Article

What can pluripotent stem cells teach us about neurodegenerative diseases?

Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Nature Neuroscience (Impact Factor: 14.98). 07/2010; 13(7):800-4. DOI: 10.1038/nn.2577
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Neurodegenerative diseases represent a growing public health challenge. Current medications treat symptoms, but none halt or retard neurodegeneration. The recent advent of pluripotent cell biology has opened new avenues for neurodegenerative disease research. The greatest potential for induced pluripotent cells derived from affected individuals is likely to be their utility for modeling and understanding the mechanisms underlying neurodegenerative processes, and for searching for new treatments, including cell replacement therapies. However, much work remains to be done before pluripotent cells can be used for preclinical and clinical applications. Here we discuss the challenges of generating specific neural cell subtypes from pluripotent stem cells, the use of pluripotent stem cells to model both cell-autonomous and non-cell-autonomous mechanisms of neurodegeneration, whether adult-onset neurodegeneration can be emulated in short-term cultures and the hurdles of cell replacement therapy. Progress in these four areas will substantially accelerate effective application of pluripotent stem cells.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Hynek Wichterle, Aug 22, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
108 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Astrocytes play a critical role during the development and the maintenance of the CNS in health and disease. Yet, their lack of accessibility from fetuses and from the brain of diseased patients has hindered our understanding of their full implication in developmental and pathogenic processes. Human pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) are an alternative source to obtain large quantities of astrocytes in vitro, for mechanistic studies of development and disease. However, these studies often require highly pure populations of astrocytes, which are not always achieved, depending on the PSC lines and protocols used. Here, we describe the generation and characterization of human PSC reporter lines expressing TagRFP driven by the ABC1D region of the human GFAP promoter, as new cellular model for generating homogenous population of astrocytes generated from CNS regionally defined PSC-derived neural progenitors. GFAABC1D::TagRFP-expressing astrocytes can be purified by fluorescent-activated cell sorting and maintain a bright expression for several additional weeks. These express canonical astrocyte markers NF1A, S100β, CX43, GLAST, GS and CD44. These new cellular models, from which highly pure populations of fluorescence-expressing astrocytes can be obtained, provide a new platform for studies where pure or fluorescently labeled astrocyte populations are necessary, for example to assess pro-inflammatory cytokine and chemokine release in response to specific treatment, and uptake and degradation of fluorescently labeled pathogenic proteins, as reported in this study. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.
    Stem Cell Research 06/2015; 565(1). DOI:10.1016/j.scr.2015.05.014 · 3.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Remarkable advances in cellular reprogramming have made it possible to generate pluripotent stem cells from somatic cells, such as fibroblasts obtained from human skin biopsies. As a result, human diseases can now be investigated in relevant cell populations derived from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) of patients. The rapid growth of iPSC technology has turned these cells into multipurpose basic and clinical research tools. In this paper, we highlight the roles of iPSC technology that are helping us to understand and potentially treat neurological diseases. Recent studies using iPSCs to model various neurogenetic disorders are summarized, and we discuss the therapeutic implications of iPSCs, including drug screening and cell therapy for neurogenetic disorders. Although iPSCs have been used in animal models with promising results to treat neurogenetic disorders, there are still many issues associated with reprogramming that must be addressed before iPSC technology can be fully exploited with translation to the clinic.
    Neural Plasticity 07/2012; 2012:346053. DOI:10.1155/2012/346053 · 3.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A major goal in regenerative medicine is the predictable manipulation of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) to defined cell fates that faithfully represent their somatic counterparts. Directed differentiation of hESCs into neuronal populations has galvanized much interest into their potential application in modelling neurodegenerative disease. However, neurodegenerative diseases are age-related, and therefore establishing the maturational comparability of hESC-derived neural derivatives is critical to generating accurate in vitro model systems. We address this issue by comparing genome-wide, exon-specific expression analyses of pluripotent hESCs, multipotent neural precursor cells and a terminally differentiated enriched neuronal population to expression data from post-mortem foetal and adult human brain samples. We show that hESC-derived neuronal cultures (using a midbrain differentiation protocol as a prototypic example of lineage restriction), while successful in generating physiologically functional neurons, are closer to foetal than adult human brain in terms of molecular maturation. These findings suggest that developmental stage has a more dominant influence on the cellular transcriptome than regional identity. In addition, we demonstrate that developmentally regulated gene splicing is common, and potentially a more sensitive measure of maturational state than gene expression profiling alone. In summary, this study highlights the value of genomic indices in refining and validating optimal cell populations appropriate for modelling ageing and neurodegeneration.
    Journal of Neurochemistry 06/2012; 122(4):738-51. DOI:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2012.07825.x · 4.24 Impact Factor