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

  • 1,938
    views
  • 306
    downloads
  • 22
    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. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Sujeethkumar Prithiviraj, Alejandro Garcia Garcia ... Paul E Bourgine
    Research Article

    Tissue engineering strategies predominantly rely on the production of living substitutes, whereby implanted cells actively participate in the regenerative process. Beyond cost and delayed graft availability, the patient-specific performance of engineered tissues poses serious concerns on their clinical translation ability. A more exciting paradigm consists in exploiting cell-laid, engineered extracellular matrices (eECMs), which can be used as off-the-shelf materials. Here, the regenerative capacity solely relies on the preservation of the eECM structure and embedded signals to instruct an endogenous repair. We recently described the possibility to exploit custom human stem cell lines for eECM manufacturing. In addition to the conferred standardization, the availability of such cell lines opened avenues for the design of tailored eECMs by applying dedicated genetic tools. In this study, we demonstrated the exploitation of CRISPR/Cas9 as a high precision system for editing the composition and function of eECMs. Human mesenchymal stromal/stem cell (hMSC) lines were modified to knock out vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and Runt-related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2) and assessed for their capacity to generate osteoinductive cartilage matrices. We report the successful editing of hMSCs, subsequently leading to targeted VEGF and RUNX2-knockout cartilage eECMs. Despite the absence of VEGF, eECMs retained full capacity to instruct ectopic endochondral ossification. Conversely, RUNX2-edited eECMs exhibited impaired hypertrophy, reduced ectopic ossification, and superior cartilage repair in a rat osteochondral defect. In summary, our approach can be harnessed to identify the necessary eECM factors driving endogenous repair. Our work paves the road toward the compositional eECMs editing and their exploitation in broad regenerative contexts.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Joshua G Medina-Feliciano, Griselle Valentín-Tirado ... José E Garcia-Arraras
    Research Article

    In holothurians, the regenerative process following evisceration involves the development of a ‘rudiment’ or ‘anlage’ at the injured end of the mesentery. This regenerating anlage plays a pivotal role in the formation of a new intestine. Despite its significance, our understanding of the molecular characteristics inherent to the constituent cells of this structure has remained limited. To address this gap, we employed state-of-the-art scRNA-seq and hybridization chain reaction fluorescent in situ hybridization analyses to discern the distinct cellular populations associated with the regeneration anlage. Through this approach, we successfully identified 13 distinct cell clusters. Among these, two clusters exhibit characteristics consistent with putative mesenchymal cells, while another four show features akin to coelomocyte cell populations. The remaining seven cell clusters collectively form a large group encompassing the coelomic epithelium of the regenerating anlage and mesentery. Within this large group of clusters, we recognized previously documented cell populations such as muscle precursors, neuroepithelial cells, and actively proliferating cells. Strikingly, our analysis provides data for identifying at least four other cellular populations that we define as the precursor cells of the growing anlage. Consequently, our findings strengthen the hypothesis that the coelomic epithelium of the anlage is a pluripotent tissue that gives rise to diverse cell types of the regenerating intestinal organ. Moreover, our results provide the initial view into the transcriptomic analysis of cell populations responsible for the amazing regenerative capabilities of echinoderms.