Equivalence of conventionally-derived and parthenote-derived human embryonic stem cells.
BACKGROUND
As human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines can be derived via multiple means, it is important to determine particular characteristics of individual lines that may dictate the applications to which they are best suited. The objective of this work was to determine points of equivalence and differences between conventionally-derived hESC and parthenote-derived hESC lines (phESC) in the undifferentiated state and during neural differentiation.


RESULTS
hESC and phESC were exposed to the same expansion conditions and subsequent neural and retinal pigmented epithelium (RPE) differentiation protocols. Growth rates and gross morphology were recorded during expansion. RTPCR for developmentally relevant genes and global DNA methylation profiling were used to compare gene expression and epigenetic characteristics. Parthenote lines proliferated more slowly than conventional hESC lines and yielded lower quantities of less mature differentiated cells in a neural progenitor cell (NPC) differentiation protocol. However, the cell lines performed similarly in a RPE differentiation protocol. The DNA methylation analysis showed similar general profiles, but the two cell types differed in methylation of imprinted genes. There were no major differences in gene expression between the lines before differentiation, but when differentiated into NPCs, the two cell types differed in expression of extracellular matrix (ECM) genes.


CONCLUSIONS
These data show that hESC and phESC are similar in the undifferentiated state, and both cell types are capable of differentiation along neural lineages. The differences between the cell types, in proliferation and extent of differentiation, may be linked, in part, to the observed differences in ECM synthesis and methylation of imprinted genes.
Reeve-Irvine Research Center, Sue and Bill Gross Stem Cell Research Center, Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, School of Medicine, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, California, United States of America.
Julie V
JV
Harness
Nikolay A
NA
Turovets
Magdalene J
MJ
Seiler
Gabriel
G
Nistor
Gulsah
G
Altun
Larissa S
LS
Agapova
David
D
Ferguson
Louise C
LC
Laurent
Jeanne F
JF
Loring
Hans S
HS
Keirstead
D002454:Cell Differentiation; D049109:Cell Proliferation; D019175:DNA Methylation; D053595:Embryonic Stem Cells / Q000166:cytology*; D016326:Extracellular Matrix Proteins / Q000235:genetics; D015870:Gene Expression; D006801:Humans; D058953:Neural Stem Cells / Q000166:cytology*; D009474:Neurons; D010312:Parthenogenesis
D016326:Extracellular Matrix Proteins
J Biol Chem. 2003 Oct 17;278(42):40989-95
12900406
Science. 1998 Nov 6;282(5391):1145-7
9804556
Cloning Stem Cells. 2004;6(3):217-45
15671670
Stem Cells. 2006 Feb;24(2):221-9
16109762
Eur J Neurosci. 1998 Aug;10(8):2746-50
9767406
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1995 Feb;36(2):391-405
7531185
Stem Cell Rev. 2005;1(2):151-8
17142850
Cell Res. 2007 Dec;17(12):999-1007
18040289
Stem Cells. 2009 Oct;27(10):2427-34
19658190
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008 Sep;49(9):4089-95
18450587
Int Rev Cytol. 1997;171:225-66
9066129
Cell. 2007 Nov 30;131(5):861-72
18035408
Cloning Stem Cells. 2007 Fall;9(3):432-49
17594198
Dev Biol. 1994 Feb;161(2):440-54
8313994
Nature. 2006 Nov 23;444(7118):481-5
16929302
J Neurochem. 2005 Sep;94(5):1169-79
16045455
Stem Cells. 2004;22(4):448-56
15277692
J Pathol. 2009 Mar;217(4):589-96
19142973
Cell Res. 2007 Dec;17(12):1008-19
18071366
Cloning Stem Cells. 2008 Mar;10(1):11-24
18092905
J Biol Chem. 1996 Jan 19;271(3):1544-50
8576151
Science. 2007 Dec 21;318(5858):1917-20
18029452
Exp Eye Res. 1996 Jan;62(1):63-73
8674514