Save
Email
Print
ShareMay 9, 2011 — Stem cells are considered by many to be promising candidate sources of cells for therapies to regenerate and repair diseased tissues. There are two types of stem cell considered in this context: embryonic stem (ES) cells, which are derived from early embryos; and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, which are derived by reprogramming cells of the body such that they have the ability to generate any cell type.
Recent data indicate that ES and iPS cells are molecularly different, raising the possibility that cells derived from these two sources could be distinct.
A team of researchers, led by Darrell Kotton and Gustavo Mostoslavsky, at Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, has now, however, determined that mouse iPS and parental ES cells show highly similar capacity to be differentiated in vitro into definitive endoderm progenitors -- the cells from which thyroid, lung, liver, and pancreas are derived. Importantly, there was considerable overlap between the genetic programs of definitive endoderm derived from ES and iPS cells in vitro and definitive endoderm isolated from mouse embryos.
The authors therefore conclude that their data support the notion that iPS cells could be used for the development of cell-based therapies for diseased endoderm-derived tissues.
Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Journal of Clinical Investigation, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Journal Reference:
- Constantina Christodoulou, Tyler A. Longmire, Steven S. Shen, Alice Bourdon, Cesar A. Sommer, Paul Gadue, Avrum Spira, Valerie Gouon-Evans, George J. Murphy, Gustavo Mostoslavsky, Darrell N. Kotton. Mouse ES and iPS cells can form similar definitive endoderm despite differences in imprinted genes. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2011; DOI: 10.1172/JCI43853
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
more 
