1. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
Download icon

Inhibition of DYRK1A disrupts neural lineage specification in human pluripotent stem cells

  1. Stephanie F Bellmaine
  2. Dmitry A Ovchinnikov
  3. David T Manallack
  4. Claire E Cuddy
  5. Andrew G Elefanty
  6. Edouard G Stanley
  7. Ernst J Wolvetang
  8. Spencer J Williams
  9. Martin Pera  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Melbourne, Australia
  2. University of Queensland, Australia
  3. Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Australia
  4. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, The Royal Children's Hospital, Australia
Research Article
  • Cited 8
  • Views 1,724
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2017;6:e24502 doi: 10.7554/eLife.24502

Abstract

Genetic analysis has revealed that the dual specificity protein kinase DYRK1A has multiple roles in the development of the central nervous system. Increased DYRK1A gene dosage, such as occurs in Down syndrome, affects neural progenitor cell differentiation, while haploinsufficiency of DYRK1A is associated with severe microcephaly. Using a set of known and newly synthesized DYRK1A inhibitors, along with CRISPR-mediated gene activation and shRNA knockdown of DYRK1A, we show that chemical inhibition or genetic knockdown of DYRK1A interferes with neural specification of human pluripotent stem cells, a process equating to the earliest stage of human brain development. DYRK1A inhibition insulates the self-renewing subpopulation of human pluripotent stem cells from powerful signals that drive neural induction. Our results suggest a novel mechanism for the disruptive effects of loss of DYRK1A during early mammalian development, and reveal a requirement for DYRK1A in the acquisition of competence for differentiation in human pluripotent stem cells.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Stephanie F Bellmaine

    School of Chemistry and Bio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Dmitry A Ovchinnikov

    Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. David T Manallack

    Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Claire E Cuddy

    Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Andrew G Elefanty

    Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Edouard G Stanley

    Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Ernst J Wolvetang

    Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2146-6614
  8. Spencer J Williams

    School of Chemistry and Bio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Martin Pera

    Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    For correspondence
    mpera@unimelb.edu.au
    Competing interests
    Martin Pera, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6239-0428

Funding

Australian Research Council (Special Research Initiative SR1101002)

  • Dmitry A Ovchinnikov
  • Andrew G Elefanty
  • Edouard G Stanley
  • Ernst J Wolvetang
  • Martin Pera

National Health and Medical Research Council (Senior Research Fellowship)

  • Andrew G Elefanty
  • Edouard G Stanley

University of Melbourne (Strategic APA)

  • Stephanie F Bellmaine
  • Spencer J Williams
  • Martin Pera

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Lee L Rubin, Harvard Stem Cell Institute, Harvard University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: December 22, 2016
  2. Accepted: September 1, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 8, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 25, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2017, Bellmaine 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

  • 1,724
    Page views
  • 397
    Downloads
  • 8
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Kacy L Gordon et al.
    Research Article

    Stem cells reside in and rely upon their niche to maintain stemness but must balance self-renewal with the production of daughters that leave the niche to differentiate. We discovered a mechanism of stem cell niche exit in the canonical C. elegans distal tip cell (DTC) germ stem cell niche mediated by previously unobserved, thin, membranous protrusions of the adjacent somatic gonad cell pair (Sh1). A disproportionate number of germ cell divisions were observed at the DTC-Sh1 interface. Stem-like and differentiating cell fates segregated across this boundary. Spindles polarized, pairs of daughter cells oriented between the DTC and Sh1, and Sh1 grew over the Sh1-facing daughter. Impeding Sh1 growth by RNAi to cofilin and Arp2/3 perturbed the DTC-Sh1 interface, reduced germ cell proliferation, and shifted a differentiation marker. Because Sh1 membrane protrusions eluded detection for decades, it is possible that similar structures actively regulate niche exit in other systems.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Louise Menendez et al.
    Research Article

    The mechanoreceptive sensory hair cells in the inner ear are selectively vulnerable to numerous genetic and environmental insults. In mammals, hair cells lack regenerative capacity, and their death leads to permanent hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction. Their paucity and inaccessibility has limited the search for otoprotective and regenerative strategies. Growing hair cells in vitro would provide a route to overcome this experimental bottleneck. We report a combination of four transcription factors (Six1, Atoh1, Pou4f3, and Gfi1) that can convert mouse embryonic fibroblasts, adult tail-tip fibroblasts and postnatal supporting cells into induced hair cell-like cells (iHCs). iHCs exhibit hair cell-like morphology, transcriptomic and epigenetic profiles, electrophysiological properties, mechanosensory channel expression, and vulnerability to ototoxin in a high-content phenotypic screening system. Thus, direct reprogramming provides a platform to identify causes and treatments for hair cell loss, and may help identify future gene therapy approaches for restoring hearing.