The metabolic network model of primed/naive human embryonic stem cells underlines the importance of oxidation-reduction potential and tryptophan metabolism in primed pluripotency.
Genome-scale metabolic networks
Human embryonic stem cells
Kynurenine metabolism
Systems biology
Tryptophan metabolism
Journal
Cell & bioscience
ISSN: 2045-3701
Titre abrégé: Cell Biosci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101561195
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
11
07
2019
accepted:
19
08
2019
entrez:
6
9
2019
pubmed:
6
9
2019
medline:
6
9
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pluripotency is proposed to exist in two different stages: Naive and Primed. Conventional human pluripotent cells are essentially in the primed stage. In recent years, several protocols have claimed to generate naive human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). To the best of our knowledge, none of these protocols is currently recognized as the gold standard method. Furthermore, the consistency of the resulting cells from these diverse protocols at the molecular level is yet to be shown. Additionally, little is known about the principles that govern the metabolic differences between naive and primed pluripotency. In this work, using a computational approach, we tried to shed light on these basic issues. We showed that, after batch effect removal, the transcriptome data of eight different protocols which supposedly produce naive hESCs are clustered consistently when compared to the primed ones. Next, by integrating transcriptomes of all hESCs obtained by these protocols, we reconstructed The aim of the present paper is twofold. Firstly, our findings confirm the applicability of all these protocols for generating naive hESCs, due to their consistency at the transcriptome level. Secondly, we showed that in silico metabolic models of hESCs can be used to simulate the metabolic states of naive and primed pluripotency. Our models confirmed the OXPHOS activation in naive cells and showed that oxidation-reduction potential vary between naive and primed cells. Tryptophan metabolism is also outlined as a key pathway in primed pluripotency and the models suggest that decrements in the activity of this pathway might be an appropriate marker for naive pluripotency.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pluripotency is proposed to exist in two different stages: Naive and Primed. Conventional human pluripotent cells are essentially in the primed stage. In recent years, several protocols have claimed to generate naive human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). To the best of our knowledge, none of these protocols is currently recognized as the gold standard method. Furthermore, the consistency of the resulting cells from these diverse protocols at the molecular level is yet to be shown. Additionally, little is known about the principles that govern the metabolic differences between naive and primed pluripotency. In this work, using a computational approach, we tried to shed light on these basic issues.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We showed that, after batch effect removal, the transcriptome data of eight different protocols which supposedly produce naive hESCs are clustered consistently when compared to the primed ones. Next, by integrating transcriptomes of all hESCs obtained by these protocols, we reconstructed
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The aim of the present paper is twofold. Firstly, our findings confirm the applicability of all these protocols for generating naive hESCs, due to their consistency at the transcriptome level. Secondly, we showed that in silico metabolic models of hESCs can be used to simulate the metabolic states of naive and primed pluripotency. Our models confirmed the OXPHOS activation in naive cells and showed that oxidation-reduction potential vary between naive and primed cells. Tryptophan metabolism is also outlined as a key pathway in primed pluripotency and the models suggest that decrements in the activity of this pathway might be an appropriate marker for naive pluripotency.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31485322
doi: 10.1186/s13578-019-0334-7
pii: 334
pmc: PMC6716874
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
71Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Mar 25;111(12):4484-9
pubmed: 24623855
Stem Cell Reports. 2016 Apr 12;6(4):437-446
pubmed: 26947977
Nat Protoc. 2019 Mar;14(3):639-702
pubmed: 30787451
Mol Biosyst. 2014 Nov;10(11):3014-21
pubmed: 25196995
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Oct 25;102(43):15545-50
pubmed: 16199517
Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Jan;37(1):1-13
pubmed: 19033363
Methods Mol Biol. 2019;1975:305-320
pubmed: 31062316
Nat Cell Biol. 2015 Dec;17(12):1523-35
pubmed: 26571212
Stem Cells. 2015 Sep;33(9):2686-98
pubmed: 26108678
Bioinformatics. 2015 Jan 15;31(2):166-9
pubmed: 25260700
Nat Methods. 2017 Nov;14(11):1055-1062
pubmed: 28945704
Nature. 2013 Dec 12;504(7479):282-6
pubmed: 24172903
Bioinformatics. 2012 Mar 15;28(6):882-3
pubmed: 22257669
Nature. 2007 Jul 12;448(7150):191-5
pubmed: 17597762
BMC Syst Biol. 2012 Dec 13;6:153
pubmed: 23234303
FEBS Lett. 2018 Nov;592(22):3670-3682
pubmed: 30223296
J Proteome Res. 2017 Oct 6;16(10):3585-3595
pubmed: 28850235
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Feb 6;104(6):1777-82
pubmed: 17267599
Cell Syst. 2017 Mar 22;4(3):318-329.e6
pubmed: 28215528
Pac Symp Biocomput. 2016;22:485-496
pubmed: 27897000
PLoS Comput Biol. 2008 May 16;4(5):e1000082
pubmed: 18483554
Nat Protoc. 2009;4(1):44-57
pubmed: 19131956
Cell Stem Cell. 2009 Jun 5;4(6):487-92
pubmed: 19497275
Science. 1998 Nov 6;282(5391):1145-7
pubmed: 9804556
PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Aug 27;11(8):e1004321
pubmed: 26313928
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Feb 22;102(8):2685-9
pubmed: 15710883
Bioinformatics. 2014 Aug 1;30(15):2114-20
pubmed: 24695404
Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550
pubmed: 25516281
Stem Cell Reports. 2014 Mar 06;2(3):366-81
pubmed: 24672758
Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2017 Apr;63(2):100-112
pubmed: 28085499
Nat Protoc. 2007;2(3):727-38
pubmed: 17406635
PLoS Comput Biol. 2016 Mar 04;12(3):e1004808
pubmed: 26942765
Metabolomics. 2016;12:109
pubmed: 27358602
EMBO J. 2011 Nov 15;30(24):4860-73
pubmed: 22085932
Nature. 2015 Sep 24;525(7570):469-78
pubmed: 26399828
Cell Prolif. 2015 Aug;48(4):475-85
pubmed: 26132591
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 25;105(12):4709-14
pubmed: 18339804
Cell. 2016 Mar 10;164(6):1185-1197
pubmed: 26967285
Cytotechnology. 2018 Feb;70(1):331-338
pubmed: 28980092
Gastroenterology. 2013 Aug;145(2):416-25.e1-4
pubmed: 23669411
Cell. 2014 Sep 11;158(6):1254-1269
pubmed: 25215486
Oncoimmunology. 2012 Dec 1;1(9):1460-1468
pubmed: 23264892
Int J Tryptophan Res. 2013 Sep 15;6:57-66
pubmed: 24092986
Cancer Res. 2012 Nov 1;72(21):5435-40
pubmed: 23090118
Cell Stem Cell. 2012 Nov 2;11(5):589-95
pubmed: 23122286
Nat Genet. 2003 Jul;34(3):267-73
pubmed: 12808457
Genes Dev. 2017 Feb 15;31(4):336-346
pubmed: 28314766
Nat Commun. 2017 Apr 21;8:15055
pubmed: 28429706
Cell Stem Cell. 2014 Oct 2;15(4):410-415
pubmed: 25280217
Oncol Rep. 2018 Apr;39(4):1930-1938
pubmed: 29436668
Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Sep;26(9):1003-10
pubmed: 18711341
EMBO J. 2012 May 2;31(9):2103-16
pubmed: 22446391
Cell Stem Cell. 2014 Oct 2;15(4):471-487
pubmed: 25090446
Nat Methods. 2015 Apr;12(4):357-60
pubmed: 25751142
Cancer Res. 2019 Mar 15;79(6):1138-1150
pubmed: 30679179
Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 15;25(16):2078-9
pubmed: 19505943
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 25;105(12):4820-5
pubmed: 18339803
Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2004;3:Article3
pubmed: 16646809
Mol Syst Biol. 2010 Sep 7;6:401
pubmed: 20823844
Cell. 2015 May 21;161(5):971-987
pubmed: 26000478
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39896
pubmed: 22768158
Cell Stem Cell. 2015 Dec 3;17(6):651-662
pubmed: 26637942
Cell Rep. 2017 Dec 5;21(10):2965-2977
pubmed: 29212039
J Biol Chem. 2019 Apr 5;294(14):5420-5429
pubmed: 29463682
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 May 18;107(20):9222-7
pubmed: 20442331