Cell reprogramming: Into the groove.
Yan Xu,Longqi Liu,Andrew L Laslett,Miguel A Esteban
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3821
IF: 41.2
2013-01-01
Nature Materials
Abstract:Biophysical cues — in the form of insoluble signals from adhesive, mechanical or topological cues — can be important driving forces in embryonic development, adult tissue homeostasis and disease1. For example, randomization of left–right embryonic patterning caused by defects in the primary cilium (an antenna-like sensory organelle), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy induced by pressure overload (from hypertension, for instance) and cell invasion induced by deregulated remodelling of the extracellular matrix in cancer2, all involve cellular responses to biomechanical cues. Growing evidence also shows that biophysical cues help control the fate of adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells (ESCs). In fact, matrices mimicking the stiffness of brain, muscle or bone induce human mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) to differentiate, in identical media conditions, into the corresponding specialized cell types3. Also, the outcomes of human MSC and ESC differentiation can be influenced by modifying the lateral spacing of adhesion peptides4 or by controlling colony size5, respectively. However, except for the production of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) in stirred suspension culture6 and the role of extracellular collagen in mediating fibroblast reprogramming7, little is known about the effects of biophysical cues on cell reprogramming. Writing in Nature Materials, Song Li and colleagues demonstrate that iPSC generation by exogenous transcription factors can be significantly enhanced by seeding mouse or human fibroblasts onto polymer substrates with parallel microgrooves or onto aligned nanofibrous polymer scaffolds8. The researchers also show that the micro- and nanopatterned substrates increase the expression of epithelial and pluripotency genes by inducing the cells to acquire a more elongated shape, which through the mediation of mechanical signals transmitted by the cytoskeleton affects the acetylation and methylation patterns of the DNA-packaging histones. Cell reprogramming has been traditionally viewed as a slow and inefficient multistep process in which cells must overcome a series of barriers to reach an ESC-like pluripotent state9. This is not surprising, because the organization of chromatin in somatic cells is more compact than in ESCs, and thus a significant degree of unwinding is necessary to produce iPSCs9. One of the first noticeable check points in this course is a mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition (MET), which coincides with the loss of somatic-cell characteristics and precedes the activation of pluripotency genes10. Epigenetic regulators — in particular histone deacetylases (HDACs), demethylases and methyltransferases — exert very tight control over the MET phase of reprogramming and the subsequent events9. Interestingly, Li and co-authors show that patterned surfaces enhance reprogramming in part by reducing the expression of HDAC2 and increasing that of the WD repeat domain 5 (WDR5) — a core subunit of histone methyltransferase protein complexes8 (Fig. 1). HDAC2 is a barrier for microRNA-based reprogramming11, and HDAC inhibitors (including valproic acid; VPA) are among the most potent reprogramming promoters12. Conversely, WDR5 is an essential regulator of the ESC pluripotency network and is required for reprogramming13. A decrease in the expression of HDAC2 and an increase in that of WDR5 result in both increased histone 3 (H3) acetylation and H3 lysine 4 (K4) di- or trimethylation on epithelial gene promoters (for example, E-cadherin) as well as on pluripotency gene promoters (such as Oct4, Sox2 and Nanog), allowing a more efficient transition to pluripotency8. Consequently, growing somatic cells on surfaces with micro- or nanotopographical features mimics the potentiating effects on reprogramming of VPA or lysine demethylase inhibitors that promote H3 acetylation and H3K4 methylation, respectively. Interestingly, such epigenetic modifications (in particular the gain of acetylated H3) correlate with those triggered by mechanical stress in other settings (such as in MSCs or vascular cells1), suggesting that the application of external forces on cells grown on standard surfaces has similar consequences. Yet, our understanding of how mechanical signals affect histone methylation and acetylation patterns during reprogramming remains far from complete. For example, how cell elongation changes the expression of HDAC2 and WDR5 is unknown. Li and colleagues used blebbistatin (an inhibitor of actomyosin contractility) to show that the cytoskeleton is involved8. Still, further work will be needed to find out whether the cytoskeleton modulates gene expression and reprogramming indirectly through intracellular pathways (such as TGF-β signalling1), or if there is a direct chromatin effect that arises as a result of changes in nuclear shape (which most often correlates with cell shape). If the mechanotransduction mechanism turns out to be direct, it could be initiated genome-wide or triggered by specialized nuclear mechanosensitive switches (such as the exogenous transcription factors used for reprogramming). Although it is unclear whether substrate-enhanced cell reprogramming is a general phenomenon (Li and co-authors only examined fibroblasts, and in the case of epithelial cells, cell stretching on micropatterned substrates may change their characteristics and prevent reprogramming), their work opens the door to studying the potentially synergistic effects of the substrate's rheological and surface properties on cell reprogramming. The latter could be tuned by coating substrates with different extracellular-matrix proteins. Also, it will be imperative to test whether the modified substrates influence iPSC quality, which would require tetraploid complementation experiments (for mouse iPSCs) and comprehensive genomic analysis (of copy number variations and point mutations, for instance)9. Still, although long-term safety of any human iPSC-derived products can only be truly assessed by government-regulated human clinical trials after extensive in vitro and animal experimentation, it is reasonable to suggest that the passive modification of surfaces to improve reprogramming efficiency may be safer than the use of chemical compounds such as VPA. Moreover, complementing recent discoveries on near-100% reprogramming efficiency14 and pure chemical reprogramming15, Li and colleagues' work reinforces the general idea that biophysical cues play a fundamental role in changing the identity of cells, and highlights the importance of optimizing both biophysical and biochemical parameters of differentiation protocols to emulate the native cell environment. Biophysical cues could also be selectively employed for improving the generation of specific cell lineages by means of transdifferentiation. In addition to being key to in vitro experimentation, specifically optimized biomaterials may also enhance cell fate conversions in vivo. Overall, hybrid approaches combining chemicals (without exogenous factors) and appropriately patterned cell-growth substrates might allow efficient cell fate conversions (reprogramming, differentiation and transdifferentiation) both in vitro and in vivo. Download references