: Matrigel (the supportive structure that allows the organoids to develop into more complex tissue) and equipment that will allow you to agitate the organoids to enhance nutrient and oxygen exchange in the media, making bigger organoids possible. If you don’t have a spinning bioreactor, you can use an orbital shaker set inside a standard tissue culture incubator.

Considerations: You should closely characterize the first few batches using RT-PCR or immunofluorescence to check for the expression of certain genes that indicate the organoids are indeed brain cells, Lancaster says.

Researchers studying neurodegeneration might consider examining their organoids starting at about four months. Although the organoids survive for up to 15 months, by that time they don’t look healthy. They start to decline at around six or seven months, as the neurons begin to disappear and are replaced by glia.

Tip: It takes some time and practice to develop an eye for healthy organoids. A good way to learn is to take pictures of your organoids as they develop. “You can always look back and say, ‘Oh, at that point I think it started going bad,’” Lancaster says.

Cost: Roughly $150 per organoid (not including equipment), according to Lancaster’s calculations

Looking ahead: Lancaster has already tweaked the method to improve the reproducibility, using a combination of timing and media formulations, and some new additives. She expects to publish a revised protocol by the end of the year.

GUTSY GLOBS
INTIMATING INTESTINE: Mini-gut methods are the most established of organoid protocols. Proliferating epithelial cells in small intestinal aggregations from mouse (green, left) and human (pink, right) will pave the way for patient-specific organoids.COURTESY OF HELMRATH LABResearcher: Maxime Mahé, postdoctoral research fellow inMichael Helmrath’s lab at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio

Project: Understanding gastrointestinal development and homeostasis and generating patient-specific organoids for study

Background: The intestinal epithelial layer is made up of tiny, slender projections, called villi, resembling the strands of a shag carpet. The nooks formed at the bases of the villi, known as crypts, are home to intestinal stem cells responsible for constant renewal of the intestinal lining. Building on Sato’s protocol, Mahé added two new twists: he used manual dissection to extract the crypts, rather than shaking the tissue to dissociate the cells; and he added a small-molecule activator of the Wnt3A pathway to boost expansion of the cells (Curr Protoc Mouse Biol, 3:217-40, 2013).

Helmrath’s group grew such “enteroids” from intestinal stem cells isolated from the crypts of surgically removed human intestine. In principle, such organoids could be developed from the tissue of specific patients for diagnostic and clinical uses. A video protocol is available in the Journal of  Visualized Experiments (doi: 10.3791/52483, 2015).

Getting started: It takes five or six attempts to get comfortable with the procedure, especially mastering the hardest part: the initial dissection. “The tissue is not always the same; it’s not something you can standardize,” Mahé says. “Sometimes you get a high number of crypts, sometimes you have a few.”

Tip: Many questions about cell proliferation, migration, and differentiation can be answered using in vitro organoids, Mahé says. “You save time, you save money, you save animals as well.” After that, you might consider moving into an animal model, depending on your goals: for example, to see muscle development, you should work in vivo, Mahé adds.

Looking ahead: The group is still working to be able to efficiently engraft human adult intestinal stem cell–derived organoids into mice. Although their first attempts were unsuccessful, they have since generated organoids for research from human embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) derived by reprogramming fibroblasts. When organoids created from the either type of pluripotent stem cells are engrafted into immunodeficient mice to allow the cells to mature further, they develop into a human intestine (Nat Med, 20:1310-14, 2014), which may eventually lead to bioengineering a custom human intestine.

Cost: The Helmrath group spends roughly $150/sample in reagents to culture their organoids for a month. The medical center’s Pluripotent Stem Cell Facility provides training for a fee, and sells human intestinal organoids for roughly $400/plate (which contains 20–30 organoids).

B-CELL BALLS
PROSTRATE PROGRESS: Researchers have grown prostate organoids that consist of basal cells (green/blue) and luminal cells (red/blue).MAHO SHIBATAResearcher: Ankur Singh, assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, Cornell University

Project: In vitro modeling of immune reactions in mice

Background: When naive B cells in the body are exposed to antigens, they form clumps of cells called germinal centers in a lymph node or the spleen, where they proliferate, mutate to generate high-affinity antibodies, and undergo clonal expansion. Until now, this process has been difficult to recapitulate in vitro. Adding the necessary (stromal) support cells to primary naive B cells and culturing them in 2-D does not enable them to differentiate into cells resembling those from germinal centers, Singh says. Unlike stem cells, naive B cells do not tend to grow in clusters, so they need a little extra help.

Rather than using the conventional Matrigel for 3-D culture, Singh and his collaborators developed a gelatin and silicate-nanoparticle mix that mimics the softness of the body’s lymphoid organs. Within four to six days, the B cells in these organoids mature—100 times faster than B cells in 2-D culture—and produce two classes of antibodies important for fighting infections. The scientists use collagenase to dissolve the gel and harvest the organoid’s cells for analysis using flow cytometry. These new germinal center organoids were described this year in Biomaterials (63:24-34).

Getting started: Making the gelatin-nanoparticle mix is as easy as making Jell-O at home, Singh says, and the ingredients are commercially available. You’ll need experience with animal dissection (the necessary starting point is isolation of naive B cells from the spleen) and with cell culture. Once these techniques have been mastered, it takes roughly one week to get your first batch of organoids with mature antibody-producing cells.

Considerations: Singh’s group has already determined an optimal gelatin-nanoparticle ratio (2% gelatin/1.5% nanoparticle), but if you you’re using genetically mutated B cells, you may need to tweak the ratios. “It can be easily tuned,” Singh says.

Tip: After four days of incubating the cells with gel, you will see dark spots—a sign that the cells are proliferating and that you’re on the right track.

Cost: Not including the cost of generating immortalized stromal cell lines, it costs roughly $1 to produce one germinal center.

Looking ahead: Eventually, Singh’s group hopes to adapt the technique for use with patient-specific stem cells, though it has proven challenging to produce immune cells from stem cells. “It’s a very complicated process,” says Singh, “[but] it will happen one day in the context of this system.”

PROSTATE PELLETS
Researcher: Michael Shen, professor of medicine and of genetics and development, Columbia University Medical Center, New York

Project: Understanding basic prostate regeneration and prostate cancer

Background: In 2009, Shen’s group discovered a rare population of stem cells from which prostate cancer can originate (Nature, 461:495-500, 2009). Calling them CARNS, for castration-resistant Nkx3.1-expressing cells, the group knew they would face challenges culturing the cells because they are a type of luminal epithelial cell, which had historically proven difficult to expand using 2-D methods. “We thought if any type of approach would succeed it would be 3-D,” Shen recalls.

Through a trial-and-error approach, postdoctoral researcher Chee Wai Chua eventually converted mouse CARNS into organoids (Nat Cell Biol, 16:951-61, 2014). The resulting cell types and tissue architecture resembled those characteristic of normal prostate epithelium. The researchers then engrafted the organoids into mice to generate prostatic tissues.

Getting started: Shen’s group has made their method available via the Nature Protocol Exchange. The most difficult part for beginners is the initial tissue-dissociation step, which is typical of any organoid protocol. “To work out the details of how to do this is not straightforward,” Shen says. “In our case, we’re still working on this. We’re continually seeking to improve dissociation conditions.”

Considerations: When applied to the prostate, Clevers’s conditions seem to favor the growth of a different type of prostate cell known as a basal cell, though his group also grew luminal cells. Shen’s conditions are less defined than those of Clevers, using serum instead of specific growth factors. Shen’s group doesn’t know exactly which growth factors in the serum drive organoid growth and development.

Tip: If you are making the organoids from normal prostate for the first time, you might consider assessing their response to androgen deprivation. They should lose expression of Nkx3.1 in response to this condition.

Cost: It costs $1 or less for one mouse prostate organoid (not counting animal, equipment or labor costs).

Looking ahead: The group has been able to create organoids derived from human prostate cells, but determining the ideal conditions for these cells is still a work in progress, Shen says.

Tags

techniquesorganoidsdisease/medicine and 3-D cell culture

Aurelian Udristioiu commented on your update

“The human body emits low levels light, heat, and acoustical energy, these wavelengths of radiations having the electrical and magnetic properties and may also to be transformed in kinds of energy that cannot be easily defined by classical physical sciences and chemistry. In last time most researches has focused on electromagnetic aspects of the bio-magnetic field Bio-energetic fluids can be used in technology of preparation of drugs, from homeopath medicine and in laboratory medicine by the changes of pH in liquid medium with cultivated stem cells for to prolong the span life of cells, in view of cell-stem transplantation in chronic diseases. ”

Umbilical Cord Blood Contains c-kit+ Cells that Can Differentiate into Heart-like Cells

https://beyondthedish.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/umbilical-cord-blood-contains-c-kit-cells-that-can-differentiate-into-heart-like-cells/

Directed Neural Differentiation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells in the Marmoset

Peter J. Hornsby Ph.D. | 10th-Sep-2015

http://medical.wesrch.com/paper-details/pdf-ME1XXFT06ILUR-directed-neural-differentiation-of-induced-pluripotent-stem-cells-in-the-marmoset#page1

Description: Personalized cell therapy: The marmoset as a model- Before personalized cell therapy is used in humans, need to move beyond rodent models, Beyond rodents, nonhuman primates play key roles, Within nonhuman primates, the marmoset is a suitable size and life span for stem cell studies, Has been used in drug studies and in disease models, e.g. Parkinson’s disease, The marmoset was the first nonhuman primate to have transgenics with germline transmission, The second nonhuman primate (after the rhesus macaque) for which induced pluripotent stem cells were derived (our work, 2010).

DMSO treatment/differentiation: Conclusions- Despite some differences in growth characteristics of 3 marmoset iPS cell lines, all can be directed to a uniform pattern of neural differentiation by prior exposure to 24 h DMSO, The optimal DMSO concentration should be determined for each cell line, Therefore we should be able to differentiate any given (newly created) iPS cell population “on demand” by a protocol similar to the one used here.

Progress so far; next step- Marmoset iPS cells generated by a reproducible reprogramming method, Many marmoset iPS cell lines continuously grown for >1 year – immortal; maintain pluripotency, Rapid differentiation into the neural lineage using combinations of drugs with iterative testing, Rapid reprogramming of samples from living individuals, Rapid differentiation of living individual iPS cells. .

Read Full Post »

Developmental biology

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence

Series E. 2, 7.4

Lucy Shapiro (born July 16, 1940, New York City) is an American developmental biologist. She is a professor of Developmental Biology at the Stanford University School of Medicine. She is the Ludwig Professor of Cancer Research and the director of the Beckman Center for Molecular and Genetic Medicine.[1] She founded a new field in developmental biology, using microorganisms to examine fundamental questions in developmental biology. Her work has furthered understanding of the basis of stem cell function and the generation of biological diversity.[2] Her ideas have revolutionized understanding of bacterial genetic networks and helped researchers to develop novel drugs to fight antibiotic resistance and emerging infectious diseases.[3] In 2013, Dr. Shapiro was presented with the 2011 National Medal of Science, which is given to individuals who have demonstrated “an outstanding breadth of knowledge in their field.”[3][4]

 

Lucy
Shapiro, PhD
Stanford University

Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Professor
Professor, Developmental Biology
Director of the Beckman Center for Molecular and Genetic Medicine
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA

The Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd is an international not-for-profit organization with a 40-year legacy of pioneering cancer discoveries. The Institute provides its scientists from around the world with the resources and the flexibility to realize the life-changing potential of their work and see their discoveries advance human health. This philosophy, combined with robust translational programs, maximizes the potential of breakthrough discoveries to be more attractive for commercial development.

The Ludwig Institute conducts its own research and clinical trials, making it a bridge from the most basic questions of life to the most pressing needs of cancer care. Since its inception, the Institute has invested more than $1.7 billion of its own resources in cancer research, and has an endowment valued at $1.2 billion. The Institute’s assets are managed by the LICR Fund.

Dr. Lucy Shapiro, DF, Ph.D serves as Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Professor of Cancer Research in the Department of Developmental Biology and Director of the Beckman Center for Molecular and Genetic Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine where she has been a faculty member since 1989. Dr. Shapiro founded Stanford University’s Department of Developmental Biology in 1989 and served as its Chairperson from 1989 to 1997.

Lucy Shapiro Ph.D.

Co-Founder, Co-Chair of Scientific Advisory Board, Director and Member of Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee,Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

 

Age Total Calculated Compensation This person is connected to 46 board members in 3 different organizations across 6 different industries.

See Board Relationships

74 $222,846

Lucy Shapiro named 2015 commencement speaker

Using her unique worldview as both artist and scientist, Shapiro revolutionized the field of developmental biology and set the stage for the new field of systems biology.

Lucy Shapiro

Lucy Shapiro

Stanford developmental biologist Lucy Shapiro, PhD, whose unique worldview has revolutionized the understanding of the bacterial cell as an engineering paradigm, will be the commencement speaker for the School of Medicine Class of 2015.

The diploma ceremony will be held June 13 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Alumni Green, followed by a luncheon at 1 p.m. on the Dean’s Lawn.

Shapiro, the Virginia and D. K. Ludwig Professor, has spent her career on the leading edge of developmental biology. She is the recipient of numerous awards, including the National Medal of Science in 2012 and the 2014 Pearl Meister Greengard Prize, which celebrates the achievements of outstanding women in science.

Shapiro, director of the Beckman Center for Molecular and Genetic Medicine, has been a faculty member since 1989, when she founded the medical school’s Department of Developmental Biology.

A painter who studied both biology and the fine arts as an undergraduate, Shapiro said that she sees science as part of the world of art. She began her career as a scientist focused on finding new ways of looking at and understanding living things, much as an artist does. She started by hunting for the simplest organism she could find — a bacterial cell — and then studying its molecular mechanisms. Her research into the genetic circuitry of these cells paved the way for new antibiotics. Her use of the microorganism as a model also set the stage for the emerging field of systems biology.

She has served in advisory roles in both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations on the threat of infectious disease in developing countries. She has said that increasing levels of both antibiotic resistance and novel infectious agents are likely to be a larger threat to the world than bioterrorism. Shapiro also started a biotech company to test and develop antibiotic and antifungal medications.

Use science to make world a better place, graduates told

At the medical school’s commencement, Lucy Shapiro described how years of solitary work in the laboratory led her to influence public policy and battle the growing threat of infectious disease on the global stage.

JUN 152015

test

Commencement speaker Lucy Shapiro discussed how she raised alarms about the threat of emerging infectious diseases, drug-resistant pathogens “and a poor to nonexistent drug pipeline.”
Norbert von der Groeben

Developmental biologist Lucy Shapiro, PhD, told the 2015 School of Medicine graduates how, as a basic scientist who spent most of her life studying single-celled bacteria, she stepped out of her laboratory and onto the global stage to try to help the world avert a potential disaster.

“About 15 years ago, I sat up and looked around me and found that we were in the midst of a perfect storm,” said Shapiro, the Virginia and D. K. Ludwig Professor, speaking at the school’s commencement June 13 on Alumni Green. “There was a global tide of emerging infectious diseases, rampant antibiotic and antiviral resistance amongst all pathogens and a poor to nonexistent drug pipeline.

“For me the alarm bells went off, and I was convinced that I had to try and do something. Let me tell you the story of how I stepped out of my comfort zone. I launched a one-woman attack.”

She took any speaking engagement she could get to educate the public about antibiotic resistance; walked the corridors of power in Washington, D.C., lobbying politicians about the dangers of emerging infectious diseases; and used discoveries from her lab on the single-celled Caulobacter bacterium to develop new, effective disease-fighting drugs.

Bench-to-bedside for a better world

A recipient of the National Medal of Science, Shapiro exhorted the graduates to be unafraid of breaking out of their comfort zones and to use science to improve the human condition. Bridging the gap between the lab and the clinic can make the world a better place, she said.

Lloyd Minor, MD, dean of the School of Medicine, also emphasized the importance of bench-to-bedside work in his remarks to the graduates. There has never been a better time for shepherding advances in basic research into the clinic, he said.

test

Kristy Red-Horse, assistant professor of biology, hoods Katharina Sophia Volz, the first-ever graduate of the Interdepartmental Program in Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine.
Norbert von der Groeben

“You are beginning your careers at an unprecedented time of opportunities for biomedical science and for human health,” he said.

This year’s class of 195 graduates comprised 78 students who earned PhDs, 78 who earned medical degrees and 39 who earned master’s degrees. It included Katharina Sophia Volz, the first-ever graduate of the Interdepartmental Program in Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine — the first doctoral program in the nation focusing on stem cell science and translating it to patient care.

Volz, whose work in the lab has opened the doors to improvements in clinical care for heart patients, said Stanford Medicine is the place to be for scientists who want to make a difference in the world.

“Everybody here is reaching for the stars. We can do the best work here of anywhere,” said Volz, 28, a native of Ulm, Germany, the birthplace of Albert Einstein. She has worked in 10 different labs across the globe. Her father and mother, Johannes and Luise Volz, traveled from Germany to celebrate with her.

“I’ve never been in a more supportive environment,” said Volz, who discovered the progenitors to the muscle layer around the coronary arteries, a finding with implications for regenerative medicine and finding treatments for coronary artery disease.

Well-wishers, garlands and fussy babies

Some in the crowd of well-wishers, seated under a giant white tent, held garlands of flowers for the graduates, while toddlers ran around the lawn and babies fussed and cried. The two student speakers added humor and pathos to the occasion, with memories of their years of hard work and discovery.

“I’d like to run one last experiment,” said Francisco Jose Emilio Gimenez, a PhD graduate in biomedical information. “Who here had serious doubts they would ever finish their PhD?”

test

Brook Barajas, who earned a PhD in cancer biology, holds her 15-month-old son Sebastian.
Norbert von der Groeben

The dozens of hands shooting up from the stage were followed by laughter from the crowd.

Meghan Galligan, a medical degree graduate, said she was both nervous to be in front of the crowd and concerned about whether her puffy black graduation cap would stay put. “I’m wearing a French pastry hat and worried it’s going to fall off,” she said.

Her years of education to become a physician changed the day she entered clinical care training. “From the day we started clinics, we would really never be the same as those bright-eyed individuals who gathered here for orientation,” she said. “How could we be after gaining such privileged access into the human condition?”

Role as government adviser

Shapiro’s desire to improve the human condition led her out of the lab to the nation’s capital. She has since served in advisory roles in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush on the threat of infectious disease in developing countries. Now director of the Beckman Center for Molecular and Genetic Medicine at Stanford, Shapiro has been a faculty member since 1989. She was founding chair of the Department of Developmental Biology and also started a biotech company in Palo Alto to test and develop antibiotics and antifungals.

Her lab at Stanford made breakthroughs in understanding the genetic circuitry of simple cells, setting the stage for the development of new antibiotics. Shapiro told the audience that over the 25 years that she has worked at the School of Medicine, she has seen a major shift in the connection between those who conduct research in labs and those who care for patients in clinics.

“We have finally learned to talk to each other,” Shapiro said. “I’ve watched the convergence of basic research and clinical applications without the loss of curiosity-driven research in the lab or patient-focused care in the clinic.”

test

Monica Eneriz-Wiemer, who earned a medical degree, hugs her mother Gloria Eneriz on June 13 before the School of Medicine’s diploma ceremony.
Norbert von der Groeben

This new connection, she said, is key to the future of global health.

“This is no ordinary time, from shattering political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa and the consequent flood of immigrant populations that serves as a petri dish for infectious pathogens, to global shifts in urban environments, to climate change, which is having substantial impact on health … all contributing to the appearance of old pathogens in new places and new pathogens for which we have no immunity.

“We here must care about an Ebola outbreak 8,000 miles away in West Africa; we here must care about a cholera outbreak in Haiti; we wait for the consequences of the earthquake in Nepal. We live in a global village.”

This is your time to shape the future, Shapiro told the graduates.

“Step out of your comfort zone and follow your intuition,” she said. “Don’t be afraid of taking chances. Ask, ‘How can I change what’s wrong?’ ”

In closing remarks, Laurie Weisberg, MD, president of the Stanford Medicine Alumni Association and clinical professor of medicine at UC San Francisco, also encouraged students to step outside of their comfort zone.

“You may be the most brilliant, creative and productive scientist, clinician, writer or entrepreneur, but you’ll never know if you don’t embrace uncertainty, take on a new challenge, and give it a try,” she said.  “To do what you love, and do it well, with all your heart — that’s what most important.


Stanford Medicine integrates research, medical education and health care at its three institutions – Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Health Care (formerly Stanford Hospital & Clinics), and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford.

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D9xiPLvJnmhU  Feb 8, 2013

Lucy Shapiro, Stanford University – National Medal of Science 2011 for the pioneering discovery that the bacterial cell is controlled by an …

 

Elaine Fuchs, Ph.D.
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Rebecca C. Lancefield Professor
Robin Chemers Neustein Laboratory of Mammalian Cell Biology and Development

Skin harbors our largest reservoirs of stem cells. To maintain the body barrier, epidermis constantly self-renews and hair follicles undergo cyclical bouts of activity. Both stem cell compartments participate in repairing tissue damage after injury. Dr. Fuchs studies where adult stem cells come from, how they make tissues, how they repair wounds and how stem cells malfunction in cancers. Her group focuses on the mechanisms that impart skin stem cells with the ability to self-renew, develop and maintain tissues, and how these cells respond to external cues, and depart from their niche to accomplish these tasks.

Nature Reviews Genetics 13, 381 (June 2012) |   http://dx.doi.org:/10.1038/nrg3252

The 2012 March of Dimes Prize in Developmental Biology has been jointly awarded to Elaine Fuchs, of the Rockefeller University and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and to Howard Green, of Harvard Medical School, for their pioneering research on the molecular workings of skin stem cells and inherited skin disorders. The prize recognizes researchers whose work has contributed to our understanding of the science that underlies birth defects.

Elaine Fuchs

Fiona Watt

http://jcs.biologists.org/content/117/21/4877.full

  • WOMEN IN CELL SCIENCE
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1242/​jcs.01408  Oct 1, 2004 J Cell Sci 117, 4877-4879.

Elaine Fuchs was born in the United States and raised just outside Chicago. In 1972 she graduated with a B.S. and highest distinction in the Chemical Sciences from the University of Illinois. Her undergraduate thesis research in physical chemistry focused on the electrodiffusion of nickel through quartz. She moved from Illinois to Princeton University to study for her PhD in Biochemistry, investigating changes in bacterial cell walls during sporulation in Bacillus megaterium. In 1977, she joined Howard Green, then at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), for her postdoctoral studies. There, she focused on elucidating the mechanisms underlying the balance between growth and differentiation in epidermal keratinocytes, a system and research area that continues to fascinate her today. In 1980, she was recruited to the University of Chicago, where she moved up through the ranks to the position of Amgen Professor of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology and Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. She moved to The Rockefeller University in 2002, where she is now the Rebecca C. Lancefield Professor of Mammalian Cell Biology and Development.

Elaine’s research has encompassed identifying and characterizing the keratin genes expressed in human skin, understanding the transcriptional mechanisms underlying gene expression and differentiation in the epidermis and hair follicles, and revealing roles for Wnt and BMP signaling in skin. Currently, her lab’s focus is on understanding the niche for multipotent stem cells in skin. The thread that ties her research areas together is epithelial morphogenesis, understanding how external cues transmit their signals to elicit changes in transcription, cytoskeletal architecture and adhesion to establish the epidermis and hair follicles.

In the interview that follows, Fiona Watt, Editor-in-Chief of JCS, asks Elaine about her experiences as a woman in science.

FMW:How has your research career impacted on your personal life and vice versa?

EF: My father was a geochemist who specialized in meteorites at Argonne National Laboratories. My aunt, who lived in the house next door, was a biologist at Argonne, and an ardent feminist. My sister, four years my senior, is now a neuroscientist. My mother is a housewife, who loves gardening and cooking and used to play piano and paint in oils. Growing up in such a family, and with farm fields, creeks and ponds in the near vicinity, I developed a deep interest in science that has carried me through my professional life.

If I think back to the family influences that shaped my choice of career, I remember that my Dad strongly advocated my being an elementary school teacher. My aunt, his sister, was denied admission to medical school and she encouraged me to go into medicine. My mom told me that she thought I was a good cook and therefore I should become a chemist. My older sis was my idol, although I found her intelligence intimidating. She thought I should become an anthropologist. So, in contrast to my close friend and former colleague Susan Lindquist (now director of the Whitehead Institute at MIT), I was strongly encouraged by my family to go to college and do something with my life. I chose the University of Illinois at Urbana (my Dad told me that if there was a good reason why he should spend more than $2000 a year on my education, we should sit down and discuss the matter – otherwise, I should select either University of Illinois, our State school, or University of Chicago, where he got a tuition break. I vowed NOT to go to University of Chicago, because my sis, Dad and aunt went there, and I wanted to be different).

At the University of Illinois, I was one of three women in an undergraduate physics class of 200. My perception (shaped at least in part by the general aura of the scientific community at the time) was that, if I was to be accepted as a smart student, I probably needed to perform near or at the top of my class. I subsequently began studying very long hours, forgoing sleep and even studying while eating meals in the student cafeteria and while picketing classes during Vietnam War protests. Although my near perfect performances on tough physics and chemistry exams may have turned a few heads, I don’t feel that it served the deeper purpose of education, nor did it instill in me a long-standing love for these fields.

Elaine Fuchs in her lab in 1980.

By contrast, my participation in Vietnam War protests had a deeper impact on me, and I decided to apply to the Peace Corps. Having spent my electives taking Spanish and Latin American history, I was hoping to get accepted to go to Chile, which was headed by Allende, a liberal democratic Marxist. I was instead accepted to Uganda, which was headed by Idi Amin, a ruthless tyrant. It was then that I began in earnest contemplating graduate school, choosing Princeton’s Biochemistry Department, to move from physical sciences into the realm of more medically oriented science. I always suspected that my father was somehow behind the decision by the Peace Corps to send me to Uganda, but in the end going to graduate school was probably the right choice for me.

Not having taken biology since high school, I gravitated towards the most chemically oriented labs at Princeton. When I went to visit Bruce Alberts, he informed me that he only took the best students, which I was certain did not mean me. Marc Kirschner was no longer focused on physical biochemistry, but instead had begun working with disgusting-looking frogs. I settled on a Professor who had been quite open about his views that women should not be in science. Despite the fact that I was viewed by my mentor as a major disappointment relative to a fellow male graduate student who joined the same lab, I did learn from my mentor how to do well-controlled experiments, for which I’ve been forever grateful. Twenty years later, my mentor’s views regarding my relative lack of scientific skills even seemed to soften a bit.

Although I received my PhD in biochemistry, my education had not been very typical. I graduated without yet isolating protein, RNA or DNA. However, I had been frugal with my $3000/year graduate stipend, and had managed to travel (3rd class) through India, Nepal, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Turkey, Greece and Egypt (I’ve still never gotten to Chile or Uganda). In retrospect, I understand why my advisor had not taken me seriously!

Somehow, I managed to be accepted into the lab of Howard Green at MIT, and during my postdoctoral years, I limited my travel to Morocco, and began in earnest doing experiments. I chose Howard’s lab, because he was one of the pioneers in mammalian stem cell biology. He had developed methods to culture human epidermal stem cells under conditions where they could be maintained and propagated. I was yearning to switch model systems from bacteria to humans, hoping that my research might be more medically applicable, and I wanted to study the biochemical mechanisms underlying the balance between growth and differentiation in normal human cells. The system seemed ideal, and led me to become a skin biologist. Mouse genetics came later in my career after I was appointed to the HHMI at the University of Chicago, and had the resources to complement the culture system.

My experience at MIT had a powerful impact on my career. Howard Green was a quintessential cell biologist, which was something completely new to me. Nearly every lab at MIT was humming with brilliant postdocs, and I rapidly got hooked on the excitement of the science around me. I began to think that perhaps a scientific career might even be a possible goal for me – at least at some small teaching college or state university. After my first year at MIT, my advisor from Princeton nominated me for an Assistant Professorship at the University of Chicago, something that I assumed was to be a trial run for an academic job later down the road. I viewed the invitation to speak as a free trip home to visit my family, and was quite amazed when I subsequently received a job offer. It was only then when I began to realize that somebody must think more highly of my accomplishments than I did. My family’s pressure to accept the position was relentless and so I began an academic career as an independent scientist, feeling at the base of a totem pole of fantastic colleagues.

FMW:What changes for women in science have you observed during the course of your career?

EF: At Chicago, I was the first woman in a department of 15 biochemistry faculty members. But Janet Rowley, who already was a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a famous cytogeneticist, was in the Department of Medicine, and she sent hand-written notes congratulating me on every small success that would come my way. This inspired me, as did meeting Susan Lindquist in the Department of Biology, who became my long-standing close friend and colleague. In 1982, Sue also introduced me to David Hansen, to whom I have been happily married for 16 years!

Chicago reorganized their biological sciences departments in 1985, and Sue, Janet, several other women and I all chose to join the same Department, Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology. All of a sudden, women faculty members were in abundance and a force to be reckoned with. This and fantastic students became an endless source of enjoyment for me, and I remained at Chicago for over 20 years.

I feel that although there is still considerable work to be done to pave the way for women in science, the situation has improved considerably during the course of my career. Women are now routinely asked and elected to serve the scientific community in important ways. In this regard, I have served on the Advisory Council for the Director of the NIH, the Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and was President of the American Society of Cell Biology. In addition, major scientific organizations have cracked the door open wider for women, and I certainly feel fortunate to have been elected by my colleagues to the NAS, the Institute of Medicine and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. I also feel honored to have received recognition from my colleagues through a number of scientific achievement awards, including the Richard Lounsbery Award from the NAS and an honorary doctorate degree from Mt Sinai and New York University Medical School. As women continue to make their way in the scientific community at all levels and in greater numbers, we will continue to see a rise in the creativity, reflection and breadth of thinking that is so necessary to move science forward.

FMW:Do you feel that being a woman is an inherent advantage/disadvantage for a career in science? Why?

EF: I can’t say that it is or isn’t, but for me the discrimination I have faced personally has served as an inspiration and a challenge to do better, not as an impediment to my career. The one thing I do feel now is that it is important for senior women to remember that the road for women scientists is not always an easy one. There is still substantial room for the scientific community to grow in the realization that, by opening the door to women, it is going to raise the level of scientific excellence. Senior women who are recognized by their peers as being successful have a responsibility to help educate those scientists who haven’t quite accepted this important message. And we have a responsibility to maintain the highest scientific and ethical standards and to serve as the best role models we can for the younger generation of outstanding scientists – both men and women – who are rising through the ranks. Leading by good example is still the best way to diffuse the now more subtle and less vocal, but nevertheless lingering, discrimination and dogmatism against women scientists within our scientific community.

No discussion of women and careers is complete without addressing the issue of children and motherhood. In my case, I’m afraid I don’t serve as a good role model because I don’t have children. However, I’d like to emphasize that this was a decision that my husband and I consciously made together. I’m married to the Director of Philosophy and Education at Teachers’ College, Columbia University, and for the past 20 years that we’ve known one another, we’ve enjoyed traveling the world, going to operas, symphony and chamber music concerts, eating leisurely dinners, dancing, swimming, quiet reflection, education and service to the broader community. We love our nieces and nephews, but children were not a high priority for our lives together. In another world, things might be different. However, I certainly don’t view this decision as a sacrifice that I had to make for my science.

FMW:What are your remaining career ambitions?

EF: I made the decision to move to Rockefeller in 2002 because it provided an exceptional constellation of world-renowned colleagues, generating a rich and stimulating new environment for the 17 postdocs and technicians who moved with me. Our research has progressively moved to the field of morphogenesis – understanding the molecular process that begins with a single stem cell and ends with a functional tissue, either epidermis or hair follicles. Characteristic of my checkered past, the research is a blend of biochemistry, molecular biology, cell and developmental biology, and the area enables us to combine our interests in signal transduction, transcriptional regulation, cytoskeletal dynamics and cell adhesion. The caliber of my students and postdocs keeps escalating, and the science continues to keep me in the lab nights and weekends, as it did when I was a postdoctoral fellow. Each day brings new challenges, and there is certainly no doubt now that the flame of excitement and interest in scientific discovery and education burns eternally within me. There is no `last’ objective – only new horizons and challenges. The revolution in biology that I have experienced in my own career tells me not to predict what my next objective will be.

I feel strongly that we make of our lives what we put into them. To succeed in a scientific career in academia takes motivation, commitment, effort, thought, creativity, intelligence, teaching skills, technical talent, organization, leadership, oral and writing skills, compassion and a strong sense of ethics. I know I’ve left out many other essential traits. Very few scientists have all these attributes, but we can each achieve a high degree of satisfaction if not success through honing the subset of attributes that we do have. I know that for me, the more I work on becoming a better scientist, mentor and participator in our scientific community, the richer all aspects of my life become.

Elaine Fuchs: A love for science that’s more than skin deep

JCB Dec 28, 2009;  187(7): 938-939  http://dx.doi.org:/10.1083/jcb.1877pi

Elaine Fuchs has collected many awards in her 30 years researching mammalian skin development, but it’s hard to beat the two prizes she received in late 2009. Shortly before winning the prestigious L’Oreál-UNESCO award for women in science, Fuchs was awarded the National Medal of Science—the US’s highest honor for outstanding scientific contributions.

After studying bacterial sporulation as a PhD student with Charles Gilvarg at Princeton, Fuchs joined Howard Green’s laboratory at MIT, where she investigated the expression of keratins in differentiating skin cells (1, 2). Fuchs then returned to her native Illinois to begin her own laboratory at the University of Chicago, and stayed for more than 20 years before moving to The Rockefeller University in New York in 2002. Fuchs’ research has touched on many aspects of skin differentiation and function. Asked to pick her favorite work, she chooses her pioneering use of mouse genetics to identify mutant keratins as the cause of several human skin diseases (3, 4). She also mentions the generation of super furry mice by expressing a stabilized version of the transcription factor β-catenin (5) as well as the identification and characterization of a multipotent stem cell population in the hair follicle (6, 7). In a recent interview, Fuchs discussed her latest awards, and explained why the skin continues to hold her interest.

Figure

Elaine Fuchs

Is it true that you refused to take the exam for graduate school entry?   

Yes! [laughs] I was graduating near the top of my class from a very good university and I felt that the Graduate Record Examination wasn’t testing my real knowledge, but rather how I could perform in a written exam. So I decided that perhaps they’d appreciate some creative writing instead. I wrote three pages explaining the reasons why I was not going to be taking my GRE, and I sent it along with my applications.

I got accepted everywhere, but it’s quite unlikely that I would be admitted to any graduate program in the US today. I don’t think professors are as open-minded toward rebellious students as they were during the Vietnam War era.

How did you decide to go to Howard Green’s laboratory for your postdoc?

I had been working on bacterial sporulation and, in the course of that, I studied bacterial cell walls. Many antibiotics target the enzymes that synthesize cell walls, and that medical aspect was what I really liked about my science.

To maintain my interest in biomedical research, I decided to switch to the growth and differentiation of human cells, but I knew I was going to need a good culture system. Howard was a cell culture guru—he developed the use of human epidermal cells as well as the 3T3L1 line for adipocyte differentiation. Almost everyone else was using transformed mammalian cells at the time and I thought these were great systems to study—I still do.

And you’ve worked on skin ever since—what has captivated you for so long?

Skin is such a complex organ. We focus on the epithelium, but epithelial–mesenchymal interactions are very important in dictating whether keratinocyte stem cells will stratify to make an epidermis or differentiate into a sebaceous gland or hair follicle. How does that happen? How do you start with a stem cell and build a tissue? There are lots of facets to the problem, ranging from transcription to cell–cell and cell–substratum interactions. There’s this endless array of signals from the environment that, in a sense, encompasses almost every aspect of biology.

So even though we still work on skin as a model system, we continue to ask different questions. We spent 10 years working on keratins, but if I’d stuck with that, I might have burned myself out. I learned early on in my career that it’s important to choose a problem you’re interested in, even if you don’t yet know the technology you need to address it. I think people get into ruts when they become very good at something and do it over and over again. What we’re doing now is very different to what we were doing several years ago, and we continue to try novel and original approaches.

One of those original approaches was using transgenic mice to link keratins with human genetic diseases…

After cloning and sequencing the first keratins, we’d begun to hone in on the key residues that were critical for the assembly of keratin intermediate filaments, but we couldn’t predict the disease we should be looking at from the disrupted keratin networks we saw in our cultured skin cells. We thought that engineering mice harboring our dominant-negative keratin gene might offer us better clues. We set up transgenic mouse technology, but when we got our mice expressing mutant keratin, they showed no phenotype at all. I thought, “We just wasted all this time learning this technology, and we’re getting nowhere.”

Then one day a technician said, “There’s this dead mouse that’s half eaten, and it looks like it’s got a severe problem with its skin.” We took a look and it was expressing whopping amounts of our transgene. We realized that the mom was eating every single phenotypic mutant while leaving behind all the nonphenotypic ones. I gave [laboratory members] Bob Vassar and Pierre Coulombe my office for the night, and they babysat until the moms delivered. After their preliminary analysis, we sat down with a dermatology textbook and it was pretty clear: the pathology matched perfectly with epidermolysis bullosa simplex, a blistering skin disorder in humans.

But not everyone believed you at first?

No. I don’t blame people because diagnosing mice as having a particular human disease was unconventional at the time. I presented the work at a large meeting, and the chair took the microphone and said, “I don’t know what you’ve got, but you certainly don’t have EBS.” It took a few moments for me to react—it was looking pretty bad. The audience listened to the chair, who continued to declare confidently that our findings were rubbish.“There’s this endless array of signals from the environment that encompasses almost every aspect of biology.”

But at that point Mina Bissell stood up and said, “I don’t know whether she’s going to be right or wrong, but I just heard an interesting story, and I think we should give her the chance to find out.” This broke the ice for UPenn’s chair of dermatology, John Stanley, to stand up and say, “Actually, I would also diagnose the pathology as EBS.” Eight months later, we published a paper documenting the human genetic basis of EBS, so it didn’t take long to prove our hypothesis.

You were one of very few female group leaders when you began in Chicago. How was that?

A technician from another laboratory came down as I was setting up my laboratory, and said, “Are you Dr. Fuchs’ new technician?” and I had to say, “I am Dr. Fuchs!” There were cases where I’d be introduced to the seminar speaker as the prettiest member of the department—things that would make me cringe. I didn’t know what to make of these comments, and I’m not sure the men knew what to make of having me there.

I didn’t care what my salary was—it was more than I’d got as a postdoc— until after I was a tenured faculty member, when I discovered that my salary was actually lower than what they were offering to starting assistant professors. It was only after I realized I’d been underpaid all those years that I got angry. So there were definitely gender issues that could’ve distracted me, but I was so thrilled to be able to do my science that nothing else seemed to matter so much.

You’ve been a strong advocate for women in science, which was recognized by your L’Oreál-UNESCO award. Do any significant challenges remain?

Things are enormously better, particularly in the US. In general, the door is open for women all the way up to being an associate professor but it’s still difficult at the upper end of the scale—there are very few women in leadership positions. And there are still women at some universities who feel they are underpaid, have less space, and receive fewer privileges than their male colleagues. Most major universities have gotten the message, but I’m not sure all the smaller universities have followed suit.

The other prize you won recently was the National Medal of Science. How was your trip to the White House?

Figure

Fuchs receives the National Medal of Science from President Obama.

SANDY SCHAEFFER/NSF

Having the President of the United States shake my hand and place a medal around my neck was a moving experience. It was also nice to have not only my husband, but also my mother (who’s close to 88 years old now), my sister, and eldest nephew present. It was particularly thrilling for me because President Obama recognizes the importance of basic research and science education to the future of our country.

Could scientists do a better job of communicating the importance of their work?

Yes—we need to educate politicians about the importance of basic research and increasing the budget for it. [Former congressman] John Porter, at a recent Howard Hughes meeting, asked us all, “When was the last time you contacted a politician and invited them to your laboratory? They need to see what scientists are doing.” If politicians don’t understand what we can learn from basic research and appreciate its importance, why should they support it?

How do you maintain your enthusiasm?

A professor’s role is a combination of research and education. I empathize with the pain students feel as they initially struggle with scientific research, yet there’s nothing more gratifying than watching a student’s first experiment work. You see them think, “Well, it’s really worth it after all. I can do it.” As long as I’m passionate about the scientific questions we tackle, I don’t think I’ll ever get tired of being a professor. It’s the best possible job in the world.

What can we expect next from the Fuchs laboratory?

New approaches, of course! We’ve identified lots of new genes that change their expression patterns as stem cells make epidermis and hair follicles. But we can’t use classical genetics to figure out what all these changes mean—a conditional knockout mouse takes a couple of years to make, and there’s a lot of redundancy in the genome. We’re developing new strategies to make functional analyses of mouse skin development a more tractable process. There are many signaling pathways that must converge to build and maintain tissues during normal development and wound repair, and a lot of pathways go awry to generate the myriad of human skin disorders, including cancers. We know a little bit here and there, yet we still have a lot of pieces to fill in. But I love the puzzle!

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.

Read Full Post »

Fighting Diabetes and Ischemia through Stem Cells | Anish Sen Majumdar | TEDxVITPune

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Watch Video

https://www.youtube.com/v/ik3mCGj1VAE?fs=1&hl=fr_FR

A veteran stem cell scientist, he has trained hundreds of scientists and has been a member of various international societies that are involved in globalizing …

Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.youtube.com

See on Scoop.itCardiovascular and vascular imaging

Read Full Post »

Global 3D Bioprinting Market: Industry Size, Share and Segments Analysis to 2015 – 2021

Reporter: Irina Robu, PhD

“3D bioprinting is a process of creating spatially-controlled cell patterns in 3D, where viability and cell function are conserved within printed construct. The 3D bioprinting industry that is currently at the embryonic stage of generating replacement human tissue has been forecast to be worth billion dollars by 2019. 3D bioprinting at present largely involves the creation of simple tissue structures in lab settings, but is estimated to be scaled up to involve the creation of complete organs for transplants. This technology is expected to be used for more speedy and accurate drug testing, as potential drug compounds could be tested on bioprinted tissue before human trials commenced.

3D bioprinting is steadily emerging as an area that is gathering attention from a lot of academicians. Some of the researchers have recently opened start-up firms with aim of commercializing the technology in coming years. A number of start-ups have recently sprung up to build up products based on bioprinting. Some are spin outs from university research. The market at present has 14 industry sponsored bioprinters, focused on variety of commercial applications. The widen supply-demand gap for organ transplants is an unmet need; the ultimate goal of researchers is to be able to create bioprinted organs for organ transplants. The focus of this market is expected to shift from research to commercialization. At this stage, the applications such as tissue engineering (skin and cartilage) and drug testing (skin and cartilage) are expected to be popular.

In coming years, 3D bioprinting to be a multi-billion dollar industry owning to early success of bioprinted organ transplants is expected to offer additional boost in subsequent years. The next generation of bioprinters is to offer additional features such as multiple arms and is expected to be comparatively more affordable driving wider adoption. Aspect Biosystems would dramatically cut the cost and time it takes to develop and test the drugs leading to cures for presently incurable diseases and cheaper treatment options. The companies in bioprinting market include SkinPrint that is developing a replacement skin for the burns patients or for those suffering from skin disorders. Aspect Biosystems that is developing printed tissue for drug testing.

Some of the major players for 3D bioprinting market are Advanced Biomatrix, 3D Biotek, 3D Systems, Avita Medical, Bespoke Innovations, Autodesk, EnvisionTEC, Cyfuse Biomedical, CMC Microsystems, Digilab, United Therapeutics, TeVido BioDevices, DTM, Bio3D Technologies, Helisys Inc. CMC Microsystems, InSphero AG and BD Biosciences among others.”

Source

https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/market-research/3d-bioprinting-market.asp

 

 

Read Full Post »

Treatments other than Chemotherapy for Leukemias and Lymphomas

Author, Curator, Editor: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

2.5.1 Radiation Therapy 

http://www.lls.org/treatment/types-of-treatment/radiation-therapy

Radiation therapy, also called radiotherapy or irradiation, can be used to treat leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes. The type of radiation used for radiotherapy (ionizing radiation) is the same that’s used for diagnostic x-rays. Radiotherapy, however, is given in higher doses.

Radiotherapy works by damaging the genetic material (DNA) within cells, which prevents them from growing and reproducing. Although the radiotherapy is directed at cancer cells, it can also damage nearby healthy cells. However, current methods of radiotherapy have been improved upon, minimizing “scatter” to nearby tissues. Therefore its benefit (destroying the cancer cells) outweighs its risk (harming healthy cells).

When radiotherapy is used for blood cancer treatment, it’s usually part of a treatment plan that includes drug therapy. Radiotherapy can also be used to relieve pain or discomfort caused by an enlarged liver, lymph node(s) or spleen.

Radiotherapy, either alone or with chemotherapy, is sometimes given as conditioning treatment to prepare a patient for a blood or marrow stem cell transplant. The most common types used to treat blood cancer are external beam radiation (see below) and radioimmunotherapy.
External Beam Radiation

External beam radiation is the type of radiotherapy used most often for people with blood cancers. A focused radiation beam is delivered outside the body by a machine called a linear accelerator, or linac for short. The linear accelerator moves around the body to deliver radiation from various angles. Linear accelerators make it possible to decrease or avoid skin reactions and deliver targeted radiation to lessen “scatter” of radiation to nearby tissues.

The dose (total amount) of radiation used during treatment depends on various factors regarding the patient, disease and reason for treatment, and is established by a radiation oncologist. You may receive radiotherapy during a series of visits, spread over several weeks (from two to 10 weeks, on average). This approach, called dose fractionation, lessens side effects. External beam radiation does not make you radioactive.

2.5.2  Bone marrow (BM) transplantation

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003009.htm

There are three kinds of bone marrow transplants:

Autologous bone marrow transplant: The term auto means self. Stem cells are removed from you before you receive high-dose chemotherapy or radiation treatment. The stem cells are stored in a freezer (cryopreservation). After high-dose chemotherapy or radiation treatments, your stems cells are put back in your body to make (regenerate) normal blood cells. This is called a rescue transplant.

Allogeneic bone marrow transplant: The term allo means other. Stem cells are removed from another person, called a donor. Most times, the donor’s genes must at least partly match your genes. Special blood tests are done to see if a donor is a good match for you. A brother or sister is most likely to be a good match. Sometimes parents, children, and other relatives are good matches. Donors who are not related to you may be found through national bone marrow registries.

Umbilical cord blood transplant: This is a type of allogeneic transplant. Stem cells are removed from a newborn baby’s umbilical cord right after birth. The stem cells are frozen and stored until they are needed for a transplant. Umbilical cord blood cells are very immature so there is less of a need for matching. But blood counts take much longer to recover.

Before the transplant, chemotherapy, radiation, or both may be given. This may be done in two ways:

Ablative (myeloablative) treatment: High-dose chemotherapy, radiation, or both are given to kill any cancer cells. This also kills all healthy bone marrow that remains, and allows new stem cells to grow in the bone marrow.

Reduced intensity treatment, also called a mini transplant: Patients receive lower doses of chemotherapy and radiation before a transplant. This allows older patients, and those with other health problems to have a transplant.

A stem cell transplant is usually done after chemotherapy and radiation is complete. The stem cells are delivered into your bloodstream usually through a tube called a central venous catheter. The process is similar to getting a blood transfusion. The stem cells travel through the blood into the bone marrow. Most times, no surgery is needed.

Donor stem cells can be collected in two ways:

  • Bone marrow harvest. This minor surgery is done under general anesthesia. This means the donor will be asleep and pain-free during the procedure. The bone marrow is removed from the back of both hip bones. The amount of marrow removed depends on the weight of the person who is receiving it.
  • Leukapheresis. First, the donor is given 5 days of shots to help stem cells move from the bone marrow into the blood. During leukapheresis, blood is removed from the donor through an IV line in a vein. The part of white blood cells that contains stem cells is then separated in a machine and removed to be later given to the recipient. The red blood cells are returned to the donor.

Why the Procedure is Performed

A bone marrow transplant replaces bone marrow that either is not working properly or has been destroyed (ablated) by chemotherapy or radiation. Doctors believe that for many cancers, the donor’s white blood cells can attach to any remaining cancer cells, similar to when white cells attach to bacteria or viruses when fighting an infection.

Your doctor may recommend a bone marrow transplant if you have:

Certain cancers, such as leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma

A disease that affects the production of bone marrow cells, such as aplastic anemia, congenital neutropenia, severe immunodeficiency syndromes, sickle cell anemia, thalassemia

Had chemotherapy that destroyed your bone

2.5.3 Autologous stem cell transplantation

Phase II trial of 131I-B1 (anti-CD20) antibody therapy with autologous stem cell transplantation for relapsed B cell lymphomas

O.W Press,  F Appelbaum,  P.J Martin, et al.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(95)92225-3/abstract

25 patients with relapsed B-cell lymphomas were evaluated with trace-labelled doses (2·5 mg/kg, 185-370 MBq [5-10 mCi]) of 131I-labelled anti-CD20 (B1) antibody in a phase II trial. 22 patients achieved 131I-B1 biodistributions delivering higher doses of radiation to tumor sites than to normal organs and 21 of these were treated with therapeutic infusions of 131I-B1 (12·765-29·045 GBq) followed by autologous hemopoietic stem cell reinfusion. 18 of the 21 treated patients had objective responses, including 16 complete remissions. One patient died of progressive lymphoma and one died of sepsis. Analysis of our phase I and II trials with 131I-labelled B1 reveal a progression-free survival of 62% and an overall survival of 93% with a median follow-up of 2 years. 131I-anti-CD20 (B1) antibody therapy produces complete responses of long duration in most patients with relapsed B-cell lymphomas when given at maximally tolerated doses with autologous stem cell rescue.

Autologous (Self) Transplants

http://www.leukaemia.org.au/treatments/stem-cell-transplants/autologous-self-transplants

An autologous transplant (or rescue) is a type of transplant that uses the person’s own stem cells. These cells are collected in advance and returned at a later stage. They are used to replace stem cells that have been damaged by high doses of chemotherapy, used to treat the person’s underlying disease.

In most cases, stem cells are collected directly from the bloodstream. While stem cells normally live in your marrow, a combination of chemotherapy and a growth factor (a drug that stimulates stem cells) called Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) is used to expand the number of stem cells in the marrow and cause them to spill out into the circulating blood. From here they can be collected from a vein by passing the blood through a special machine called a cell separator, in a process similar to dialysis.

Most of the side effects of an autologous transplant are caused by the conditioning therapy used. Although they can be very unpleasant at times it is important to remember that most of them are temporary and reversible.

Procedure of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is the transplantation of multipotent hematopoietic stem cells, usually derived from bone marrow, peripheral blood, or umbilical cord blood. It may be autologous (the patient’s own stem cells are used) or allogeneic (the stem cells come from a donor).

Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Author: Ajay Perumbeti, MD, FAAP; Chief Editor: Emmanuel C Besa, MD
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/208954-overview

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) involves the intravenous (IV) infusion of autologous or allogeneic stem cells to reestablish hematopoietic function in patients whose bone marrow or immune system is damaged or defective.

The image below illustrates an algorithm for typically preferred hematopoietic stem cell transplantation cell source for treatment of malignancy.

An algorithm for typically preferred hematopoietic stem cell transplantation cell source for treatment of malignancy: If a matched sibling donor is not available, then a MUD is selected; if a MUD is not available, then choices include a mismatched unrelated donor, umbilical cord donor(s), and a haploidentical donor.

Supportive Therapies

2.5.4  Blood transfusions – risks and complications of a blood transfusion

  • Allogeneic transfusion reaction (acute or delayed hemolytic reaction)
  • Allergic reaction
  • Viruses Infectious Diseases

The risk of catching a virus from a blood transfusion is very low.

HIV. Your risk of getting HIV from a blood transfusion is lower than your risk of getting killed by lightning. Only about 1 in 2 million donations might carry HIV and transmit HIV if given to a patient.

Hepatitis B and C. The risk of having a donation that carries hepatitis B is about 1 in 205,000. The risk for hepatitis C is 1 in 2 million. If you receive blood during a transfusion that contains hepatitis, you’ll likely develop the virus.

Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD). This disease is the human version of Mad Cow Disease. It’s a very rare, yet fatal brain disorder. There is a possible risk of getting vCJD from a blood transfusion, although the risk is very low. Because of this, people who may have been exposed to vCJD aren’t eligible blood donors.

  • Fever
  • Iron Overload
  • Lung Injury
  • Graft-Versus-Host Disease

Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a condition in which white blood cells in the new blood attack your tissues.

2.5.5 Erythropoietin

Erythropoietin, (/ɨˌrɪθrɵˈpɔɪ.ɨtɨn/UK /ɛˌrɪθr.pˈtɪn/) also known as EPO, is a glycoprotein hormone that controls erythropoiesis, or red blood cell production. It is a cytokine (protein signaling molecule) for erythrocyte (red blood cell) precursors in the bone marrow. Human EPO has a molecular weight of 34 kDa.

Also called hematopoietin or hemopoietin, it is produced by interstitial fibroblasts in the kidney in close association with peritubular capillary and proximal convoluted tubule. It is also produced in perisinusoidal cells in the liver. While liver production predominates in the fetal and perinatal period, renal production is predominant during adulthood. In addition to erythropoiesis, erythropoietin also has other known biological functions. For example, it plays an important role in the brain’s response to neuronal injury.[1] EPO is also involved in the wound healing process.[2]

Exogenous erythropoietin is produced by recombinant DNA technology in cell culture. Several different pharmaceutical agents are available with a variety ofglycosylation patterns, and are collectively called erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA). The specific details for labelled use vary between the package inserts, but ESAs have been used in the treatment of anemia in chronic kidney disease, anemia in myelodysplasia, and in anemia from cancer chemotherapy. Boxed warnings include a risk of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and tumor recurrence.[3]

2.5.6  G-CSF (granulocyte-colony stimulating factor)

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF or GCSF), also known as colony-stimulating factor 3 (CSF 3), is a glycoprotein that stimulates the bone marrow to produce granulocytes and stem cells and release them into the bloodstream.

There are different types, including

  • Lenograstim (Granocyte)
  • Filgrastim (Neupogen, Zarzio, Nivestim, Ratiograstim)
  • Long acting (pegylated) filgrastim (pegfilgrastim, Neulasta) and lipegfilgrastim (Longquex)

Pegylated G-CSF stays in the body for longer so you have treatment less often than with the other types of G-CSF.

2.5.7  Plasma Exchange (plasmapheresis)

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1895577-overview

Plasmapheresis is a term used to refer to a broad range of procedures in which extracorporeal separation of blood components results in a filtered plasma product.[1, 2] The filtering of plasma from whole blood can be accomplished via centrifugation or semipermeable membranes.[3] Centrifugation takes advantage of the different specific gravities inherent to various blood products such as red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma.[4] Membrane plasma separation uses differences in particle size to filter plasma from the cellular components of blood.[3]

Traditionally, in the United States, most plasmapheresis takes place using automated centrifuge-based technology.[5] In certain instances, in particular in patients already undergoing hemodialysis, plasmapheresis can be carried out using semipermeable membranes to filter plasma.[4]

In therapeutic plasma exchange, using an automated centrifuge, filtered plasma is discarded and red blood cells along with replacement colloid such as donor plasma or albumin is returned to the patient. In membrane plasma filtration, secondary membrane plasma fractionation can selectively remove undesired macromolecules, which then allows for return of the processed plasma to the patient instead of donor plasma or albumin. Examples of secondary membrane plasma fractionation include cascade filtration,[6] thermofiltration, cryofiltration,[7] and low-density lipoprotein pheresis.

The Apheresis Applications Committee of the American Society for Apheresis periodically evaluates potential indications for apheresis and categorizes them from I to IV based on the available medical literature. The following are some of the indications, and their categorization, from the society’s 2010 guidelines.[2]

  • The only Category I indication for hemopoietic malignancy is Hyperviscosity in monoclonal gammopathies

2.5.8  Platelet Transfusions

Indications for platelet transfusion in children with acute leukemia

Scott Murphy, Samuel Litwin, Leonard M. Herring, Penelope Koch, et al.
Am J Hematol Jun 1982; 12(4): 347–356
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajh.2830120406/abstract;jsessionid=A6001D9D865EA1EBC667EF98382EF20C.f03t01
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1002/ajh.2830120406

In an attempt to determine the indications for platelet transfusion in thrombocytopenic patients, we randomized 56 children with acute leukemia to one of two regimens of platelet transfusion. The prophylactic group received platelets when the platelet count fell below 20,000 per mm3 irrespective of clinical events. The therapeutic group was transfused only when significant bleeding occurred and not for thrombocytopenia alone. The time to first bleeding episode was significantly longer and the number of bleeding episodes were significantly reduced in the prophylactic group. The survival curves of the two groups could not be distinguished from each other. Prior to the last month of life, the total number of days on which bleeding was present was significantly reduced by prophylactic therapy. However, in the terminal phase (last month of life), the duration of bleeding episodes was significantly longer in the prophylactic group. This may have been due to a higher incidence of immunologic refractoriness to platelet transfusion. Because of this terminal bleeding, comparison of the two groups for total number of days on which bleeding was present did not show a significant difference over the entire study period.

Clinical and Laboratory Aspects of Platelet Transfusion Therapy
Yuan S, Goldfinger D
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/clinical-and-laboratory-aspects-of-platelet-transfusion-therapy

INTRODUCTION — Hemostasis depends on an adequate number of functional platelets, together with an intact coagulation (clotting factor) system. This topic covers the logistics of platelet use and the indications for platelet transfusion in adults. The approach to the bleeding patient, refractoriness to platelet transfusion, and platelet transfusion in neonates are discussed elsewhere.

Pooled Platelets – A single unit of platelets can be isolated from every unit of donated blood, by centrifuging the blood within the closed collection system to separate the platelets from the red blood cells (RBC). The number of platelets per unit varies according to the platelet count of the donor; a yield of 7 x 1010 platelets is typical [1]. Since this number is inadequate to raise the platelet count in an adult recipient, four to six units are pooled to allow transfusion of 3 to 4 x 1011 platelets per transfusion [2]. These are called whole blood-derived or random donor pooled platelets.

Advantages of pooled platelets include lower cost and ease of collection and processing (a separate donation procedure and pheresis equipment are not required). The major disadvantage is recipient exposure to multiple donors in a single transfusion and logistic issues related to bacterial testing.

Apheresis (single donor) Platelets – Platelets can also be collected from volunteer donors in the blood bank, in a one- to two-hour pheresis procedure. Platelets and some white blood cells are removed, and red blood cells and plasma are returned to the donor. A typical apheresis platelet unit provides the equivalent of six or more units of platelets from whole blood (ie, 3 to 6 x 1011 platelets) [2]. In larger donors with high platelet counts, up to three units can be collected in one session. These are called apheresis or single donor platelets.

Advantages of single donor platelets are exposure of the recipient to a single donor rather than multiple donors, and the ability to match donor and recipient characteristics such as HLA type, cytomegalovirus (CMV) status, and blood type for certain recipients.

Both pooled and apheresis platelets contain some white blood cells (WBC) that were collected along with the platelets. These WBC can cause febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reactions (FNHTR), alloimmunization, and transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease (ta-GVHD) in some patients.

Platelet products also contain plasma, which can be implicated in adverse reactions including transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) and anaphylaxis. (See ‘Complications of platelet transfusion’ .)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »