Human Reproduction Update Advance Access originally published online on August 26, 2006
Human Reproduction Update 2007 13(2):103-120; doi:10.1093/humupd/dml041
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Differences between human embryonic stem cell lines
1 School of Human Development, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
2 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: School of Human Development, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, East Block, D Floor, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK. E-mail: lorraine.young{at}nottingham.ac.uk
 |
Abstract |
|---|
The promise of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines for treating injuries and degenerative diseases, for understanding early human development, for disease modelling and for drug discovery, has brought much excitement to scientific communities as well as to the public. Although all of the lines derived worldwide share the expression of characteristic pluripotency markers, many differences are emerging between lines that may be more associated with the wide range of culture conditions in current use than the inherent genetic variation of the embryos from which embryonic stem cells were derived. Thus, the validity of many comparisons between lines published thus far is difficult to interpret. This article reviews the evidence for differences between lines, focusing on studies of pluripotency marker molecules, transcriptional profiling, genetic stability and epigenetic stability, for which there is most evidence. Recognition and assessment of environmentally induced differences will be important to facilitate the development of culture systems that maximize stability in culture and provide lines with maximal potential for safety and success in the range of possible applications.
Key words: epigenetics / gene expression / human embryonic stem cells / inter-line variability / karyotype
Received on April 18, 2006; revised July 12, 2006; accepted on July 29, 2006
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  I. Mateizel, C. Spits, A. Verloes, A. Mertzanidou, I. Liebaers, and K. Sermon Characterization of CD30 expression in human embryonic stem cell lines cultured in serum-free media and passaged mechanically Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2009; 24(10): 2477 - 2489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Raya, I. Rodriguez-Piza, B. Aran, A. Consiglio, P.N. Barri, A. Veiga, and J.C. Izpisua Belmonte Generation of Cardiomyocytes from New Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Poor-quality Blastocysts Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol, November 26, 2008; (2008) sqb.2008.73.038v2. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. K. Intemann and Inmaculada de Melo-Martin Regulating scientific research: should scientists be left alone? FASEB J, March 1, 2008; 22(3): 654 - 658. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K.-P. Kim, A. Thurston, C. Mummery, D. Ward-van Oostwaard, H. Priddle, C. Allegrucci, C. Denning, and L. Young Gene-specific vulnerability to imprinting variability in human embryonic stem cell lines Genome Res., December 1, 2007; 17(12): 1731 - 1742. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|