
Citation: Jaemin Kim, David Nonis, Maria Gabriela Otero, Tyler Mark Pierson. Modeling rare pediatric neurogenetic disorders with IPSCs[J]. AIMS Cell and Tissue Engineering, 2019, 3(1): 1-25. doi: 10.3934/celltissue.2019.1.1
[1] | Donggu Lee, Sunju Oh, Sean Lawler, Yangjin Kim . Bistable dynamics of TAN-NK cells in tumor growth and control of radiotherapy-induced neutropenia in lung cancer treatment. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(4): 744-809. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025028 |
[2] | Jiaxin Luo, Lin Wu, Dinghui Liu, Zhaojun Xiong, Linli Wang, Xiaoxian Qian, Xiaoqiang Sun . Gene regulatory network analysis identifies key genes and regulatory mechanisms involved in acute myocardial infarction using bulk and single cell RNA-seq data. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 7774-7789. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021386 |
[3] | Rui-zhe Zheng, Jin Xing, Qiong Huang, Xi-tao Yang, Chang-yi Zhao, Xin-yuan Li . Integration of single-cell and bulk RNA sequencing data reveals key cell types and regulators in traumatic brain injury. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(2): 1201-1214. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021065 |
[4] | Patrick Nelson, Noah Smith, Stanca Ciupe, Weiping Zou, Gilbert S. Omenn, Massimo Pietropaolo . Modeling dynamic changes in type 1 diabetes progression: Quantifying β-cell variation after the appearance of islet-specific autoimmune responses. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2009, 6(4): 753-778. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2009.6.753 |
[5] | Qian Li, Minawaer Hujiaaihemaiti, Jie Wang, Md. Nazim Uddin, Ming-Yuan Li, Alidan Aierken, Yun Wu . Identifying key transcription factors and miRNAs coregulatory networks associated with immune infiltrations and drug interactions in idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 4153-4177. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023194 |
[6] | Jose E. Zamora Alvarado, Kara E. McCloskey, Ajay Gopinathan . Migration and proliferation drive the emergence of patterns in co-cultures of differentiating vascular progenitor cells. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(8): 6731-6757. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024295 |
[7] | Shengjue Xiao, Yufei Zhou, Ailin Liu, Qi Wu, Yue Hu, Jie Liu, Hong Zhu, Ting Yin, Defeng Pan . Uncovering potential novel biomarkers and immune infiltration characteristics in persistent atrial fibrillation using integrated bioinformatics analysis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(4): 4696-4712. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021238 |
[8] | Yi Shi, Xiaoqian Huang, Zhaolan Du, Jianjun Tan . Analysis of single-cell RNA-sequencing data identifies a hypoxic tumor subpopulation associated with poor prognosis in triple-negative breast cancer. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(6): 5793-5812. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022271 |
[9] | Yangjin Kim, Seongwon Lee, You-Sun Kim, Sean Lawler, Yong Song Gho, Yoon-Keun Kim, Hyung Ju Hwang . Regulation of Th1/Th2 cells in asthma development: A mathematical model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(4): 1095-1133. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.1095 |
[10] | Hasitha N. Weerasinghe, Pamela M. Burrage, Dan V. Nicolau Jr., Kevin Burrage . Agent-based modeling for the tumor microenvironment (TME). Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(11): 7621-7647. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024335 |
Pancreatic development presents fascinating topic of how cell fate decisions are realized. It inspires many scholars to explore relevant topics from both experimental and theoretical aspects. There are three cell types: exocrine cells, endocrine cells, and ductal cells in the mature pancreas organ which derived from the embryonic pancreas [1,2,3]. The vertebrate pancreas comprises of two main components: the endocrine and exocrine compartment. The endocrine cell secretes hormones in the bloodstream and controls glucose homeostasis. However, the exocrine compartment secretes the main digestive enzymes in the gut lumen [4]. In addition, the islets of Langerhans in endocrine tissue, further develop into four pancreatic endocrine cell types: α-, β-, δ-, and PP-cells which secret glucagon, insulin, somatostatin, and pancreatic polypeptide, respectively [4,5]. The exocrine tissue is composed of acini and ducts which specialized in enzymes production and secreting bicarbonated water, vehiculating the pancreatic enzymes to the intestine, respectively [4]. As the lack of insulin may cause diabetes and pancreatic cancer, much attention has been focused on the regulatory mechanisms about the differentiation of each cell type [6,7].
One of the early process of pancreatic cell development is a fate decision between endocrine and exocrine, in which a number of proteins proteins are involved during the development of the mouse pancreas, the protein Hnf6 is expressed in the epithelial cells. And these epithelial cells represent precursors cells of the exocrine and endocrine pancreatic. The pancreatic endocrine development at the precursor process is regulated by Hnf6 and it is identified as the first positive regulator of the pro-endocrine protein neurogenin3 (Ngn3) in the pancreas [8]. While the Ngn3 is expressed in cells which are destined to become endocrine cells, the islets of Langerhans [9]. Ngn3 has an ectopic expression lead to cells to an endocrine fate in the early pancreatic bud, but the almost completely α-cells are obtained[10,11] and additional signals are need to deflect these cells into alternate fates such as β-cells. Previous findings suggest that Isl1 expression is need to the development of islet cells in pancreatic epithelial cells and it is a terminal endocrine fate marker downstream of Ngn3[9,12]. Ptf1a is one of the gene necessary for exocrine differentiation and it was was first identified in the nucleus of exocrine cultured pancreatic cells in an extensive footprint analysis of the of digestive enzymes promoters[13] and its isolation can obtain the genetic characteristics encoding basic helix-loop-helix protein of 48 kDa [14]. Ptf1a is commonly used as a marker of both the precursor cells and differentiated status exocrine cells of pancreatic in zebrafish [4]. It is the fate specific marker of exocrine progenitor cells [15]. In addition, PTF1L-complex is necessary for acinar cell differentiation, i.e., RBPJ and Ptf1a bind to a small basic helix-loop-helix protein to form a trimeric PTF1J-complex which also activates the expression of Rbpjl and leads to an increase in protein that progressively instead of RBPJ in the trimeric PTF1J-complex, forming the PTF1L-complex [16].
Notch signaling is necessary for many key regulatory events in cellular destiny during cell development, such as nervous system, skin and so on [17]. In addition, previous studies indicate that Notch signaling also plays a key roles in the development of the pancreas and is important in determining the endocrine and progenitor/exocrine destiny of developing pancreas [18,19]. The reduction of Notch can trigger an increase in expression of the pro-endocrine gene Ngn3 and lead to differentiation toward endocrine destiny direction. However, at the normal level of Notch, cells express Hes1 and p48 and select the direction of exocrine destiny [18]. Related study also indicates that Notch signalling activates Ptf1 through the direct interaction between RBP-Jk, NotchIC and p48, which leads to the selection towards the exocrine destiny direction [19]. Moreover, endocrine progenitors are generated by lateral specification through Notch signalling involving Delta/Notch (D/N) during pancreas development[20]. The progenitor-like cells (adult acinar cells) convert into β-cells upon cell-cell contacts disruption through enzymatic tissue separation which involves inactivation of Notch signaling [21,22].
Notch receptor exists on the cell membrane of a certain cell binds to a ligand Delta-like1 (Dll1) on the surface of other contact cells to produce the Notch intracellular domain (NICD) [23]. It is known that Notch exists on the cell membrane can be induced by ligand (Dll1) which comes from in neighboring cells (trans-activation) and also be suppressed by Dll1 in the same cell (cis-inhibition) [24]. The cis-inhibition usually affects the direction of D/N signaling and should be incorporated into specification models of lateral suppression[25]. In addition, trans-activation has received extensive attention both experimentally and theoretically, for example, related studies in the control of vertebrate neurogenesis [26] and somite formation [27]. The pancreatic cell fate decision [18] and vertebrate neurogenesis [26] usually involve Notch signaling mechanism which is called lateral suppression. A unified lateral suppression mode of D/N regulated neurogenic and pancreatic progenitor specification has been mentioned [20]. Therefore, it is an important and meaningful topic to analyze fate decisions of pancreatic cells based on Notch signaling.
Mathematical modeling and analysis can help us understand regulatory and developmental mechanism in cell fate decisions [28,29]. Some studies explored the mechanism of pancreatic cell fate decision via mathematical models in recent years, e.g., predicting pancreas reprogramming with a stratification multiple attractor model [15], understanding transdifferentiation of pancreatic cells with a minimal model and contact-mediated signaling pathways [22], a dynamical model of a growing duct was established, which leads to an oscillatory phase before the decision of endocrine progenitors fate by lateral suppression [20]. Here, we construct mathematical models at the single cell level and multicellular level for pancreas destiny choice which involves dynamics of winding with trans-activation and cis-inhibition within Notch signaling. We further analyze the models by means of bifurcation analysis and understand the regulatory mechanism of pancreas fate decisions.
Gene regulatory networks can be mathematically modeled and analyzed in terms of differential equations. It can help to understand the complex feedback mechanisms underlying cell fate decision. We construct a minimal regulatory network, as shown in Figure 1(A), to study pancreatic cell fate decisions by combining related literatures, as shown in Table 1. The expression of Hnf6 is suppressed by Ptf1a in mature exocrine cells (Ptf1a expression is a hallmark of mature exocrine cells) [15], and as a mature exocrine cell, i.e., mature acinar cells (Ptf1a and Rbpjl expression are hallmarks of mature acinar cells) [30]. So we have a possible inference that Rbpjl inhibits Hnf6, and the reference [56] further confirm this inference.
Proteins | Action | Proteins | References |
Hnf6 | Activate | Ngn3 | [15,22] |
Hnf6 | Activate | Ptf1a | [15,22] |
Ngn3 | Inhibit | Ptf1a | [15,22] |
Ngn3 | Activate | Isl1 | [22] |
Ptf1a | Inhibit | Ngn3 | [15,22] |
Ptf1a | Auto-activate | [30,31,32] | |
Ptf1a | Activate | Rbpjl | [31] |
Isl1 | Inhibit | Hnf6 | [22] |
Isl1 | Inhibit | Ptf1a | [22] |
Isl1 | Auto-activate | [22] | |
Rbpjl | Auto-activate | [30] | |
Rbpjl | Inhibit | Hnf6 | [56] |
The state of each cell type is specified by five key proteins: Hnf6, Ngn3, Ptf1a, Isl1, and Rbpjl. More specifically, epithelial cells are commonly regarded as precursors of the exocrine and endocrine cells and Hnf6 is expressed in these cells. It is known that the upstream protein Hnf6 either directly or indirectly activates Ngn3 and Ptf1a [22], and under normal circumstances, the adult pancreas does not express these proteins (Ngn3 and Ptf1a) at an advanced stage of development [9]. Ngn3 is a marker of pro-endocrine protein which is transiently existence in early pancreatic development. When Ngn3 is induced in the progenitor cell within the pancreas, the cell is destined to be an endocrine (islet) cell [5]. In addition, the expression of Isl1 in pancreatic epithelial cells is essential for the development of islet cells [9,12]. Isl1 is generally regarded as a terminal endocrine destiny marker downstream of Ngn3, and once activated, keeps its expression by positive self-activation [22]. Isl1 as an islet cell maturation protein, its role is to inhibit the expression of upstream protein Hnf6. Ptf1a is the only known protein that is indispensable and sufficient to active the exocrine cell destiny [4,14], and it is the fate specific marker of exocrine progenitor cells [15]. In mature acinar cells, Ptf1a establishes an auto-regulation via the trimeric complex PTF1 to reinforce and maintain its own expression. Indeed, PTF1 forms dual self-regulating loops of Ptf1a and Rbpjl which may maintain the stability of pancreatic acinar cell phenotypes [30]. Moreover, Rbpjl represents a terminal exocrine fate marker, and it is necessary for acinar cells to be fully mature[31].
Furthermore, to describe and understand the development of progenitor cells into endocrine and exocrine cells easily, we divide the differentiation process into two stages, as shown in Figure 1(B). At the first stage, the lineage specification of pancreatic progenitor cells into endocrine or exocrine progenitor cells occurs. While at the second stage, the lineage specification of endocrine and exocrine progenitor cells into mature islet and acinar cells occurs, respectively. The mathematical model for the network shown in Figure 1(A) is described by Eq (1). The definitions of variables and parameters in Eq (1) are given in Table 3 in the Appendix.
dx1dt=αKn1+b1xn4+b2xn5−d1x1,dx2dt=a1xn1Kn2+xn1+b3xn3−d2x2,dx3dt=a2xn1Kn3+xn1+b4xn2+b5xn4+a3xn13Kn14+a3xn13−d3x3,dx4dt=a4xn2Kn5+xn2+a5xn4Kn6+a5xn4−d4x4,dx5dt=a6xn3Kn7+xn3+a7xn5Kn8+a7xn5−d5x5. | (1) |
Moreover, to reveal the mechanism of Notch signaling in pancreatic cell fate decision, we construct a multicellular mathematical model by combining the minimal model Eq (1) and Notch signaling, as shown Figure 2. Mathematical models involving Notch signaling have been presented in [24,48]. The model here involves the following aspects: First, Notch in cell-i, i.e., x7,i, combined with extracellular Dll1 with concentration ⟨x6,j⟩i, i.e., the average Dll1 level over all adjacent cells j of i, resulting in the generation of the NCID, x8,i. In the same manner, Notch in adjacent cells, ⟨x7,j⟩i can combined with Dll1. And, Notch can also combined with Dll1 within the same cell, resulting in inactivation of Notch. The multicellular system can be expressed by Eq (2) for the concentrations of free Notch, x7,i, free Dll1, x6,i, NICD, x8,i, Hnf6, Ngn3, Ptf1a, Isl1, and Rbpjl in cell i (i=1,...,N, j≠i). The definitions and values of all parameters in Eq (2) are given in Table 4 in the Appendix.
dx1,idt=αKn1+b1xn4,i+b2xn5,i−d1x1,i,dx2,idt=a1xn1,iKn2+xn1,i+b3xn3,i+bxn8,i−d2x2,i,dx3,idt=a2xn1,iKn3+xn1,i+b4xn2,i+b5xn4,i+a3xn13,iKn14+a3xn13,i−d3x3,i,dx4,idt=a4xn2,iKn5+xn2,i+a5xn4,iKn6+a5xn4,i−d4x4,i,dx5,idt=a6xn3,iKn7+xn3,i+a7xn5,iKn8+a7xn5,i−d5x5,i,dx6,idt=βD,i−x6,ix7,ikc−x6,i⟨x7,j⟩ikt+a8xn2,iKn9+xn2,i−d6x6,i,dx7,idt=βN,i−x6,ix7,ikc−x7,i⟨x6,j⟩ikt−d7x7,i,dx8,idt=x7,i⟨x6,j⟩ikt−d8x8,i. | (2) |
In this section, we mainly reveal the mechanism of pancreatic cell fate decision through Eq (1), e.g., pancreatic progenitor cell differentiation, endocrine or exocrine progenitor cell differentiation and transdifferentiation of acinar cell. In addition, We also explore the role of auto-regulation loops in pancreatic cell fate decision, and the results show that the autoregulatory loops play a role in maintaining the stability of mature acinar cells.
The process of pancreatic cell differentiation can be explored and understood by the dynamics of Eq (1). In fact, pancreatic progenitor cells first develop into transitional cells, e.g., endocrine and exocrine progenitor cells, and finally differentiate into mature islet and acinar cells. Now, the mechanism of decision switches is explored by bifurcation analysis of Eq (1). At the first stage, the pancreatic progenitor lineage branches into exocrine and endocrine progenitor lineages, and the binary decision switch is induced by the mutually suppressing protein pair Ptf1a and Ngn3 [15,33]. The bifurcation diagram with a1=a2=aNP as the control parameter is shown in Figure 3(A). At the critical value aNP=ac, a pitchfork bifurcation occurs. When aNP<ac, cells are at the pancreatic progenitor lineage. As aNP increases, i.e., when aNP>ac, the progenitor cells develop into exocrine or endocrine progenitor cells. Cells with high Ngn3 and low Ptf1a expression are endocrine progenitor cells, i.e., SA. While cells with low Ngn3 and high Ptf1a are exocrine progenitor cells, i.e., SB, as shown in Figure 3(B). The decision switch is realized through occurrence of the pitchfork bifurcation.
At the second stage, endocrine or exocrine progenitor cells can further transform into adult islet or acinar cells, respectively. The fate decision switch is realized through saddle-node bifurcation which is produced by the coupling between positive auto-regulation of Isl1 and negative loop between Ngn3 and Isl1, or the coupling between positive auto-regulation of Rbpjl and negative loop between Ptf1a and Rbpjl, respectively. Pancreatic progenitor cells transform into either endocrine or exocrine progenitor cells after the first stage. If pancreatic progenitor cells choose to differentiate into endocrine progenitor cells, the ultimate fate will be islet cells. Mathematically, when a4<a4c, the system stays at the endocrine progenitor state. As a4 increases, i.e., when a4>a4c, endocrine progenitor cells transform into adult islet cells, as shown in Figure 4. If pancreatic progenitor cells choose to differentiate into exocrine progenitor cells, then the ultimate fate will be acinar cells, i.e., when a6<a6c, they stays at the exocrine progenitor state, as a6 increases, i.e., when a6>a6c, exocrine progenitor cells turn into adult acinar cells, as shown in Figure 5.
Remark 1. We simulate the transformation of pancreatic progenitor cells into endocrine or exocrine progenitor cells by small perturbing initial values of Eq (1). Such a kind of perturbation is performed to mimic transient induction of differentiation signals. When they choose to differentiate into endocrine progenitor cells with high Ngn3 and low Ptf1a, i.e., SA in Figure 3(B), the ultimate fate will be islet cells. When they choose to differentiate into exocrine progenitor cells with high Ptf1a and low Ngn3, i.e., SB in Figure 3(B), due to the autoregulation of Ptf1a, the high level of Ptf1a (SB) induces much higher Ptf1a (its level near to 2 in Figures 5(A) and 6(A)), then the ultimate fate will be acinar cells. Between the first and second stages, the state with high Ptf1a or much higher Ptf1a corresponds to exocrine progenitor cells, as mentioned in Table 2.
Hnf6 | Ngn3 | Ptf1a | Isl1 | Rbpjl | References | |
Ppc | high | low | low | low | low | [15,22] |
Enpc | high | high | low | low | low | [15] |
Expc | high | low | high/higher | low | low | [15] |
Mic | low | low | low | high | low | [22] |
Mac | low | low | high | low | high | [22,37] |
Ppc, Enpc, Expc, Mic, and Mac represent pancreatic progenitor cells, endocrine progenitor cells, exocrine progenitor cell, mature islet cell, and mature acinar cells, respectively. |
Auto-regulation loops are common in regulatory networks which may control the behavior and maintenance of stability in biological systems [34,35]. In development cells, such a simple regulatory pattern acts as molecular memory to keep the mature phenotype for specific cell lineage, e.g., auto-regulations of Ptf1a and Rbpjl keep the phenotype of mature acinar cells [30,31,32,36,37]. Now, we reveal the mechanism of acinar cell fate decision by bifurcation analysis of Eq (1). For convenience, we set the auto-activation strength of Ptf1a and Rbpjl to be the same, i.e., a3=a7=aP. Bifurcation diagrams of Eq (1) with aP as the control parameter is shown in Figure 6. When aP is small, i.e., aP<aPc1, the system stays at the exocrine progenitor cell state. When aPc2<aP<aPc3, Ptf1a is superinduced with higher expression, but the expression of Rbpjl is still low. The superinduction of Ptf1a expression is necessary and important developmental event for the formation of mature acinar cells [30]. As aP increases further, i.e., when aP>aPc3, the exocrine progenitor cells eventually transform into mature acinar cells and maintain the high expression of Ptf1a and Rbpjl, as shown in Figure 6.
In fact, the protein Ptf1a binds to a common E-proteins (e.g., TCF12, HEB) and RBPJ to produce a trimeric complex PTF1-J [16,30,36], which binds to the 5′ enhancer to auto-activate Ptf1a. The enhancer and Ptf1a form an auto-regulatory loop to enhance and keep the expression of Ptf1a [30]. Along with the 5′ enhancer, Ptf1a obtains superinduction via the activation of unknown activators, and it may involve increased auto-activation strength of Ptf1a, i.e., a3, leading to its superinduced expression (aPc2<aP<aPc3 in Figure 6(A)). When the Ptf1a is elevated, the protein Rbpjl is activated by the PTF1-J complex. The RBPJL (protein translated by Rbpjl) substitutes RBPJ within the PTF1 complex to produce PTF1-L, which binds to Ptf1a enhancer and the Rbpjl promoter, and keeps their activity, inducing an increase in auto-activation of Rbpjl, i.e., a7. Indeed, the trimeric complex PTF1-L constitutes dual auto-regulatory loops to keep the expression of Ptf1a and Rbpjl (aP>aPc3 in Figure 6) [30]. Since the auto-regulations of Ptf1a and Rbpjl are regulated by the PTF1 complex (PTF1-J, PTF1-L), for convenience, we set the auto-activation strength of Ptf1a and Rbpjl to be the same, i.e., aP.
During embryonic evolution, cells gradually turn into more professionalization. But, many studies clearly show that adult differentiated cells still have the ability to change the fate of cells under appropriate conditions [38,39]. New technology in regenerative medicine aim to take advantage of the cell plasticity to take the place of diseased tissue by directional transformation of cells from cells of other types. Transdifferentiation, also known as the indirect change in cell specification from one cell lineage to another, often involves a phase of dedifferentiation to restore multipotency. However, it is also possible to drive cells to change lineages directly [40]. Acinar cells are an candidate source of transdifferentiation due to the common developmental source of exocrine and endocrine cells and the large number of acinar cells in pancreas. To investigate the mechanism of acinar-to-islet cell transformation, we study the stability of the system and their dependence on parameter values via executing bifurcation analysis. Figure 7 shows that Isl1 and Rbpjl have three stable states within a vast range of parameter values. The three cell types are acinar cell type (high Rbpjl, low Isl1), islet cell type (low Rbpjl, high Isl1), and progenitor-like multipotent type (the intermediate solid blue line). When the initial state is at the mature acinar type at aP>aPs1, as aP decreases, the acinar dedifferentiation towards a progenitor-like multipotent (exocrine progenitor) cell type occurs within aPs2<aP<aPs1. At aP<aPs2, the progenitor-like multipotent cells redifferentiate into islet cells. In fact, the trimeric complex (PTF1-L) forms dual auto-regulatory loops, and when the complex is inhibited via genetic manipulation, auto-activation is weakened due to the decrease of the auto-activation strength aP. In other words, a small aP value indicates a large degree of damage to the auto-regulatory loops of ptf1a and Rbpjl. Therefore, below the critical value aPs2, only the islet cell fate keeps stable.
Acinar cells are an candidate source of transdifferentiation due to the co-developmental source of exocrine and endocrine cells and the large number of acinar cells in pancreas [22]. Indeed, the transdifferentiation of acinar cells into new β-cells was confirmed in vivo experiment in mice by manipulating ectopic expression of pivotal transcription factors [41]. New β-cells could be obtained via transdifferentiation of acinar cells into islet cells because islet cells could differentiates into one of endocrine cell subtypes, i.e., β-cells. Excitingly, such transdifferentiation has also been confirmed in vitro cultures without genetic operation, i.e., using only microenvironmental changes, e.g., enzymatic tissue dissociation [42,43]. The transdifferentiation via key transcription factor manipulation and the microenvironmental changes may be involved in preventing the formation of the auto-regulatory loops of ptf1a and Rbpjl so that acinar cells cannot maintain the expression of Ptf1a, thus undergoing transdifferentiation to islet cells and eventually differentiating into β-cells. The explanation of how enzymatic tissue dissociation prevents the formation of the auto-regulatory loops of ptf1a and Rbpjl can be as follows. The downstream protein connexin of Mist (mentioned in Section {3.1.4}) is important for the formation of the auto-regulatory loop of Ptf1a and when the connexin structure is broken via enzymatic tissue dissociation, the auto-regulatory loops of ptf1a and Rbpjl are subsequently impaired.
Many studies indicate that PTF1 complex involves in the formation of acinar cells during pancreatic development. The protein Ptf1a cooperates with one of the common E-proteins to bind RBPJ/RBPJL to produce the PTF1 complex PTF1-J/PTF1-L, which can form auto-regulatory loops to maintain the expression of Ptf1a. The details of the regulation are mentioned in Section 3.1.2, and the auto-regulatory loop of Ptf1a via PTF1 complex is shown in Figure 8(A). Meanwhile, some studies suggest that Mist1 involves the formation of auto-regulatory loop related to Ptf1a in acinar cells [37,44]. Ptf1a drives transcription of Mist1, which induces expression of the connexin, and it in turn promotes the formation of Ptf1a, thus forming an auto-regulatory loop via Mist1 which maintains the acinar cell phenotype [44], as shown in Figure 8(B). In addition, PTF1 complex induces transcription of Mist1, which results in the maintenance of Ptf1a auto-regulation [37]. Moreover, the loss of functional Mist1 results in progressive acinar damage and the acquisition of certain ductal properties [45]. Perturbations to the complex PTF1-L affect the phenotype of the mature acinar cells, i.e., low differentiation of acinar tissue [36]. These results indicate that both PTF1 complex and Mist1 play important roles in maintaining formation of the auto-regulatory loop related to Ptf1a, and perturbations to one of them affect the formation of acinar cells, as shown in Figure 8(C). Therefore, the auto-regulatory loop involving Ptf1a in Figure 8(C) can explain the phenomenon that inhibition of PTF1 complex or Mist1 expression leads to damaged acinar cell formation because inhibition of PTF1 complex or Mist1 can break the Ptf1a auto-regulatory loop.
The communication among cells are necessary for homeostasis in multicellular organisms. In fact, intercellular Notch signaling plays a key role in the decision between endocrine and exocrine cells. The Notch intracellular domain (NICD) is generated by intercellular interaction and then inhibits the expression of Ngn3 indirectly [20]. Studies suggest that intercellular communication via Notch signaling, which can be cis-inhibited by Dll1 within the same cell, and trans-activated by Dll1 in adjacent cells [24], plays a vital role in the pancreatic cell destiny decisions [4,18,46]. The pro-endocrine protein Ngn3 activates the expression of Dll1 [18]. Notch binds to Dll1 of adjacent cells, leading to the release of NICD. NICD activates expression of Hes1 which represses Ngn3 [44]. NICD regulates Ngn3 and Ptf1a expression, i.e., down-regulation of Notch results in increased expression of Ngn3 and decreased expression of Ptf1a [18]. These results indicate that Notch signaling affects fate decision of endocrine/exocrine progenitor cells in the first stage of differentiation. Indeed, Notch signaling is induced in exocrine progenitors and down-regulated in endocrine progenitors [47]. However, Notch signaling suppresses liveness of the Ptf1 transcriptional complex (PTF1) [47], and the PTF1 complex is necessary for exocrine cell differentiation, e.g., acinar cells. Therefore, Notch signaling also plays a vital role in the transformation of exocrine progenitor into exocrine (acinar) cells in the second stage of differentiation.
For the sake of simulation, we consider the interaction between only two cells, i.e., N=2 in Eq (2). In addition, we set a1=a2=aNP with aNP as the control parameter. All values of other parameters are given in Table 4. The change of Notch signaling is realized through change of the basal production rate of Notch, i.e., high level at βN,i=20, βD,i=20, and low level at βN,i=10, βD,i=20. Now, we explore the regulation of Notch signaling on endocrine/exocrine progenitor cell fate decisions from the perspective of bifurcation analysis. At the low level, cells stay at the pluripotent progenitor state with low Ngn3 (x2,i) and Ptf1a (x3,i) in cell i at small aNP, i.e., aNP<aNPc1. As aNP increases, pluripotent progenitor cells differentiate finally into endocrine progenitor cells with high Ngn3 (x2,i) and low Ptf1a (x3,i) in cell i at aNP>aNPc1, as show in Figure 9. While at the high level, when aNP<aNPc2, cells also stay at the pluripotent progenitor state. As aNP increases, pluripotent progenitor cells differentiate finally into exocrine progenitor cells with high Ptf1a (x3,i) and low Ngn3 (x2,i) in cell i at aNP>aNPc2, as show in Figure 10.
Symbols | Descriptions | |
Variables | x1 | Expression of Hnf6 |
x2 | Expression of Ngn3 | |
x3 | Expression of ptf1a | |
x4 | Expression of Isl1 | |
x5 | Expression of Rbpjl | |
Parameters | α = 1 | Basal production rate of Hnf6 |
ai (i = 1, 2, 4, 6) | Strength of induction between proteins | |
a3,a7 a5 = 50 | Strength of auto-activation of the proteins | |
b1=b2 = 100 b3 = {400,50} b4 = 400 b5 = 100 | Strength of inhibition between proteins | |
di=1 (i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | Degradation rate | |
Ki = 1 K4 = 0.8 K7 = 50 (i = 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8) | Threshold of the sigmoidal function | |
n = 2, n1 = 6 | Hill coefficient |
Symbols | Descriptions | |
Variables | x1,i | Expression of Hnf6 in cell i |
x2,i | Expression of Ngn3 in cell i | |
x3,i | Expression of Ptf1a in cell i | |
x4,i | Expression of Isl1 in cell i | |
x5,i | Expression of Rbpjl in cell i | |
x6,i | Expression of Delta1 in cell i | |
x7,i | Expression of Notch in cell i | |
x8,i | Expression of NICD in cell i | |
Parameters | α = 1 | Basal production rate of Hnf6 |
a1, a2, a4 = 0 a6 = 0, a8 = 1 | Strength of induction between proteins | |
aj = 0 (j = 3, 5, 7) | Strength of auto-activation of the proteins | |
bj = 100, b4=400 (j = 1, 2, 3, 5) | Strength of inhibition between proteins | |
dj = 1 (j = 1, ⋯, 8) | Degradation rate | |
Kj = 1 K4 = 0.8 K7 = 50 (j = 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9) | Threshold of the sigmoidal function | |
βD,i, βN,i | Basal production rate of Delta1, Notch in cell i | |
kt = 1 | Strength of trans-activation | |
kc = 1 | Strength of cis-inhibition | |
b = 0.1 | Strength of NICD ⊣ Ngn3 | |
n = 2, n1 = 6 | Hill coefficient |
These results show that down-regulation of Notch signaling may induce committed endocrine progenitors. While relatively strong Notch signaling leads to cell differentiation into the exocrine progenitors state, as shown in Figures 9 and 10. In fact, in the Notch signaling, NICD interacts with the DNA-binding protein RBP-Jk to induce expression of the bHLH Hes genes, hereby inhibiting the expression of downstream target genes involved Ngn genes. The results in [18] showed that absence of Dll1 or RBP-Jk (impaired Notch signalling) can result in increased expression of the pro-endocrine gene Ngn3, thus promoting the endocrine destiny. However, at the normal level of Notch signaling, cells express Hes1 and p48 and select the direction of exocrine destiny. In addition, nuclear Hes1 protein is also present in the most cells expressing Ptf1-p48, suggesting that Notch signaling is activated in an exocrine progenitor pool [47].
The roles of Notch signaling on endocrine/exocrine differentiation in the first stage is mentioned in Section {3.2.1}. In fact, Notch signaling also plays a vital role in decision fate of exocrine cells during the second differentiation stage, e.g., absence of Notch function is related to accelerated development of acinar cells during developing pancreas [47,49]. In addition, Notch signaling suppresses liveness of the Ptf1 transcriptional complex (PTF1), resulting in cells remaining in the exocrine progenitor state [47].
We here just propose a network shown in Figure 11(A) by combining the simplified network in Figure 2 with the auto-regulatory loop of Ptf1a in shown Figure 8(C). Further modeling and analysis of Figure 8(C) will be performed in future. In addition, it is assumed that NICD inhibits PTF1 [50]. In fact, it can be seen that inhibition of PTF1 activity by NICD can hinder the formation of auto-regulatory loop of Ptf1a, according to the analysis of network in Figure 11(A). It is mentioned in Section {3.1.2} that the auto-regulation of Ptf1a is necessary for the formation of acinar cells, so the up-regulation of Notch signaling (NICD) inhibits the differentiation of acinar cells, thus maintaining the state of exocrine progenitor cells in the second differentiation stage. Although Notch signaling inhibits the activity of PTF1, the details of how Notch signaling regulates PTF1 is still not clear. It is possible that Notch signaling inhibits the expression of E-cadherin, leading to breaking of the auto-regulation loop of Ptf1a and inhibition of PTF1, as show in Figure 11(B). The loss of Notch function during the development of zebrfish pancreas is related to the accelerated development of exocrine pancreas, which may be related to a mechanism that Notch inhibits the activity of Ptf1 complex (PTF1), independent of the change of Ptf1 component protein levels, and thus affects the development of exocrine pancreas [47]. According to the model in Figure 11(B), loss of Notch can reduce the amount of NICD, thus promoting the expression of PTF1 to realize the fate decision of exocrine cells. Moreover, Ptf1a-expressing cells participate in lateral stabilization in pancreatic cell development, such conditional activation is, in principle, consistent with both cadherin/beta-catenin signaling. When cadherin-mediated cell-cell adhesion is disrupted, lateral stabilization is lost, leading to acinar-to-islet cell conversion [22]. In fact, it can be inferred from the model in Figure 11(B) that if E-cad expression is inhibited in acinar cells, Ptf1a is difficult to maintain, resulting in acinar transform into islet cells.
Lateral inhibition is a process by which cell communication is realized so as to drive neighboring cells to take different destinies. Notch signaling is a typical mediator of lateral inhibition [23]. In fact, a small difference in the generation rates of Notch and Delta results in a much larger difference in Notch signaling activity, thereby promoting the formation of lateral inhibition patterning [48]. In addition, lateral inhibition via Notch signaling plays important roles in maintaining endocrine cell scattering distribution [18,44]. Although we know that lateral inhibition is related to the regulation of pancreatic cell destiny decisions, little is known about how it is regulated. Now, we explore the mechanism of lateral inhibition in pancreatic fate decisions by bifurcation analysis of mathematical model Eq (2).
For convenience, we consider the interaction via Notch signaling between only two cells, i.e., N = 2 in Eq (2). In addition, we set a1 = a2 = aNP with aNP as the control parameter. Especially, the following parameter values are used as standard values βN,1 = 5, βD,1 = 20, βN,2 = 20, βD,2 = 20. Other parameter values are given in Table 4. The difference in generation rate of Notch (βN,i) leads to the difference in Notch signaling activity between the two cells. When the difference is large enough, two adjacent cells may adopt different cell fates. In other words, one pancreatic progenitor cell with low Ngn3 (x2,1) and low Ptf1a (x3,1) at aNP<aNPs1 can differentiate into either a endocrine progenitor cell with high Ngn3 (x2,1) and low Ptf1a (x3,1) at aNP>aNPs1, as shown in Figure 12(A), (B), while another pancreatic progenitor cell with low Ngn3 (x2,1) and low Ptf1a (x3,1) at aNP<aNPs2 may differentiate into a exocrine progenitor cell with low Ngn3 (x2,1) and high Ptf1a (x3,1) at aNP>aNPs2, as shown in Figure 12(C), (D). These results shows that lateral inhibition regulates the fate selection of exocrine/endocrine cells by controlling the first differentiation stage. The bifurcation diagram of Figure 12 analysis show that our mathematical model can explain the model of lateral inhibition from Notch-Delta1 in Cell1 and Cell2 fate of Figure 13.
Since our current model is built on intertwined dynamics with trans-activation and cis-inhibition involving the Notch and Delta proteins [24,48], therefore, except for the pancreas cell fate decisions involved in Notch-Delta of lateral inhibition mechanism, there are many other cell fate decisions involved this mechanism, including angiogenesis [53], spinal cord patterning in zebrafish [54], and development of neuroblast cells in early neurogenesis [55], can be explained by our current model. In addition, we do not consider the function of cis-inhibition in the regulation of pancreatic cell fate decision in our study. In fact, Delta1-mediated cis-inhibition is necessary to control cell fate selection [25]. From the analysis of our regulatory network in Figure 2 in the first stage of differentiation, it may be deduced that when Ngn3 in progenitor cells stimulates the expression of Delta1, increased Delta1 will cause Notch to be cis-inhibited, resulting in less Notch signaling, thus maintaining the expression of Ngn3 to reach the threshold of endocrine progenitor commitment.
Remark 2. Different levels of NICD in the two cell system induce two different bifurcation points. When two cells are coupled, each cell has two saddle-node bifurcation points aNPs1 and aNPs2, as shown in Figure 12. Actually, the bifurcation point aNPs1 is induced by the first cell, while the bifurcation point aNPs2 is induced by the second cell. As a whole, the system has two bifurcation points. Due to the differences between two cells, they adopt different cell fates under two different bifurcation points. More exactly, the first cell transforms into an endocrine progenitor cell, while the second cell becomes an exocrine progenitor cell.
Remark 3. In fact, the Ngn3 in pancreatic endocrine progenitor cells controls the expression of the Notch ligand Delta1, which activates the expression of Notch target genes such as Hes1 and thereby represses endocrine differentiation in neighboring cells (Notch trans-activation) by lateral inhibition [49,52]. Moreover, the Ptf1a via activation of Delta1 stimulates multipotent pancreatic progenitor cells proliferation and contributes to Hes1 activation, and thereby may indirectly contribute to maintaining high Ptf1a protein levels [52].
Our work enriches the research on fate selection of pancreatic cells and help people to understand the mechanism of pancreatic cell development from multiple perspectives. So far, there are few researches related to pancreatic cell development by using mathematical models. We construct related regulatory networks at the levels of single cell and multiple cells, and further build mathematical models and analyze them by bifurcation analysis, which helps us understand the mechanism of pancreas cell fate decisions more intuitively. Meanwhile, we divide the process of exocrine/endocrine cell differentiation into two stages and reveal the regulatory mechanisms of auto-regulation loop of Ptf1a and acinar-to-islet cell conversion. It is known that auto-regulation of Ptf1a is essential for the formation and remain of mature acinar cells, but the specific regulation mechanism of Ptf1a auto-regulation is still not clear. So, we provide related information about the auto-regulation of Ptf1a by extensive literature studies [30,37,44]. It can help us understand the phenomenon of damaged acinus cell formation caused by inhibited expression of PTF1 complex or Mist1 expression. Although the mechanism of pancreatic cell fate regulation was explored in [15], but the detailed regulatory mechanism of exocrine progenitor cell differentiation has not been considered. Here, we further consider detailed regulatory mechanism of exocrine cell differentiation into acinar cells in our study. The [30] revealed that auto-regulation loops of Ptf1a and Rbpjl may play an important role in maintaining a stable phenotype of pancreatic acinar cells, but the mechanism of the auto-regulation loop in pancreatic cell fate decision has not been analyzed from the perspective of mathematical models. Compared to the literature [30], we qualitatively analyze the mechanism of the auto-regulation loops in the formation of acinar cells from the point of view of mathematical model.
Notch signaling takes an important part in the process of exocrine and endocrine development mainly at two stages of differentiation. At the first differentiation stage, high and low level of Notch signaling forces pancreas progenitor cells to differentiate into the exocrine progenitor and endocrine progenitor lineages, respectively. At the second differentiation stage, Notch signaling inhibits the formation of acinar cells so that cells remain in the state of exocrine progenitor lineage, which is induced because NICD inhibits the expression of the PTF1 complex and breaks the auto-regulation of Ptf1a. The mechanism by which NICD down-regulates PTF1 complex expression is still poorly studied. In order to further understand the regulatory mechanism, we propose a possible regulatory network in Figure 11(B) according to relevant studies [44,50,51]. The regulatory role of Notch signaling in pancreatic cell differentiation was explored in [18], and lateral inhibition mechanism based on Notch signaling was mentioned in [49]. However, compared with references [18,49], we enrich and develop mathematical model to understand the role of Notch signaling and lateral inhibition in the regulation of pancreatic cell fate.
This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11971297).
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
Firstly, we analyze these bifurcation conditions in Figure 3(A) based on nonlinear dynamic Eq (1). At n=2 and n1=6, the steady state (φ1,φ2,φ3,φ4,φ5) of Eq (1) satisfies
αK21+b1φ24+b2φ25−d1φ1=0,a1φ21K22+φ21+b3φ23−d2φ2=0,a2φ21K23+φ21+b4φ22+b5φ24+a3φ63K64+a3φ63−d3φ3=0,a4φ22K25+φ22+a5φ24K26+a5φ24−d4φ4=0,a6φ23K27+φ23+a7φ25K28+a7φ25−d5φ5=0. | (3) |
In addition, the Jacobian matrix of Eq (1) is
J=(−d100ϕ1ϕ2ϕ3−d2ϕ400ϕ5ϕ6ϕ7−d3ϕ800ϕ90ϕ10−d4000ϕ110ϕ12−d5). | (4) |
Where
ϕ1=−2αb1φ4(K21+b1φ24+b2φ25)2,ϕ2=−2αb2φ5(K21+b1φ24+b2φ25)2,ϕ3=2a1φ1(K22+b3φ23)(K22+φ21+b3φ23)2,ϕ4=−2a1b3φ21φ3(K22+φ21+b3φ23)2,ϕ5=2a2φ1(K23+b4φ22+b5φ24)(K23+φ21+b4φ22+b5φ24)2,ϕ6=−2a2b4φ21φ2(K23+φ21+b4φ22+b5φ24)2,ϕ7=6a3K64φ53(K64+a3φ63)2,ϕ8=−2a2b5φ21φ4(K23+φ21+b4φ22+b5φ24)2,ϕ9=2a4K25φ2(K25+φ22)2,ϕ10=2a5K26φ4(K26+a5φ24)2,ϕ11=2a6K27φ3(K27+φ23)2,ϕ12=2a7K28φ5(K28+a7φ25)2. |
The characteristic equation of the Jacobian matrix (4) can be obtained |λE−J|=0, bifurcation occurs when at least one eigenvalue is equal to 0, it has
|J|=0. | (5) |
The bifurcation point of Eq (1) can be obtained by combining Eqs (3) and (5). For Figure 3(A), the a1=a2=aNP as the control parameter, the other parameters are predetermined values in Table 3. The steady state of Eq (1) under this parameter condition can be described as
11+100φ24+100φ25−φ1=0,aNPφ211+φ21+400φ23−φ2=0,aNPφ211+φ21+400φ22+100φ24−φ3=0,50φ241+50φ24−φ4=0,50φ251+50φ25−φ5=0. | (6) |
It has (φ4,φ5)=(0,0) or (5±√2310) by analyzing Eq (6). And considering that Isl1 (x4) and Rbpji (x5) are not activated in the case of Figure 3(A), i.e., its expression level is zero, (φ4,φ5)=(0,0). We know the value of φ4 and φ5, so, it has φ1=1. The Eq (7) can be obtained by simplifying Eq (6) under φ1=1,φ4=0,φ5=0.
aNP2+400φ23−φ2=0,aNP2+400φ22−φ3=0. | (7) |
Moreover, we substitute the parametric values Figure 3(A) and partial equilibrium (φ1=1,φ4=0,φ5=0) of Eq (6) into Eq (5). It has Eq (8), as following:
J=|−100002aNP400x23+2−2aNP(400x23+2)2−1−800aNPx3)(400x23+2)2002aNP400x22+2−2aNP(400x22+2)2−800aNPx2(400x22+2)2−100000−1000001|=0. | (8) |
We can obtain the bifurcation condition in Figure 3(A) and find the bifurcation point by combining Eqs (7) and (8). Similar to the above analysis, the conditions for their bifurcation can be analyzed by substituting the parameter values in Figures 4–6 into Eqs (3) and (5), respectively.
Then, we analyze these bifurcation conditions based on nonlinear dynamic Eq (2) and assume the two cells (i=1,2) that communicate are the same cells, xk,1=xk,2=φk(k=1,2,...,8) and the parameters βD,1=βD,2=βD,βN,1=βN,2=βN, it can reduce the dimension of the system to facilitate analysis. At n=2 and n1=6, the steady state (φ1,φ2,φ3,φ4,φ5,φ6,φ7,φ8) of Eq (2) satisfies
αK21+b1φ24+b2φ25−d1φ1=0,a1φ21K22+φ21+b3φ23+bφ28−d2φ2=0,a2φ21K23+φ21+b4φ22+b5φ24+a3φ63K64+a3φ63−d3φ3=0,a4φ22K25+φ22+a5φ24K26+a5φ24−d4φ4=0,a6φ23K27+φ23+a7φ25K28+a7φ25−d5φ5=0,βD−φ6φ7kc−φ6φ7kt+a8φ22K29+φ22−d6φ6=0,βN−φ6φ7kc−φ7φ6kt−d7φ7=0,φ7φ6kt−d8φ8=0. | (9) |
Naturally, we can get the Eq (9) Jacobian matrix
A=(−d100ϕ1ϕ2000ϕ3−d2ϕ40000ϕ13ϕ5ϕ6ϕ7−d3ϕ800000ϕ90ϕ10−d4000000ϕ110ϕ12−d50000ϕ14000ϕ15−d6ϕ16000000ϕ15ϕ16−d7000000ϕ17ϕ18−d7−d8). | (10) |
Where, the formula for ϕ1,...,ϕ12 are the same as Eq (4). ϕ13=−2a1bφ21φ8K12+φ21+b3φ23+bφ28,
ϕ14=2a8K29φ2(K29+φ22)2, ϕ15=−φ7(1kc+1kt), ϕ16=−φ6(1kc+1kt), ϕ17=φ7kt, ϕ18=φkkt.
The characteristic equation of the Jacobian matrix (10) can be obtained |λE−A|=0, bifurcation occurs when at least one eigenvalue is equal to zero, it has
|A|=0. | (11) |
By substituting the parameter values in Figures 9 and 10 into Eqs (9) and (11), the bifurcation points in Figures 9 and 10 can be obtained, respectively. In addition, Eq (2) under the condition of Figure 12 will be more complex, because part of the parameters of the two cells are different, so it is not possible to simplify as Eq (2) under the condition of Figures 9 and 10. Although it is a 16-dimensional system, the theoretical analysis method is the same as above.
Table 3: Here, a1 = a2 = aNP as control parameter and a3 = a4 = a6 = 0, a7 = 50, b3 = 400 in Figure 3; a1 = a2 = 2, b3 = 400, a3 = a7 = 50 and a4(a6=5), a6(a4=2) as control parameter in Figures 4 and 5; a3 = a7 = aP as control parameter and a1 = a2 = 2, a4 = 2, a6 = 5, b3 = 400 in Figure 6; a3 = a7 = aP as control parameter and a1 = a2 = 2, a4 = 2, a6 = 5, b3 = 50 in Figure 7. Some parameter values in the table are extracted from reference [22], i.e., α = 1, a5 = 50, b1 = 100, b2 = 100, di = 1 (i=1,2,3,4,5), Ki = 1 (i=1,2,3,5) and n=2. However, the remaining parameter values in the table are obtained based on the parameter values in which bifurcation behavior can occur in Eq (1).
Table 4: Some parameter values in this table were obtained by referring Table 3 and supplementary information of reference [48], i.e., d8 = 1, kc = 1, βN,i = {5,10,20} and βD,i = 20. The remaining parameter values in the table are obtained based on the parameter values in which bifurcation behavior can occur in Eq (2).
[1] | Bürk K (2017) Friedreich Ataxia: current status and future prospects. Cerebellum Ataxias. |
[2] | Leonard H, Cobb S, Downs J (2016) Clinical and biological progress over 50 years in Rett syndrome. Nat Rev Neurol 13: 37–51. |
[3] |
Auburger G, Klinkenberg M, Drost J, et al. (2012) Primary Skin Fibroblasts as a Model of Parkinson's Disease. Mol Neurobiol 46: 20–27. doi: 10.1007/s12035-012-8245-1
![]() |
[4] |
Petters RM, Sommer JR (2000) Transgenic animals as models for human disease. Transgenic Res 9: 347–351. doi: 10.1023/A:1008926303533
![]() |
[5] |
Hargus G, Ehrlich M, Hallmann AL, et al. (2014) Human stem cell models of neurodegeneration: A novel approach to study mechanisms of disease development. Acta Neuropathol 127: 151–173. doi: 10.1007/s00401-013-1222-6
![]() |
[6] | Ilic D, Ogilvie C (2017) Concise Review: Human Embryonic Stem Cells-What Have We Done? What Are We Doing? Where Are We Going? Stem Cells 35: 17–25. |
[7] |
Randolph LN, Jiang Y, Lian X (2017) Stem Cell Engineering and Differentiation for Disease Modeling and Cell-based Therapies. AIMS Cell Tissue Eng 1: 140–157. doi: 10.3934/celltissue.2017.2.140
![]() |
[8] |
Takahashi K, Yamanaka S (2006) Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors. Cell 126: 663–676. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.024
![]() |
[9] |
Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, et al. (2007) Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors. Cell 131: 861–872. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.019
![]() |
[10] |
Poon A, Zhang Y, Chandrasekaran A, et al. (2017) Modeling neurodegenerative diseases with patient-derived induced pluripotent cells: Possibilities and challenges. N Biotechnol 39: 190–198. doi: 10.1016/j.nbt.2017.05.009
![]() |
[11] |
Tabar V, Studer L (2014) Pluripotent stem cells in regenerative medicine: Challenges and recent progress. Na Rev Genet 15: 82–92. doi: 10.1038/nrg3563
![]() |
[12] |
Mertens J, Marchetto MC, Bardy C, et al. (2016) Evaluating cell reprogramming, differentiation and conversion technologies in neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 17: 424–437. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.46
![]() |
[13] |
Lancaster M, Renner M, Martin C, et al. (2013) Cerebral organoids model human brain development and microcephaly. Nature 501: 373–379. doi: 10.1038/nature12517
![]() |
[14] |
Pasca AM, Sloan SA, Clarke LE, et al. (2015) Functional cortical neurons and astrocytes from human pluripotent stem cells in 3D culture. Nat Methods 12: 671–678. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3415
![]() |
[15] |
Soldner F, Laganière J, Cheng AW, et al. (2011) Generation of Isogenic Pluripotent Stem Cells Differing Exclusively at Two Early Onset Parkinson Point Mutations. Cell 146: 318–331. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.06.019
![]() |
[16] |
Bassett AR (2017) Editing the genome of hiPSC with CRISPR/Cas9: disease models. Mamm Genome 28: 348–364. doi: 10.1007/s00335-017-9684-9
![]() |
[17] | Thomson JA, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro SS, et al. (1998) Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282: 1145–1147. |
[18] |
Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, et al. (1997) Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385: 810–813. doi: 10.1038/385810a0
![]() |
[19] |
Cowan CA, Atienza J, Melton DA, et al. (2005) Nuclear reprogramming of somatic cells after fusion with human embryonic stem cells. Science 309: 1369–1373. doi: 10.1126/science.1116447
![]() |
[20] |
Yu J, Vodyanik MA, Smuga-Otto K, et al. (2007) Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells. Science 318: 1917–1920. doi: 10.1126/science.1151526
![]() |
[21] |
Okita K, Matsumura Y, Sato Y, et al. (2011) A more efficient method to generate integration-free human iPS cells. Nat Methods 8: 409. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1591
![]() |
[22] |
Daley GQ (2014) Dissecting reprogramming, differentiation and conversion with network biology. Leuk Suppl 3: S3–S4. doi: 10.1038/leusup.2014.2
![]() |
[23] |
Zhou W, Freed CR (2009) Adenoviral Gene Delivery Can Reprogram Human Fibroblasts to Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Stem Cells 27: 2667–2674. doi: 10.1002/stem.201
![]() |
[24] |
Zhou Y, Zeng F (2013) Integration-free Methods for Generating Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Genom Proteom Bioinform 11: 284–287. doi: 10.1016/j.gpb.2013.09.008
![]() |
[25] |
Nakanishi M, Otsu M (2012) Development of Sendai Virus Vectors and their Potential Applications in Gene Therapy and Regenerative Medicine. Curr Gene Ther 12: 410–416. doi: 10.2174/156652312802762518
![]() |
[26] |
Kim D, Kim CH, Moon JI, et al. (2009) Generation of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells by Direct Delivery of Reprogramming Proteins. Cell Stem Cell 4: 472–476. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2009.05.005
![]() |
[27] |
Okita K, Yamanaka S (2011) Induced pluripotent stem cells: opportunities and challenges. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 366: 2198–2207. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0016
![]() |
[28] |
Paridaen JT, Huttner WB (2014) Neurogenesis during development of the vertebrate central nervous system. EMBO Rep 15: 351–364. doi: 10.1002/embr.201438447
![]() |
[29] |
Chandrasekaran A, Avci HX, Ochalek A, et al. (2017) Comparison of 2D and 3D neural induction methods for the generation of neural progenitor cells from human induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Res 25: 139–151. doi: 10.1016/j.scr.2017.10.010
![]() |
[30] |
Chuang JH (2015) Neural differentiation from embryonic stem cells in vitro : An overview of the signaling pathways. World J Stem Cells 7: 437. doi: 10.4252/wjsc.v7.i2.437
![]() |
[31] |
Chambers SM, Fasano CA, Papapetrou EP, et al. (2009) Highly efficient neural conversion of human ES and iPS cells by dual inhibition of SMAD signaling. Nat Biotechnol 27: 275–280. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1529
![]() |
[32] |
Qi Y, Zhang XJ, Renier N, et al. (2017) Combined small-molecule inhibition accelerates the derivation of functional cortical neurons from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol 35: 154–163. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3777
![]() |
[33] |
Kim DS, Jung SJ, Lee JS, et al. (2017) Rapid generation of OPC-like cells from human pluripotent stem cells for treating spinal cord injury. Exp Mole Med 49: e361. doi: 10.1038/emm.2017.106
![]() |
[34] |
Wang S, Bates J, Li X, et al. (2013) Human iPSC-derived oligodendrocyte progenitor cells can myelinate and rescue a mouse model of congenital hypomyelination. Cell Stem Cell 12: 252–264. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2012.12.002
![]() |
[35] |
Xu XH, Zhong Z (2013) Disease modeling and drug screening for neurological diseases using human induced pluripotent stem cells. Acta Pharmacol Sin 34: 755–764. doi: 10.1038/aps.2013.63
![]() |
[36] |
Lojewski X, Staropoli JF, Biswas-legrand S, et al. (2014) Human iPSC models of neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis capture distinct effects of TPP1 and CLN3 mutations on the endocytic pathway. Hum Mol Genet 23: 2005–2022. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddt596
![]() |
[37] |
Espuny-Camacho I, Michelsen KA, Linaro D, et al. (2018) Human Pluripotent Stem-Cell-Derived Cortical Neurons Integrate Functionally into the Lesioned Adult Murine Visual Cortex in an Area-Specific Way. Cell Rep 23: 2732–2743. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.04.094
![]() |
[38] |
Dwyer ND, Chen B, Chou SJ, et al. (2016) Neural Stem Cells to Cerebral Cortex: Emerging Mechanisms Regulating Progenitor Behavior and Productivity. J Neurosci 36: 11394–11401. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2359-16.2016
![]() |
[39] |
Rigamonti A, Repetti GG, Sun C, et al. (2016) Large-Scale Production of Mature Neurons from Human Pluripotent Stem Cells in a Three-Dimensional Suspension Culture System. Stem cell Rep 6: 993–1008. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.05.010
![]() |
[40] |
Gunhanlar N, Shpak G, van der Kroeg M, et al. (2018) A simplified protocol for differentiation of electrophysiologically mature neuronal networks from human induced pluripotent stem cells. Mol Psychiatry 23: 1336–1344. doi: 10.1038/mp.2017.56
![]() |
[41] |
Alcamo EA, Chirivella L, Dautzenberg M, et al. (2008) Satb2 regulates callosal projection neuron identity in the developing cerebral cortex. Neuron 57: 364–377. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.12.012
![]() |
[42] |
Britanova O, de Juan Romero C, Cheung A, et al. (2008) Satb2 is a postmitotic determinant for upper-layer neuron specification in the neocortex. Neuron 57: 378–392. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.12.028
![]() |
[43] |
Shi Y, Kirwan P, Livesey FJ (2012) Directed differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells to cerebral cortex neurons and neural networks. Nat Protoc 7: 1836–1846. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2012.116
![]() |
[44] |
Chen B, Wang SS, Hattox AM, et al. (2008) The Fezf2-Ctip2 genetic pathway regulates the fate choice of subcortical projection neurons in the developing cerebral cortex. Proc Nat Acad Sci 105: 11382–11387. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804918105
![]() |
[45] |
Espuny-Camacho I, Michelsen KA, Gall D, et al. (2013) Pyramidal neurons derived from human pluripotent stem cells integrate efficiently into mouse brain circuits in vivo. Neuron 77: 440–456. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.12.011
![]() |
[46] |
Elkabetz Y, Panagiotakos G, Al Shamy G, et al. (2008) Human ES cell-derived neural rosettes reveal a functionally distinct early neural stem cell stage. Genes Dev 22: 152–165. doi: 10.1101/gad.1616208
![]() |
[47] |
Paşca SP, Portmann T, Voineagu I, et al. (2011) Using iPSC-derived neurons to uncover cellular phenotypes associated with Timothy syndrome. Nat Med 17: 1657–1662. doi: 10.1038/nm.2576
![]() |
[48] |
Davis-Dusenbery BN, Williams LA, Klim JR, et al. (2014) How to make spinal motor neurons. Development 141: 491–501. doi: 10.1242/dev.097410
![]() |
[49] |
Santiago C, Bashaw GJ (2014) Transcription factors and effectors that regulate neuronal morphology. Development 141: 4667–4680. doi: 10.1242/dev.110817
![]() |
[50] | Stifani N (2014) Motor neurons and the generation of spinal motor neuron diversity. Front Cell Neurosci 8: 293. |
[51] |
Du ZW, Chen H, Liu H, et al. (2015) Generation and expansion of highly pure motor neuron progenitors from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Commun 6: 6626. doi: 10.1038/ncomms7626
![]() |
[52] |
Hester ME, Murtha MJ, Song S, et al. (2011) Rapid and efficient generation of functional motor neurons from human pluripotent stem cells using gene delivered transcription factor codes. Mol Ther 19: 1905–1912. doi: 10.1038/mt.2011.135
![]() |
[53] |
Di Giorgio FP, Boulting GL, Bobrowicz S, et al. (2008) Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Motor Neurons Are Sensitive to the Toxic Effect of Glial Cells Carrying an ALS-Causing Mutation. Cell Stem Cell 3: 637–648. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2008.09.017
![]() |
[54] |
Amoroso MW, Croft GF, Williams DJ, et al. (2013) Accelerated high-yield generation of limb-innervating motor neurons from human stem cells. J Neurosci 33: 574–586. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0906-12.2013
![]() |
[55] |
Karumbayaram S, Novitch BG, Patterson M, et al. (2009) Directed differentiation of human-induced pluripotent stem cells generates active motor neurons. Stem Cells 27: 806–811. doi: 10.1002/stem.31
![]() |
[56] |
Toma JS, Shettar BC, Chipman PH, et al. (2015) Motoneurons derived from induced pluripotent stem cells develop mature phenotypes typical of endogenous spinal motoneurons. J Neurosci 35: 1291–1306. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2126-14.2015
![]() |
[57] |
Pepper JP, Wang TV, Hennes V, et al. (2017) Human induced pluripotent stem cell–derived motor neuron transplant for neuromuscular atrophy in a mouse model of sciatic nerve injury. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 19: 197. doi: 10.1001/jamafacial.2016.1544
![]() |
[58] | Chandrasekaran A, Avci HX, Leist M, et al. (2016) Astrocyte differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells: New tools for neurological disorder research. Front Cell Neurosci 10: 215. |
[59] |
Santos R, Vadodaria KC, Jaeger BN, et al. (2017) Differentiation of inflammation-responsive astrocytes from glial progenitors generated from human induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Rep 8: 1757–1769. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.05.011
![]() |
[60] |
TCW J, Wang M, Pimenova AA, et al. (2017) An Efficient Platform for Astrocyte Differentiation from Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Stem Cell Rep 9: 600–614. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.06.018
![]() |
[61] |
Liu H, Zhang SC (2011) Specification of neuronal and glial subtypes from human pluripotent stem cells. Cell Mol Life Sci 68: 3995–4008. doi: 10.1007/s00018-011-0770-y
![]() |
[62] |
Krencik R, Weick JP, Liu Y, et al. (2011) Specification of transplantable astroglial subtypes from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol 29: 528–534. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1877
![]() |
[63] |
Jiang P, Chen C, Liu XB, et al. (2016) Human iPSC-Derived Immature Astroglia Promote Oligodendrogenesis by Increasing TIMP-1 Secretion. Cell Rep 15: 1303–1315. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.04.011
![]() |
[64] |
Nistor GI, Totoiu MO, Haque N, et al. (2005) Human embryonic stem cells differentiate into oligodendrocytes in high purity and myelinate after spinal cord transplantation. Glia 49: 385–396. doi: 10.1002/glia.20127
![]() |
[65] |
Hu BY, Du ZW, Zhang SC (2009) Differentiation of human oligodendrocytes from pluripotent stem cells. Nat Protoc 4: 1614–1622. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2009.186
![]() |
[66] |
Goldman SA, Kuypers NJ (2015) How to make an oligodendrocyte. Development 142: 3983–3995. doi: 10.1242/dev.126409
![]() |
[67] |
Doerr J, Böckenhoff A, Ewald B, et al. (2015) Arylsulfatase A Overexpressing Human iPSC-derived Neural Cells Reduce CNS Sulfatide Storage in a Mouse Model of Metachromatic Leukodystrophy. Mol Ther 23: 1519–1531. doi: 10.1038/mt.2015.106
![]() |
[68] |
Pouya A, Satarian L, Kiani S, et al. (2011) Human induced pluripotent stem cells differentiation into oligodendrocyte progenitors and transplantation in a rat model of optic chiasm demyelination. PLoS One 6: e27925. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027925
![]() |
[69] |
Lippmann ES, Azarin SM, Kay JE, et al. (2012) Derivation of blood-brain barrier endothelial cells from human pluripotent stem cells. Na Biotechnol 30: 783–791. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2247
![]() |
[70] |
Appelt-Menzel A, Cubukova A, Günther K, et al. (2017) Establishment of a human blood-brain barrier co-culture model mimicking the neurovascular unit using induced pluri- and multipotent stem cells. Stem Cell Rep 8: 894–906. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.02.021
![]() |
[71] |
Busskamp V, Lewis NE, Guye P, et al. (2014) Rapid neurogenesis through transcriptional activation in human stem cells. Mol Syst Biol 10: 760–760. doi: 10.15252/msb.20145508
![]() |
[72] |
Zhang Y, Pak CH, Han Y, et al. (2013) Rapid single-step induction of functional neurons from human pluripotent stem cells. Neuron 78: 785–798. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.05.029
![]() |
[73] |
Wang C, Ward ME, Chen R, et al. (2017) Scalable Production of iPSC-Derived Human Neurons to Identify Tau-Lowering Compounds by High-Content Screening. Stem Cell Rep 9: 1221–1233. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.08.019
![]() |
[74] |
Fernandopulle MS, Prestil R, Grunseich C, et al. (2018) Transcription Factor–Mediated Differentiation of Human iPSCs into Neurons. Curr Protoc Cell Biol 79: e51. doi: 10.1002/cpcb.51
![]() |
[75] |
Li X, Tao Y, Bradley R, et al. (2018) Fast Generation of Functional Subtype Astrocytes from Human Pluripotent Stem Cells. Stem Cell Rep 11: 998–1008. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.08.019
![]() |
[76] |
Ehrlich M, Mozafari S, Glatza M, et al. (2017) Rapid and efficient generation of oligodendrocytes from human induced pluripotent stem cells using transcription factors. Proc Natl Acade Sci U S A 114: E2243–E2252. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1614412114
![]() |
[77] |
García-León JA, Kumar M, Boon R, et al. (2018) SOX10 Single Transcription Factor-Based Fast and Efficient Generation of Oligodendrocytes from Human Pluripotent Stem Cells. Stem Cell Rep 10: 655–672. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.12.014
![]() |
[78] |
Ardhanareeswaran K, Mariani J, Coppola G, et al. (2017) Human induced pluripotent stem cells for modelling neurodevelopmental disorders. Nat Rev Neurol 13: 265–278. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2017.45
![]() |
[79] |
Shovlin S, Tropea D (2018) Transcriptome level analysis in Rett syndrome using human samples from different tissues. Orphanet J Rare Dis 13: 113. doi: 10.1186/s13023-018-0857-8
![]() |
[80] |
Chahrour M, Zoghbi HY (2007) The Story of Rett Syndrome: From Clinic to Neurobiology. Neuron 56: 422–437. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.001
![]() |
[81] |
Huidobro C, Fernandez AF, Fraga MF (2013) The role of genetics in the establishment and maintenance of the epigenome. Cell Mol Life Sci 70: 1543–1573. doi: 10.1007/s00018-013-1296-2
![]() |
[82] |
Kishi N, Macklis JD (2004) MECP2 is progressively expressed in post-migratory neurons and is involved in neuronal maturation rather than cell fate decisions. Mol Cell Neurosci 27: 306–321. doi: 10.1016/j.mcn.2004.07.006
![]() |
[83] | Damen D, Heumann R (2013) MeCP2 phosphorylation in the brain: From transcription to behavior. Biol Chem 394: 1595–1605. |
[84] |
Hendrich B, Bird A (1998) Identification and Characterization of a Family of Mammalian Methyl-CpG Binding Proteins. Mol Cell Biol 18: 6538–6547. doi: 10.1128/MCB.18.11.6538
![]() |
[85] |
Gold WA, Krishnarajy R, Ellaway C, et al. (2018) Rett Syndrome: A Genetic Update and Clinical Review Focusing on Comorbidities. ACS Chem Neurosci 9: 167–176. doi: 10.1021/acschemneuro.7b00346
![]() |
[86] |
Ausió J (2018) Role of MeCP2 in neurological disorders: current status and future perspectives. Epigenomics 10: 5–8. doi: 10.2217/epi-2017-0128
![]() |
[87] |
Linda K, Fiuza C, Nadif Kasri N (2018) The promise of induced pluripotent stem cells for neurodevelopmental disorders. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 84: 382–391. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.11.009
![]() |
[88] |
Marchetto MC, Carromeu C, Acab A, et al. (2010) A model for neural development and treatment of Rett syndrome using human induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell 143: 527–539. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.10.016
![]() |
[89] |
Kim KY, Hysolli E, Park IH (2011) Neuronal maturation defect in induced pluripotent stem cells from patients with Rett syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 14169–14174. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1018979108
![]() |
[90] |
Farra N, Zhang WB, Pasceri P, et al. (2012) Rett syndrome induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neurons reveal novel neurophysiological alterations. Mol Psychiatry 17: 1261–1271. doi: 10.1038/mp.2011.180
![]() |
[91] |
Cheung AY, Horvath LM, Grafodatskaya D, et al. (2011) Isolation of MECP2-null Rett Syndrome patient hiPS cells and isogenic controls through X-chromosome inactivation. Hum Mol Genet 20: 2103–2115. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddr093
![]() |
[92] |
Djuric U, Cheung AYL, Zhang W, et al. (2015) MECP2e1 isoform mutation affects the form and function of neurons derived from Rett syndrome patient iPS cells. Neurobiol Dis 76: 37–45. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2015.01.001
![]() |
[93] |
Lioy DT, Garg SK, Monaghan CE, et al. (2011) A role for glia in the progression of Rett's syndrome. Nature 475: 497–500. doi: 10.1038/nature10214
![]() |
[94] |
Williams EC, Zhong X, Mohamed A, et al. (2014) Mutant astrocytes differentiated from Rett syndrome patients-specific iPSCs have adverse effects on wildtype neurons. Hum Mol Genet 23: 2968–2980. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddu008
![]() |
[95] |
Pearn JH (1978) Incidence, prevalence, and gene frequency studies of chronic childhood spinal muscular atrophy. J Med Genet 15: 409–413. doi: 10.1136/jmg.15.6.409
![]() |
[96] | Ebert AD, Svendsen CN (2010) Stem cell model of spinal muscular atrophy. Arch Neurol 67: 665–669. |
[97] |
Sareen D, Ebert AD, Heins BM, et al. (2012) Inhibition of apoptosis blocks human motor neuron cell death in a stem cell model of spinal muscular atrophy. PLoS One 7: e39113. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039113
![]() |
[98] |
Liu Q, Fischer U, Wang F, et al. (1997) The spinal muscular atrophy disease gene product, SMN, and its associated protein SIP1 are in a complex with spliceosomal snRNP proteins. Cell 90: 1013–1021. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80367-0
![]() |
[99] |
Fischer U, Liu Q, Dreyfuss G (1997) The SMN-SIP1 complex has an essential role in spliceosomal snRNP biogenesis. Cell 90: 1023–1029. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80368-2
![]() |
[100] |
Rossoll W, Jablonka S, Andreassi C, et al. (2003) Smn, the spinal muscular atrophy-determining gene product, modulates axon growth and localization of β-actin mRNA in growth cones of motoneurons. J Cell Biol 163: 801–812. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200304128
![]() |
[101] |
Farrar MA, Kiernan MC (2015) The Genetics of Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Progress and Challenges. Neurotherapeutics 12: 290–302. doi: 10.1007/s13311-014-0314-x
![]() |
[102] | Corti S, Nizzardo M, Simone C, et al. (2012) Genetic correction of human induced pluripotent stem cells from patients with spinal muscular atrophy. Sci Transl Med 4: 165ra162. |
[103] |
Yoshida M, Kitaoka S, Egawa N, et al. (2015) Modeling the early phenotype at the neuromuscular junction of spinal muscular atrophy using patient-derived iPSCs. Stem Cell Rep 4: 561–568. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.02.010
![]() |
[104] |
Mcgivern JV, Patitucci TN, Nord JA, et al. (2013) Spinal muscular atrophy astrocytes exhibit abnormal calcium regulation and reduced growth factor production. Glia 61: 1418–1428. doi: 10.1002/glia.22522
![]() |
[105] |
Zhou C, Feng Z, Ko CP (2016) Defects in Motoneuron-Astrocyte Interactions in Spinal Muscular Atrophy. J Neurosci 36: 2543–2553. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3534-15.2016
![]() |
[106] |
Almad AA, Maragakis NJ (2012) Glia: An emerging target for neurological disease therapy. Stem Cell Res Ther 3: 37. doi: 10.1186/scrt128
![]() |
[107] |
Cloake NC, Yan J, Aminian A, et al. (2018) PLP1 mutations in patients with multiple sclerosis: Identification of a new mutation and potential pathogenicity of the mutations. J Clin Med 7: 100. doi: 10.3390/jcm7050100
![]() |
[108] | Hobson GM, Kamholz J (1993) PLP1-Related Disorders. GeneReviews®. |
[109] |
Garbern JY (2007) Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease: Genetic and cellular pathogenesis. Cell Mol Life Sci 64: 50–65. doi: 10.1007/s00018-006-6182-8
![]() |
[110] |
Numasawa-Kuroiwa Y, Okada Y, Shibata S, et al. (2014) Involvement of ER stress in dysmyelination of pelizaeus-merzbacher disease with PLP1 missense mutations shown by iPSC-derived oligodendrocytes. Stem Cell Rep 2: 648–661. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.03.007
![]() |
[111] |
Takahashi T, Suzuki T (2012) Role of sulfatide in normal and pathological cells and tissues. J Lipid Res 53: 1437–1450. doi: 10.1194/jlr.R026682
![]() |
[112] | Patil SA, Maegawa GHB (2013) Developing therapeutic approaches for metachromatic leukodystrophy. Drug Des Devel Ther 7: 729–745. |
[113] |
Ramakrishnan H, Hedayati KK, Lüllmann-Rauch R, et al. (2007) Increasing sulfatide synthesis in myelin-forming cells of arylsulfatase A-deficient mice causes demyelination and neurological symptoms reminiscent of human metachromatic leukodystrophy. J Neurosci 27: 9482–9490. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2287-07.2007
![]() |
[114] |
Deconinck N, Messaaoui A, Ziereisen F, et al. (2008) Metachromatic leukodystrophy without arylsulfatase A deficiency: A new case of saposin-B deficiency. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 12: 46–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpn.2007.05.004
![]() |
[115] |
Frati G, Luciani M, Meneghini V, et al. (2018) Human iPSC-based models highlight defective glial and neuronal differentiation from neural progenitor cells in metachromatic leukodystrophy. Cell Death Dis 9: 698. doi: 10.1038/s41419-018-0737-0
![]() |
[116] |
Meneghini V, Frati G, Sala D, et al. (2017) Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived bona fide neural stem cells for ex vivo gene therapy of metachromatic leukodystrophy. Stem Cells Transl Med 6: 352–368. doi: 10.5966/sctm.2015-0414
![]() |
[117] |
Messing A, LaPash Daniels CM, Hagemann TL (2010) Strategies for Treatment in Alexander Disease. Neurotherapeutics 7: 507–515. doi: 10.1016/j.nurt.2010.05.013
![]() |
[118] |
Prust M, Wang J, Morizono H, et al. (2011) GFAP mutations, age at onset, and clinical subtypes in Alexander disease. Neurology 77: 1287–1294. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182309f72
![]() |
[119] |
Jones JR, Kong L, Hanna MG, et al. (2018) Mutations in GFAP Disrupt the Distribution and Function of Organelles in Human Astrocytes. Cell Rep 25: 947–958.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.09.083
![]() |
[120] |
Kondo T, Funayama M, Miyake M, et al. (2016) Modeling Alexander disease with patient iPSCs reveals cellular and molecular pathology of astrocytes. Acta Neuropathol Commun 4: 69. doi: 10.1186/s40478-016-0337-0
![]() |
[121] |
Li L, Tian E, Chen X, et al. (2018) GFAP Mutations in Astrocytes Impair Oligodendrocyte Progenitor Proliferation and Myelination in an hiPSC Model of Alexander Disease. Cell Stem Cell 23: 239–251.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2018.07.009
![]() |
[122] |
Anheim M, Lagier-Tourenne C, Stevanin G, et al. (2009) SPG11 spastic paraplegia: A new cause of juvenile parkinsonism. J Neurol 256: 104–108. doi: 10.1007/s00415-009-0083-3
![]() |
[123] | Örlén H, Melberg A, Raininko R, et al. (2009) SPG11 mutations cause Kjellin syndrome, a hereditary spastic paraplegia with thin corpus callosum and central retinal degeneration. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatric Genet 150: 984–992. |
[124] |
Renvoisé B, Chang J, Singh R, et al. (2014) Lysosomal abnormalities in hereditary spastic paraplegia types SPG15 and SPG11. Ann Clin Trans Neurol 1: 379–389. doi: 10.1002/acn3.64
![]() |
[125] |
Murmu RP, Martin E, Rastetter A, et al. (2011) Cellular distribution and subcellular localization of spatacsin and spastizin, two proteins involved in hereditary spastic paraplegia. Mol Cell Neurosci 47: 191–202. doi: 10.1016/j.mcn.2011.04.004
![]() |
[126] |
Hirst J, Borner GH, Edgar J, et al. (2013) Interaction between AP-5 and the hereditary spastic paraplegia proteins SPG11 and SPG15. Mole Biol Cell 24: 2558–2569. doi: 10.1091/mbc.e13-03-0170
![]() |
[127] |
Pérez-Brangulí F, Mishra HK, Prots I, et al. (2014) Dysfunction of spatacsin leads to axonal pathology in SPG11-linked hereditary spastic paraplegia. Hum Mol Genet 23: 4859–4874. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddu200
![]() |
[128] |
Mishra HK, Prots I, Havlicek S, et al. (2016) GSK3ß-dependent dysregulation of neurodevelopment in SPG11-patient induced pluripotent stem cell model. Ann Neurol 79: 826–840. doi: 10.1002/ana.24633
![]() |
[129] |
Varga RE, Khundadze M, Damme M, et al. (2015) In vivo evidence for lysosome depletion and impaired autophagic clearance in hereditary spastic paraplegia type SPG11. PLoS Genet 11: e1005454. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005454
![]() |
[130] |
LaMarca EA, Powell SK, Akbarian S, et al. (2018) Modeling neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases with induced pluripotent stem cells. Front Pediatr 6: 82. doi: 10.3389/fped.2018.00082
![]() |
[131] |
Tian F, Hao J, Hu L, et al. (2018) Modeling neurodegenerative diseases by human pluripotent stem cell-induced brain organoid. Transl Surg 3: 42. doi: 10.4103/ts.ts_4_18
![]() |
[132] |
Wang H (2018) Modeling neurological diseases with human brain organoids. Front Synaptic Neurosci 10: 15. doi: 10.3389/fnsyn.2018.00015
![]() |
[133] |
Gabriel E, Wason A, Ramani A, et al. (2016) CPAP promotes timely cilium disassembly to maintain neural progenitor pool. EMBO J 35: 803–819. doi: 10.15252/embj.201593679
![]() |
[134] | Li Y, Muffat J, Omer A, et al. (2016) Induction of expansion and folding in human cerebral organoids. Cell Stem Cell 20: 385–396.e3. |
[135] |
Mariani J, Coppola G, Zhang P, et al. (2015) FOXG1-Dependent Dysregulation of GABA/Glutamate Neuron Differentiation in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Cell 162: 375–390. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.06.034
![]() |
[136] |
Kim YG, Cha J, Chandrasegaran S (1996) Hybrid restriction enzymes: zinc finger fusions to Fok I cleavage domain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93: 1156–1160. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.3.1156
![]() |
[137] |
Porteus MH, Baltimore D (2003) Chimeric nucleases stimulate gene targeting in human cells. Science 300: 763. doi: 10.1126/science.1078395
![]() |
[138] |
Wang Y, Zhang WY, Hu S, et al. (2012) Genome Editing of Human Embryonic Stem Cells and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells With Zinc Finger Nucleases for Cellular Imaging. Circ Res 111: 1494–1503. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.112.274969
![]() |
[139] |
Ramalingam S, London V, Kandavelou K, et al. (2013) Generation and genetic engineering of human induced pluripotent stem cells using designed zinc finger nucleases. Stem Cells Dev 22: 595–610. doi: 10.1089/scd.2012.0245
![]() |
[140] |
Wood AJ, Lo TW, Zeitler B, et al. (2011) Targeted Genome Editing Across Species Using ZFNs and TALENs. Science 333: 307–307. doi: 10.1126/science.1207773
![]() |
[141] |
Sanjana NE, Cong L, Zhou Y, et al. (2012) A transcription activator-like effector toolbox for genome engineering. Nat Protoc 7: 171–192. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2011.431
![]() |
[142] |
Cong L, Ran FA, Cox D, et al. (2013) Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339: 819–823. doi: 10.1126/science.1231143
![]() |
[143] |
Mali P, Yang L, Esvelt KM, et al. (2013) RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339: 823–826. doi: 10.1126/science.1232033
![]() |
[144] |
Suzuki T, Asami M, Perry ACF (2015) Asymmetric parental genome engineering by Cas9 during mouse meiotic exit. Sci Rep 4: 7621. doi: 10.1038/srep07621
![]() |
[145] |
Smith C, Gore A, Yan W, et al. (2014) Whole-genome sequencing analysis reveals high specificity of CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN-based genome editing in human iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell 15: 12–13. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2014.06.011
![]() |
[146] |
Smith C, Abalde-Atristain L, He C, et al. (2015) Efficient and allele-specific genome editing of disease loci in human iPSCs. Mol Ther 23: 570–577. doi: 10.1038/mt.2014.226
![]() |
[147] | He X, Li YX, Feng B (2018) New Turns for High Efficiency Knock-In of Large DNA in Human Pluripotent Stem Cells. Stem Cells Int 2018: 1–7. |
[148] | Fu Y, Reyon D, Keith Joung J (2014) Targeted genome editing in human cells using CRISPR/Cas nucleases and truncated guide RNAs. Methods Enzymol 546: 21–45. |
[149] |
Tsai SQ, Wyvekens N, Khayter C, et al. (2014) Dimeric CRISPR RNA-guided FokI nucleases for highly specific genome editing. Nat Biotechnol 32: 569–576. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2908
![]() |
[150] |
Raitano S, Ordovàs L, De Muynck L, et al. (2015) Restoration of progranulin expression rescues cortical neuron generation in an induced pluripotent stem cell model of frontotemporal dementia. Stem Cell Rep 4: 16–24. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.12.001
![]() |
[151] |
Ebert AD, Yu J, Rose FF, et al. (2009) Induced pluripotent stem cells from a spinal muscular atrophy patient. Nature 457: 277–280. doi: 10.1038/nature07677
![]() |
[152] |
Simone C, Ramirez A, Bucchia M, et al. (2016) Is spinal muscular atrophy a disease of the motor neurons only: Pathogenesis and therapeutic implications? Cell Mol Life Sci 73: 1003–1020. doi: 10.1007/s00018-015-2106-9
![]() |
[153] |
Ramirez A, Crisafulli SG, Rizzuti M, et al. (2018) Investigation of New Morpholino Oligomers to Increase Survival Motor Neuron Protein Levels in Spinal Muscular Atrophy. Int J Mol Sci 19: E167. doi: 10.3390/ijms19010167
![]() |
[154] |
Klose RJ, Sarraf SA, Schmiedeberg L, et al. (2005) DNA Binding Selectivity of MeCP2 Due to a Requirement for A/T Sequences Adjacent to Methyl-CpG. Mol Cell 19: 667–678. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2005.07.021
![]() |
[155] |
Mellios N, Woodson J, Garcia RI, et al. (2014) β2-Adrenergic receptor agonist ameliorates phenotypes and corrects microRNA-mediated IGF1 deficits in a mouse model of Rett syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111: 9947–9952. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1309426111
![]() |
[156] |
Chang Q, Khare G, Dani V, et al. (2006) The disease progression of Mecp2 mutant mice is affected by the level of BDNF expression. Neuron 49: 341–348. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.12.027
![]() |
[157] |
Wang H, Chan SA, Ogier M, et al. (2006) Dysregulation of brain-derived neurotrophic factor expression and neurosecretory function in Mecp2 null mice. J Neurosci 26: 10911–10915. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1810-06.2006
![]() |
[158] |
Li W, Pozzo-Miller L (2014) BDNF deregulation in Rett syndrome. Neuropharmacology 76: 737–746. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.03.024
![]() |
[159] |
Williams EC, Zhong X, Mohamed A, et al. (2014) Mutant astrocytes differentiated from Rett syndrome patients-specific iPSCs have adverse effects on wild-type neurons. Hum Mol Genet 23: 2968–2980. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddu008
![]() |
[160] |
Zhu JM, Zhao YY, Chen SD, et al. (2011) Functional recovery after transplantation of neural stem cells modified by brain-derived neurotrophic factor in rats with cerebral ischaemia. J Int Med Res 39: 488–498. doi: 10.1177/147323001103900216
![]() |
[161] |
Behrstock S, Ebert AD, Klein S, et al. (2008) Lesion-induced increase in survival and migration of human neural progenitor cells releasing GDNF. Cell Transplant 17: 753–762. doi: 10.3727/096368908786516819
![]() |
[162] |
Hjelm BE, Grunseich C, Gowing G, et al. (2016) Mifepristone-inducible transgene expression in neural progenitor cells in vitro and in vivo. Gene Ther 23: 424–437. doi: 10.1038/gt.2016.13
![]() |
1. | Victoria L. Messerschmidt, Uday Chintapula, Aneetta E. Kuriakose, Samantha Laboy, Thuy Thi Dang Truong, LeNaiya A. Kydd, Justyn Jaworski, Zui Pan, Hesham Sadek, Kytai T. Nguyen, Juhyun Lee, Notch Intracellular Domain Plasmid Delivery via Poly(Lactic-Co-Glycolic Acid) Nanoparticles to Upregulate Notch Pathway Molecules, 2021, 8, 2297-055X, 10.3389/fcvm.2021.707897 | |
2. | Xinyu He, Ruoyu Tang, Jie Lou, Ruiqi Wang, Identifying key factors in cell fate decisions by machine learning interpretable strategies, 2023, 49, 0092-0606, 443, 10.1007/s10867-023-09640-4 | |
3. | Zhuozhen Xue, Qing Hu, Xiaoqi Lu, Ruiqi Wang, Systematic dynamical analysis reveals the hierarchical hematopoietic differentiation, 2025, 111, 2470-0045, 10.1103/PhysRevE.111.034406 |
Proteins | Action | Proteins | References |
Hnf6 | Activate | Ngn3 | [15,22] |
Hnf6 | Activate | Ptf1a | [15,22] |
Ngn3 | Inhibit | Ptf1a | [15,22] |
Ngn3 | Activate | Isl1 | [22] |
Ptf1a | Inhibit | Ngn3 | [15,22] |
Ptf1a | Auto-activate | [30,31,32] | |
Ptf1a | Activate | Rbpjl | [31] |
Isl1 | Inhibit | Hnf6 | [22] |
Isl1 | Inhibit | Ptf1a | [22] |
Isl1 | Auto-activate | [22] | |
Rbpjl | Auto-activate | [30] | |
Rbpjl | Inhibit | Hnf6 | [56] |
Hnf6 | Ngn3 | Ptf1a | Isl1 | Rbpjl | References | |
Ppc | high | low | low | low | low | [15,22] |
Enpc | high | high | low | low | low | [15] |
Expc | high | low | high/higher | low | low | [15] |
Mic | low | low | low | high | low | [22] |
Mac | low | low | high | low | high | [22,37] |
Ppc, Enpc, Expc, Mic, and Mac represent pancreatic progenitor cells, endocrine progenitor cells, exocrine progenitor cell, mature islet cell, and mature acinar cells, respectively. |
Symbols | Descriptions | |
Variables | x1 | Expression of Hnf6 |
x2 | Expression of Ngn3 | |
x3 | Expression of ptf1a | |
x4 | Expression of Isl1 | |
x5 | Expression of Rbpjl | |
Parameters | α = 1 | Basal production rate of Hnf6 |
ai (i = 1, 2, 4, 6) | Strength of induction between proteins | |
a3,a7 a5 = 50 | Strength of auto-activation of the proteins | |
b1=b2 = 100 b3 = {400,50} b4 = 400 b5 = 100 | Strength of inhibition between proteins | |
di=1 (i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | Degradation rate | |
Ki = 1 K4 = 0.8 K7 = 50 (i = 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8) | Threshold of the sigmoidal function | |
n = 2, n1 = 6 | Hill coefficient |
Symbols | Descriptions | |
Variables | x1,i | Expression of Hnf6 in cell i |
x2,i | Expression of Ngn3 in cell i | |
x3,i | Expression of Ptf1a in cell i | |
x4,i | Expression of Isl1 in cell i | |
x5,i | Expression of Rbpjl in cell i | |
x6,i | Expression of Delta1 in cell i | |
x7,i | Expression of Notch in cell i | |
x8,i | Expression of NICD in cell i | |
Parameters | α = 1 | Basal production rate of Hnf6 |
a1, a2, a4 = 0 a6 = 0, a8 = 1 | Strength of induction between proteins | |
aj = 0 (j = 3, 5, 7) | Strength of auto-activation of the proteins | |
bj = 100, b4=400 (j = 1, 2, 3, 5) | Strength of inhibition between proteins | |
dj = 1 (j = 1, ⋯, 8) | Degradation rate | |
Kj = 1 K4 = 0.8 K7 = 50 (j = 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9) | Threshold of the sigmoidal function | |
βD,i, βN,i | Basal production rate of Delta1, Notch in cell i | |
kt = 1 | Strength of trans-activation | |
kc = 1 | Strength of cis-inhibition | |
b = 0.1 | Strength of NICD ⊣ Ngn3 | |
n = 2, n1 = 6 | Hill coefficient |
Proteins | Action | Proteins | References |
Hnf6 | Activate | Ngn3 | [15,22] |
Hnf6 | Activate | Ptf1a | [15,22] |
Ngn3 | Inhibit | Ptf1a | [15,22] |
Ngn3 | Activate | Isl1 | [22] |
Ptf1a | Inhibit | Ngn3 | [15,22] |
Ptf1a | Auto-activate | [30,31,32] | |
Ptf1a | Activate | Rbpjl | [31] |
Isl1 | Inhibit | Hnf6 | [22] |
Isl1 | Inhibit | Ptf1a | [22] |
Isl1 | Auto-activate | [22] | |
Rbpjl | Auto-activate | [30] | |
Rbpjl | Inhibit | Hnf6 | [56] |
Hnf6 | Ngn3 | Ptf1a | Isl1 | Rbpjl | References | |
Ppc | high | low | low | low | low | [15,22] |
Enpc | high | high | low | low | low | [15] |
Expc | high | low | high/higher | low | low | [15] |
Mic | low | low | low | high | low | [22] |
Mac | low | low | high | low | high | [22,37] |
Ppc, Enpc, Expc, Mic, and Mac represent pancreatic progenitor cells, endocrine progenitor cells, exocrine progenitor cell, mature islet cell, and mature acinar cells, respectively. |
Symbols | Descriptions | |
Variables | x1 | Expression of Hnf6 |
x2 | Expression of Ngn3 | |
x3 | Expression of ptf1a | |
x4 | Expression of Isl1 | |
x5 | Expression of Rbpjl | |
Parameters | α = 1 | Basal production rate of Hnf6 |
ai (i = 1, 2, 4, 6) | Strength of induction between proteins | |
a3,a7 a5 = 50 | Strength of auto-activation of the proteins | |
b1=b2 = 100 b3 = {400,50} b4 = 400 b5 = 100 | Strength of inhibition between proteins | |
di=1 (i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | Degradation rate | |
Ki = 1 K4 = 0.8 K7 = 50 (i = 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8) | Threshold of the sigmoidal function | |
n = 2, n1 = 6 | Hill coefficient |
Symbols | Descriptions | |
Variables | x1,i | Expression of Hnf6 in cell i |
x2,i | Expression of Ngn3 in cell i | |
x3,i | Expression of Ptf1a in cell i | |
x4,i | Expression of Isl1 in cell i | |
x5,i | Expression of Rbpjl in cell i | |
x6,i | Expression of Delta1 in cell i | |
x7,i | Expression of Notch in cell i | |
x8,i | Expression of NICD in cell i | |
Parameters | α = 1 | Basal production rate of Hnf6 |
a1, a2, a4 = 0 a6 = 0, a8 = 1 | Strength of induction between proteins | |
aj = 0 (j = 3, 5, 7) | Strength of auto-activation of the proteins | |
bj = 100, b4=400 (j = 1, 2, 3, 5) | Strength of inhibition between proteins | |
dj = 1 (j = 1, ⋯, 8) | Degradation rate | |
Kj = 1 K4 = 0.8 K7 = 50 (j = 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9) | Threshold of the sigmoidal function | |
βD,i, βN,i | Basal production rate of Delta1, Notch in cell i | |
kt = 1 | Strength of trans-activation | |
kc = 1 | Strength of cis-inhibition | |
b = 0.1 | Strength of NICD ⊣ Ngn3 | |
n = 2, n1 = 6 | Hill coefficient |