A panel of induced pluripotent stem cells from chimpanzees: a resource for comparative functional genomics

  1. Irene Gallego Romero  Is a corresponding author
  2. Bryan J Pavlovic
  3. Irene Hernando-Herraez
  4. Xiang Zhou
  5. Michelle C Ward
  6. Nicholas E Banovich
  7. Courtney L Kagan
  8. Jonathan E Burnett
  9. Constance H Huang
  10. Amy Mitrano
  11. Claudia I Chavarria
  12. Inbar Friedrich Ben-Nun
  13. Yingchun Li
  14. Karen Sabatini
  15. Trevor R Leonardo
  16. Mana Parast
  17. Tomas Marques-Bonet
  18. Louise C Laurent
  19. Jeanne F Loring
  20. Yoav Gilad
  1. University of Chicago, United States
  2. Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, Spain
  3. University of Michigan, United States
  4. Lonza Walkersville, Inc., United States
  5. University of California San Diego, United States
  6. The Scripps Research Institute, United States
  7. Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medicine, United States

Abstract

Comparative genomics studies in primates are restricted due to our limited access to samples. In order to gain better insight into the genetic processes that underlie variation in complex phenotypes in primates, we must have access to faithful model systems for a wide range of cell types. To facilitate this, we generated a panel of 7 fully characterized chimpanzee induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) lines derived from healthy donors. To demonstrate the utility of comparative iPSC panels, we collected RNA-sequencing and DNA methylation data from the chimpanzee iPSCs and the corresponding fibroblast lines, as well as from 7 human iPSCs and their source lines, which encompass multiple populations and cell types. We observe much less within-species variation in iPSCs than in somatic cells, indicating the reprogramming process erases many inter-individual differences. The low within-species regulatory variation in iPSCs allowed us to identify many novel inter-species regulatory differences of small magnitude.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Irene Gallego Romero

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    For correspondence
    ireneg@uchicago.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Bryan J Pavlovic

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Irene Hernando-Herraez

    Institute of Evolutionary Biology, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Xiang Zhou

    Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Michelle C Ward

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Nicholas E Banovich

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Courtney L Kagan

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jonathan E Burnett

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Constance H Huang

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Amy Mitrano

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Claudia I Chavarria

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Inbar Friedrich Ben-Nun

    n/a, Lonza Walkersville, Inc., Walkersville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Yingchun Li

    Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Karen Sabatini

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Department of Chemical Physiology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Trevor R Leonardo

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Department of Chemical Physiology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Mana Parast

    Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Tomas Marques-Bonet

    Institute of Evolutionary Biology, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Louise C Laurent

    n/a, Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medicine, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Jeanne F Loring

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Department of Chemical Physiology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Yoav Gilad

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Gallego Romero 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

  • 4,976
    views
  • 824
    downloads
  • 113
    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. Irene Gallego Romero
  2. Bryan J Pavlovic
  3. Irene Hernando-Herraez
  4. Xiang Zhou
  5. Michelle C Ward
  6. Nicholas E Banovich
  7. Courtney L Kagan
  8. Jonathan E Burnett
  9. Constance H Huang
  10. Amy Mitrano
  11. Claudia I Chavarria
  12. Inbar Friedrich Ben-Nun
  13. Yingchun Li
  14. Karen Sabatini
  15. Trevor R Leonardo
  16. Mana Parast
  17. Tomas Marques-Bonet
  18. Louise C Laurent
  19. Jeanne F Loring
  20. Yoav Gilad
(2015)
A panel of induced pluripotent stem cells from chimpanzees: a resource for comparative functional genomics
eLife 4:e07103.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07103

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07103

Further reading

    1. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Tino Stauber, Greta Moschini ... Jess G Snedeker
    Research Article

    Tendinopathies are debilitating diseases currently increasing in prevalence and associated costs. There is a need to deepen our understanding of the underlying cell signaling pathways to unlock effective treatments. In this work, we screen cell signaling pathways in human tendinopathies and find positively enriched IL-6/JAK/STAT signaling alongside signatures of cell populations typically activated by IL-6 in other tissues. In human tendinopathic tendons, we also confirm the strong presence and co-localization of IL-6, IL-6R, and CD90, an established marker of reparative fibroblasts. To dissect the underlying causalities, we combine IL-6 knock-out mice with an explant-based assembloid model of tendon damage to successfully connect IL-6 signaling to reparative fibroblast activation and recruitment. Vice versa, we show that these reparative fibroblasts promote the development of tendinopathy hallmarks in the damaged explant upon IL-6 activation. We conclude that IL-6 activates tendon fibroblast populations which then initiate and deteriorate tendinopathy hallmarks.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Kara A Nelson, Kari F Lenhart ... Stephen DiNardo
    Research Article

    Niches are often found in specific positions in tissues relative to the stem cells they support. Consistency of niche position suggests that placement is important for niche function. However, the complexity of most niches has precluded a thorough understanding of how their proper placement is established. To address this, we investigated the formation of a genetically tractable niche, the Drosophila Posterior Signaling Center (PSC), the assembly of which had not been previously explored. This niche controls hematopoietic progenitors of the lymph gland (LG). PSC cells were previously shown to be specified laterally in the embryo, but ultimately reside dorsally, at the LG posterior. Here, using live-imaging, we show that PSC cells migrate as a tight collective and associate with multiple tissues during their trajectory to the LG posterior. We find that Slit emanating from two extrinsic sources, visceral mesoderm and cardioblasts, is required for the PSC to remain a collective, and for its attachment to cardioblasts during migration. Without proper Slit-Robo signaling, PSC cells disperse, form aberrant contacts, and ultimately fail to reach their stereotypical position near progenitors. Our work characterizes a novel example of niche formation and identifies an extrinsic signaling relay that controls precise niche positioning.