Proteomic and functional comparison between human induced and embryonic stem cells

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The authors compared four types of hiPSCs and four types of hESCs at the proteome level to elucidate the differences between hiPSCs and hESCs. Semi-quantitative calculations of protein copy numbers revealed increased protein content in iPSCs. Particularly in iPSCs, proteins related to mitochondrial and cytoplasmic were suggested to reflect the state of the original differentiated cells to some extent. However, the most important result of this study is the calculation of the protein copy numbers per cell, and the validity of this result is problematic. In addition, several experiments need to be improved, such as using cells of different genders (iPSC: female, ESC: male) in mitochondrial metabolism experiments.

Strengths:
The focus on the number of copies of proteins is exciting and appreciated if the estimated calculation result is correct and biologically reproducible.

Weaknesses:
The proteome results in this study were likely obtained by simply looking at differences between clones, and the proteome data need to be validated. First, there were only a few clones for comparison, and the gender and number of cells did not match between ESCs and iPSCs. Second, no data show the accuracy of the protein copy number per cell obtained by the proteome data.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
Pluripotent stem cells are powerful tools for understanding development, differentiation, and disease modeling. The capacity of stem cells to differentiate into various cell types holds great promise for therapeutic applications. However, ethical concerns restrict the use of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). Consequently, induced human pluripotent stem cells (ihPSCs) offer an attractive alternative for modeling rare diseases, drug screening, and regenerative medicine. A comprehensive understanding of ihPSCs is crucial to establish their similarities and differences compared to hESCs. This work demonstrates systematic differences in the reprogramming of nuclear and non-nuclear proteomes in ihPSCs.

Strengths:
The authors employed quantitative mass spectrometry to compare protein expression differences between independently derived ihPSC and hESC cell lines. Qualitatively, protein expression profiles in ihPSC and hESC were found to be very similar. However, when comparing protein concentration at a cellular level, it became evident that ihPSCs express higher levels of proteins in the cytoplasm, mitochondria, and plasma membrane, while the expression of nuclear proteins is similar between ihPSCs and hESCs. A higher expression of proteins in ihPSCs was verified by an independent approach, and flow cytometry confirmed that ihPSCs had larger cell sizes than hESCs. The differences in protein expression were reflected in functional distinctions. For instance, the higher expression of mitochondrial metabolic enzymes, glutamine transporters, and lipid biosynthesis enzymes in ihPSCs was associated with enhanced mitochondrial potential, increased ability to uptake glutamine, and increased ability to form lipid droplets.

Weaknesses:
While this finding is intriguing and interesting, the study falls short of explaining the mechanistic reasons for the observed quantitative proteome differences. It remains unclear whether the increased expression of proteins in ihPSCs is due to enhanced transcription of the genes encoding this group of proteins or due to other reasons, for example, differences in mRNA translation efficiency. Another unresolved question pertains to how the cell type origin influences ihPSC proteomes. For instance, whether ihPSCs derived from fibroblasts, lymphocytes, and other cell types all exhibit differences in their cell size and increased expression of cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins. Analyzing ihPSCs derived from different cell types and by different investigators would be necessary to address these questions.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
In this study, Brenes and colleagues carried out proteomic analysis of several human induced pluripotent (hiPSC) and human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines. The authors found quantitative differences in the expression of several groups of cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins. Overall, hiPSC expressed higher levels of proteins such as glutamine transporters, mitochondrial metabolism proteins, and proteins related to lipid synthesis. Based on the protein expression differences, the authors propose that hiPSC lines differ from hESC in their growth and metabolism.

Strengths:
The number of generated hiPSC and hESC lines continues to grow, but potential differences between hiPSC and hESC lines remain to be quantified and explained. This study is a promising step forward in understanding of the differences between different hiPSC and hESC lines.

Weaknesses:
It is unclear whether changes in protein levels relate to any phenotypic features of cell lines used. For example, the authors highlight that increased protein expression in hiPSC lines is consistent with the requirement to sustain high growth rates, but there is no data to demonstrate whether hiPSC lines used indeed have higher growth rates.

The authors claim that the cell cycle of the lines is unchanged. However, no details of the method for assessing the cell cycle were included so it is difficult to appreciate if this assessment was appropriately carried out and controlled for.

Details and characterisation of iPSC and ESC lines used in this study were overall lacking. The lines used are merely listed in methods, but no references are included for published lines, how lines were obtained, what passage they were used at, their karyotype status, etc. For details of basic characterisation, the authors should refer to the ISSC Standards for the use of human stem cells in research. In particular, the authors should consider whether any of the changes they see may be attributed to copy number variants in different lines.

The expression data for markers of undifferentiated state in Figure 1a would ideally be shown by immunocytochemistry or flow cytometry as it is impossible to tell whether cultures are heterogeneous for marker expression.

TEM analysis should ideally be quantified.

All figure legends should explicitly state what graphs are representing (e.g. average/mean; how many replicates (biological or technical), which lines)? Some data is included in Methods (e.g. glutamine uptake), but not for all of the data (e.g. TEM).

Validation experiments were performed typically on one or two cell lines, but the lines used were not consistent (e.g. wibj_2 versus H1 for respirometry and wibj_2, oaqd_3 versus SA121 and SA181 for glutamine uptake). Can the authors explain how the lines were chosen?

The authors should acknowledge the need for further functional validation of the results related to immunosuppressive proteins.

Differences in H1 histone abundance were highlighted. Can the authors speculate as to the meaning of these differences?

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors compared four types of hiPSCs and four types of hESCs at the proteome level to elucidate the differences between hiPSCs and hESCs. Semi-quantitative calculations of protein copy numbers revealed increased protein content in iPSCs. Particularly in iPSCs, proteins related to mitochondrial and cytoplasmic were suggested to reflect the state of the original differentiated cells to some extent. However, the most important result of this study is the calculation of the protein copy numbers per cell, and the validity of this result is problematic. In addition, several experiments need to be improved, such as using cells of different genders (iPSC: female, ESC: male) in mitochondrial metabolism experiments.

Strengths:

The focus on the number of copies of proteins is exciting and appreciated if the estimated calculation result is correct and biologically reproducible.

Weaknesses:

The proteome results in this study were likely obtained by simply looking at differences between clones, and the proteome data need to be validated. First, there were only a few clones for comparison, and the gender and number of cells did not match between ESCs and iPSCs. Second, no data show the accuracy of the protein copy number per cell obtained by the proteome data.

We agree with the reviewer in their assessment that more independent stem cell clones and an equal gender balance would be preferable. We will mention these considerations as limitations of our study and encourage a larger-scale follow-up.

Regarding the estimated copy numbers, we would like to highlight that they have been extensively in the field, with direct validation of the differences in copy numbers with orthogonal methods like FACS2-4,7,10. Furthermore, the original paper directly compared the copy numbers estimated using the “proteomic ruler” to spike-in protein epitope signature tags and found remarkable concordance. This was performed with a much older generation mass spectrometer with reduced peptide coverage, and the author predicted that higher coverage would increase the quantitative performance.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Pluripotent stem cells are powerful tools for understanding development, differentiation, and disease modeling. The capacity of stem cells to differentiate into various cell types holds great promise for therapeutic applications. However, ethical concerns restrict the use of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). Consequently, induced human pluripotent stem cells (ihPSCs) offer an attractive alternative for modeling rare diseases, drug screening, and regenerative medicine.

A comprehensive understanding of ihPSCs is crucial to establish their similarities and differences compared to hESCs.

This work demonstrates systematic differences in the reprogramming of nuclear and non-nuclear proteomes in ihPSCs.

We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment.

Strengths:

The authors employed quantitative mass spectrometry to compare protein expression differences between independently derived ihPSC and hESC cell lines. Qualitatively, protein expression profiles in ihPSC and hESC were found to be very similar. However, when comparing protein concentration at a cellular level, it became evident that ihPSCs express higher levels of proteins in the cytoplasm, mitochondria, and plasma membrane, while the expression of nuclear proteins is similar between ihPSCs and hESCs. A higher expression of proteins in ihPSCs was verified by an independent approach, and flow cytometry confirmed that ihPSCs had larger cell sizes than hESCs. The differences in protein expression were reflected in functional distinctions. For instance, the higher expression of mitochondrial metabolic enzymes, glutamine transporters, and lipid biosynthesis enzymes in ihPSCs was associated with enhanced mitochondrial potential, increased ability to uptake glutamine, and increased ability to form lipid droplets.

Weaknesses:

While this finding is intriguing and interesting, the study falls short of explaining the mechanistic reasons for the observed quantitative proteome differences. It remains unclear whether the increased expression of proteins in ihPSCs is due to enhanced transcription of the genes encoding this group of proteins or due to other reasons, for example, differences in mRNA translation efficiency. Another unresolved question pertains to how the cell type origin influences ihPSC proteomes. For instance, whether ihPSCs derived from fibroblasts, lymphocytes, and other cell types all exhibit differences in their cell size and increased expression of cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins. Analyzing ihPSCs derived from different cell types and by different investigators would be necessary to address these questions.

We agree with the Reviewer that our study does not provide a mechanistic reason for the quantitative differences between the two cell types. However, we will include an expanded section in the discussion where we discuss the potential causes.
We also agree studying hiPSCs reprogrammed from different cell types, such as blood lymphocytes, would be of great interest and will include a section about this within the discussion to encourage further research into the area.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, Brenes and colleagues carried out proteomic analysis of several human induced pluripotent (hiPSC) and human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines. The authors found quantitative differences in the expression of several groups of cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins. Overall, hiPSC expressed higher levels of proteins such as glutamine transporters, mitochondrial metabolism proteins, and proteins related to lipid synthesis. Based on the protein expression differences, the authors propose that hiPSC lines differ from hESC in their growth and metabolism.

Strengths:

The number of generated hiPSC and hESC lines continues to grow, but potential differences between hiPSC and hESC lines remain to be quantified and explained. This study is a promising step forward in understanding of the differences between different hiPSC and hESC lines.

Weaknesses:

It is unclear whether changes in protein levels relate to any phenotypic features of cell lines used. For example, the authors highlight that increased protein expression in hiPSC lines is consistent with the requirement to sustain high growth rates, but there is no data to demonstrate whether hiPSC lines used indeed have higher growth rates.

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer on this point. Our data shows that hESCs and hiPSCs show significant differences in protein mass and cell size, validated by the EZQ assay and FACS, while having no significant differences in their cell cycle profiles. Thus increased size and protein content would require higher growth rates to sustain the increased mass, which is what we show.

The authors claim that the cell cycle of the lines is unchanged. However, no details of the method for assessing the cell cycle were included so it is difficult to appreciate if this assessment was appropriately carried out and controlled for.
We apologise for this omission; the details will be included in the revised version of the document.

Details and characterisation of iPSC and ESC lines used in this study were overall lacking. The lines used are merely listed in methods, but no references are included for published lines, how lines were obtained, what passage they were used at, their karyotype status, etc. For details of basic characterisation, the authors should refer to the ISSC Standards for the use of human stem cells in research. In particular, the authors should consider whether any of the changes they see may be attributed to copy number variants in different lines.

We agree with the reviewer on this. The hiPSC lines were generated by the HipSci consortium in the Wellcome Sanger Centre as described in the flagship HipSci paper13. We cite the flagship paper which specifies in great detail the reprogramming protocols and quality control measures, including looking at copy number variations13. However, we agree that we did not make this information easily accessible for readers. We also believe it is relevant to also explicitly include this information on our manuscript instead of expecting readers to look at the flagship paper. These details will be added to the revised version.

The expression data for markers of undifferentiated state in Figure 1a would ideally be shown by immunocytochemistry or flow cytometry as it is impossible to tell whether cultures are heterogeneous for marker expression.

We agree with the reviewer on this. FACS is indeed much more quantitative and a better method to study heterogeneity. However, we did not have protocols to study these markers using FACS.

TEM analysis should ideally be quantified.

We agree with the reviewer that it would be nice to have a quantitative measure.

All figure legends should explicitly state what graphs are representing (e.g. average/mean; how many replicates (biological or technical), which lines)? Some data is included in Methods (e.g. glutamine uptake), but not for all of the data (e.g. TEM).

We agree with the reviewer completely. These points will be remediated in the revised version of the manuscript.

Validation experiments were performed typically on one or two cell lines, but the lines used were not consistent (e.g. wibj_2 versus H1 for respirometry and wibj_2, oaqd_3 versus SA121 and SA181 for glutamine uptake). Can the authors explain how the lines were chosen?

We will include these details within the updated manuscript.

The authors should acknowledge the need for further functional validation of the results related to immunosuppressive proteins.

We agree with the reviewer and will add a clear sentence in the discussion making this point explicitly.

Differences in H1 histone abundance were highlighted. Can the authors speculate as to the meaning of these differences?

Regarding H1 histones, our study of the literature as well as interaction with chromatin and histone experts both within our institute and externally have not shed light into what the differences could imply. We think this is an interesting result that merits further study, but we don’t have a clear hypothesis on the consequences.

In summary, we thank the reviewers for their comments and will prepare a revised version that addresses their suggestions.