Abstract

Naïve human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) provide a unique experimental platform of cell fate decisions during pre-implantation development, but their lineage potential remains incompletely characterized. As naïve hPSCs share transcriptional and epigenomic signatures with trophoblast cells, it has been proposed that the naïve state may have enhanced predisposition for differentiation along this extraembryonic lineage. Here we examined the trophoblast potential of isogenic naïve and primed hPSCs. We found that naïve hPSCs can directly give rise to human trophoblast stem cells (hTSCs) and undergo further differentiation into both extravillous and syncytiotrophoblast. In contrast, primed hPSCs do not support hTSC derivation, but give rise to non-self-renewing cytotrophoblasts in response to BMP4. Global transcriptome and chromatin accessibility analyses indicate that hTSCs derived from naïve hPSCs are similar to blastocyst-derived hTSCs and acquire features of post-implantation trophectoderm. The derivation of hTSCs from naïve hPSCs will enable elucidation of early mechanisms that govern normal human trophoblast development and associated pathologies.

Data availability

The accession number for the RNA-seq and ATAC-seq data is GSE138762.

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Chen Dong

    Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Mariana Beltcheva

    Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Paul Gontarz

    Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Bo Zhang

    Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Pooja Popli

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Reproductive Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Laura A Fischer

    Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Shafqat A Khan

    Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Kyoung-mi Park

    Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Eun-Ja Yoon

    Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Xiaoyun Xing

    Department of Genetics, Center for Genome Sciences & Systems Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Ramakrishna Kommagani

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0403-0971
  12. Ting Wang

    Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Lilianna Solnica-Krezel

    Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    Lilianna Solnica-Krezel, Reviewing editor, eLife.
  14. Thorold W Theunissen

    Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, United States
    For correspondence
    t.theunissen@wustl.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6943-7858

Funding

Children's Discovery Institute (CDI-LI-2019-819)

  • Lilianna Solnica-Krezel
  • Thorold W Theunissen

McDonnell Center for Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology (22-3930-26275D)

  • Thorold W Theunissen

NIH Director's New Innovator Award (DP2 GM137418)

  • Thorold W Theunissen

Shipley Foundation Program for Innovation in Stem Cell Science

  • Thorold W Theunissen

Edward Mallinckrodt Jr Foundation

  • Thorold W Theunissen

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Marianne E Bronner, California Institute of Technology, United States

Version history

  1. Received: October 6, 2019
  2. Accepted: February 11, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 12, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 9, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Dong et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 12,903
    views
  • 1,867
    downloads
  • 202
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Chen Dong
  2. Mariana Beltcheva
  3. Paul Gontarz
  4. Bo Zhang
  5. Pooja Popli
  6. Laura A Fischer
  7. Shafqat A Khan
  8. Kyoung-mi Park
  9. Eun-Ja Yoon
  10. Xiaoyun Xing
  11. Ramakrishna Kommagani
  12. Ting Wang
  13. Lilianna Solnica-Krezel
  14. Thorold W Theunissen
(2020)
Derivation of trophoblast stem cells from naïve human pluripotent stem cells
eLife 9:e52504.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52504

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52504

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Pascal Forcella, Niklas Ifflander ... Verdon Taylor
    Research Article

    Neural stem cells (NSCs) are multipotent and correct fate determination is crucial to guarantee brain formation and homeostasis. How NSCs are instructed to generate neuronal or glial progeny is not well understood. Here we addressed how murine adult hippocampal NSC fate is regulated and describe how Scaffold Attachment Factor B (SAFB) blocks oligodendrocyte production to enable neuron generation. We found that SAFB prevents NSC expression of the transcription factor Nuclear Factor I/B (NFIB) by binding to sequences in the Nfib mRNA and enhancing Drosha-dependent cleavage of the transcripts. We show that increasing SAFB expression prevents oligodendrocyte production by multipotent adult NSCs, and conditional deletion of Safb increases NFIB expression and oligodendrocyte formation in the adult hippocampus. Our results provide novel insights into a mechanism that controls Drosha functions for selective regulation of NSC fate by modulating the post-transcriptional destabilization of Nfib mRNA in a lineage-specific manner.

    1. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Sangeetha Kandoi, Cassandra Martinez ... Deepak A Lamba
    Research Article

    Retinitis pigmentosa (RP), a heterogenous group of inherited retinal disorder, causes slow progressive vision loss with no effective treatments available. Mutations in the rhodopsin gene (RHO) account for ~25% cases of autosomal dominant RP (adRP). In this study, we describe the disease characteristics of the first-ever reported mono-allelic copy number variation (CNV) in RHO as a novel cause of adRP. We (a) show advanced retinal degeneration in a male patient (68 years of age) harboring four transcriptionally active intact copies of rhodopsin, (b) recapitulated the clinical phenotypes using retinal organoids, and (c) assessed the utilization of a small molecule, Photoregulin3 (PR3), as a clinically viable strategy to target and modify disease progression in RP patients associated with RHO-CNV. Patient retinal organoids showed photoreceptors dysgenesis, with rod photoreceptors displaying stunted outer segments with occasional elongated cilia-like projections (microscopy); increased RHO mRNA expression (quantitative real-time PCR [qRT-PCR] and bulk RNA sequencing); and elevated levels and mislocalization of rhodopsin protein (RHO) within the cell body of rod photoreceptors (western blotting and immunohistochemistry) over the extended (300 days) culture time period when compared against control organoids. Lastly, we utilized PR3 to target NR2E3, an upstream regulator of RHO, to alter RHO expression and observed a partial rescue of RHO protein localization from the cell body to the inner/outer segments of rod photoreceptors in patient organoids. These results provide a proof-of-principle for personalized medicine and suggest that RHO expression requires precise control. Taken together, this study supports the clinical data indicating that RHO-CNV associated adRPdevelops as a result of protein overexpression, thereby overloading the photoreceptor post-translational modification machinery.