Abstract

Deletion of Sox2 from mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) causes trophectodermal differentiation. While this can be prevented by enforced expression of the related SOXB1 proteins, SOX1 or SOX3, the roles of SOXB1 proteins in epiblast stem cell (EpiSC) pluripotency are unknown. Here we show that Sox2 can be deleted from EpiSCs with impunity. This is due to a shift in the balance of SoxB1 expression in EpiSCs, which have decreased Sox2 and increased Sox3 compared to ESCs. Consistent with functional redundancy, Sox3 can also be deleted from EpiSCs without eliminating self-renewal. However, deletion of both Sox2 and Sox3 prevents self-renewal. The overall SOXB1 levels in ESCs affect differentiation choices: neural differentiation of Sox2 heterozygous ESCs is compromised, while increased SOXB1 levels divert the ESC to EpiSC transition towards neural differentiation. Therefore, optimal SOXB1 levels are critical for each pluripotent state and for cell fate decisions during exit from naïve pluripotency.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andrea Corsinotti

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Frederick CK Wong

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Tülin Tatar

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Iwona Szczerbinska

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Florian Halbritter

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2452-4784
  6. Douglas Colby

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Sabine Gogolok

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Raphaël Pantier

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Kirsten Liggat

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Elham S Mirfazeli

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Elisa Hall-Ponsele

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Nicholas P Mullin

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Valerie Wilson

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    v.wilson@ed.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4182-5159
  14. Ian Chambers

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    ichambers@ed.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2605-1597

Funding

Medical Research Council

  • Andrea Corsinotti
  • Frederick CK Wong
  • Florian Halbritter
  • Douglas Colby
  • Nicholas P Mullin
  • Valerie Wilson
  • Ian Chambers

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  • Elisa Hall-Ponsele
  • Ian Chambers

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animal experiments were performed under the UK Home Office project license PPL60/4435, approved by the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Panel of the MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine and within the conditions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

Copyright

© 2017, Corsinotti 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

  • 1,923
    views
  • 305
    downloads
  • 19
    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. Andrea Corsinotti
  2. Frederick CK Wong
  3. Tülin Tatar
  4. Iwona Szczerbinska
  5. Florian Halbritter
  6. Douglas Colby
  7. Sabine Gogolok
  8. Raphaël Pantier
  9. Kirsten Liggat
  10. Elham S Mirfazeli
  11. Elisa Hall-Ponsele
  12. Nicholas P Mullin
  13. Valerie Wilson
  14. Ian Chambers
(2017)
Distinct SoxB1 networks are required for naive and primed pluripotency
eLife 6:e27746.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27746

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27746

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Alejandro J Brenes, Eva Griesser ... Angus I Lamond
    Research Article

    Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) have great potential to be used as alternatives to embryonic stem cells (hESCs) in regenerative medicine and disease modelling. In this study, we characterise the proteomes of multiple hiPSC and hESC lines derived from independent donors and find that while they express a near-identical set of proteins, they show consistent quantitative differences in the abundance of a subset of proteins. hiPSCs have increased total protein content, while maintaining a comparable cell cycle profile to hESCs, with increased abundance of cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins required to sustain high growth rates, including nutrient transporters and metabolic proteins. Prominent changes detected in proteins involved in mitochondrial metabolism correlated with enhanced mitochondrial potential, shown using high-resolution respirometry. hiPSCs also produced higher levels of secreted proteins, including growth factors and proteins involved in the inhibition of the immune system. The data indicate that reprogramming of fibroblasts to hiPSCs produces important differences in cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins compared to hESCs, with consequences affecting growth and metabolism. This study improves our understanding of the molecular differences between hiPSCs and hESCs, with implications for potential risks and benefits for their use in future disease modelling and therapeutic applications.

    1. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Mami Matsuo-Takasaki, Sho Kambayashi ... Yohei Hayashi
    Tools and Resources

    Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) are promising resources for producing various types of tissues in regenerative medicine; however, the improvement in a scalable culture system that can precisely control the cellular status of hiPSCs is needed. Utilizing suspension culture without microcarriers or special materials allows for massive production, automation, cost-effectiveness, and safety assurance in industrialized regenerative medicine. Here, we found that hiPSCs cultured in suspension conditions with continuous agitation without microcarriers or extracellular matrix components were more prone to spontaneous differentiation than those cultured in conventional adherent conditions. Adding PKCβ and Wnt signaling pathway inhibitors in the suspension conditions suppressed the spontaneous differentiation of hiPSCs into ectoderm and mesendoderm, respectively. In these conditions, we successfully completed the culture processes of hiPSCs, including the generation of hiPSCs from peripheral blood mononuclear cells with the expansion of bulk population and single-cell sorted clones, long-term culture with robust self-renewal characteristics, single-cell cloning, direct cryopreservation from suspension culture and their successful recovery, and efficient mass production of a clinical-grade hiPSC line. Our results demonstrate that precise control of the cellular status in suspension culture conditions paves the way for their stable and automated clinical application.