Switching stem cell state through programmed germ cell reprogramming

DMRT1-mediated reprogramming drives development of cancer resembling human germ cell tumors with features of totipotency

In vivo reprogramming provokes a wide range of cell fate conversion. Here, we discover that in vivo induction of higher levels of OSKM in mouse somatic cells leads to increased expression of primordial germ cell (PGC)-related genes and provokes genome-wide erasure of genomic imprinting, which takes place exclusively in PGCs. Moreover, the in vivo OSKM reprogramming results in development of cancer that resembles human germ cell tumors. Like a subgroup of germ cell tumors, propagated tumor cells can differentiate into trophoblasts. Moreover, these tumor cells give rise to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) with expanded differentiation potential into trophoblasts. Remarkably, the tumor-derived iPSCs are able to contribute to non-neoplastic somatic cells in adult mice. Mechanistically, DMRT1, which is expressed in PGCs, drives the reprogramming and propagation of the tumor cells in vivo. Furthermore, the DMRT1-related epigenetic landscape is associated with trophoblast competence of the reprogrammed cells and provides a therapeutic target for germ cell tumors. These results reveal an unappreciated route for somatic cell reprogramming and underscore the impact of reprogramming in development of germ cell tumors.

Chromatin dynamics and the role of G9a in gene regulation and enhancer silencing during early mouse development

Early mouse development is accompanied by dynamic changes in chromatin modifications, including G9a-mediated histone H3 lysine 9 dimethylation (H3K9me2), which is essential for embryonic development. Here we show that genome-wide accumulation of H3K9me2 is crucial for postimplantation development, and coincides with redistribution of enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2)-dependent histone H3 lysine 27 trimethylation (H3K27me3). Loss of G9a or EZH2 results in upregulation of distinct gene sets involved in cell cycle regulation, germline development and embryogenesis. Notably, the H3K9me2 modification extends to active enhancer elements where it promotes developmentally-linked gene silencing and directly marks promoters and gene bodies. This epigenetic mechanism is important for priming gene regulatory networks for critical cell fate decisions in rapidly proliferating postimplantation epiblast cells.

Germ cell specification and pluripotency in mammals: a perspective from early embryogenesis

Germ cells are unique cell types that generate a totipotent zygote upon fertilization, giving rise to the next generation in mammals and many other multicellular organisms. How germ cells acquire this ability has been of considerable interest. In mammals, primordial germ cells (PGCs), the precursors of sperm and oocytes, are specified around the time of gastrulation. PGCs are induced by signals from the surrounding extra-embryonic tissues to the equipotent epiblast cells that give rise to all cell types. Currently, the mechanism of PGC specification in mammals is best understood from studies in mice. Following implantation, the epiblast cells develop as an egg cylinder while the extra-embryonic ectoderm cells which are the source of important signals for PGC specification are located over the egg cylinder. However, in most cases, including humans, the epiblast cells develop as a planar disc, which alters the organization and the source of the signaling for cell fates. This, in turn, might have an effect on the precise mechanism of PGC specification in vivo as well as in vitro using pluripotent embryonic stem cells. Here, we discuss how the key early embryonic differences between rodents and other mammals may affect the establishment of the pluripotency network in vivo and in vitro, and consequently the basis for PGC specification, particularly from pluripotent embryonic stem cells in vitro.

Tsix RNA and the germline factor, PRDM14, link X reactivation and stem cell reprogramming

Transitions between pluripotent and differentiated states are marked by dramatic epigenetic changes. Cellular differentiation is tightly linked to X chromosome inactivation (XCI), whereas reprogramming to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) is associated with X chromosome reactivation (XCR). XCR reverses the silent state of the inactive X, occurring in mouse blastocysts and germ cells. In spite of its importance, little is known about underlying mechanisms. Here, we examine the role of the long noncoding Tsix RNA and the germline factor, PRDM14. In blastocysts, XCR is perturbed by mutation of either Tsix or Prdm14. In iPSCs, XCR is disrupted only by PRDM14 deficiency, which also affects iPSC derivation and maintenance. We show that Tsix and PRDM14 directly link XCR to pluripotency: first, PRDM14 represses Rnf12 by recruiting polycomb repressive complex 2; second, Tsix enables PRDM14 to bind Xist. Thus, our study provides functional and mechanistic links between cellular and X chromosome reprogramming.

Lessons for inductive germline determination

Formation of the germline in an embryo marks a fresh round of reproductive potential, yet the developmental stage and location within the embryo where the primordial germ cells (PGCs) form differs wildly among species. In most animals, the germline is formed either by an inherited mechanism, in which maternal provisions within the oocyte drive localized germ-cell fate once acquired in the embryo, or an inductive mechanism that involves signaling between cells that directs germ-cell fate. The inherited mechanism has been widely studied in model organisms such as Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans, Xenopus laevis, and Danio rerio. Given the rapid generation time and the effective adaptation for laboratory research of these organisms, it is not coincidental that research on these organisms has led the field in elucidating mechanisms for germline specification. The inductive mechanism, however, is less well understood and is studied primarily in the mouse (Mus musculus). In this review, we compare and contrast these two fundamental mechanisms for germline determination, beginning with the key molecular determinants that play a role in the formation of germ cells across all animal taxa. We next explore the current understanding of the inductive mechanism of germ-cell determination in mice, and evaluate the hypotheses for selective pressures on these contrasting mechanisms. We then discuss the hypothesis that the transition between these determination mechanisms, which has happened many times in phylogeny, is more of a continuum than a binary change. Finally, we propose an analogy between germline determination and sex determination in vertebrates-two of the milestones of reproduction and development-in which animals use contrasting strategies to activate similar pathways.

X-inactivation and X-reactivation: epigenetic hallmarks of mammalian reproduction and pluripotent stem cells

X-chromosome inactivation is an epigenetic hallmark of mammalian development. Chromosome-wide regulation of the X-chromosome is essential in embryonic and germ cell development. In the male germline, the X-chromosome goes through meiotic sex chromosome inactivation, and the chromosome-wide silencing is maintained from meiosis into spermatids before the transmission to female embryos. In early female mouse embryos, X-inactivation is imprinted to occur on the paternal X-chromosome, representing the epigenetic programs acquired in both parental germlines. Recent advances revealed that the inactive X-chromosome in both females and males can be dissected into two elements: repeat elements versus unique coding genes. The inactive paternal X in female preimplantation embryos is reactivated in the inner cell mass of blastocysts in order to subsequently allow the random form of X-inactivation in the female embryo, by which both Xs have an equal chance of being inactivated. X-chromosome reactivation is regulated by pluripotency factors and also occurs in early female germ cells and in pluripotent stem cells, where X-reactivation is a stringent marker of naive ground state pluripotency. Here we summarize recent progress in the study of X-inactivation and X-reactivation during mammalian reproduction and development as well as in pluripotent stem cells.

Histone variant macroH2A confers resistance to nuclear reprogramming

Gurdon and collaborators report reversible X chromosome inactivation in epiblast stem cells (EpiSCs) that seems to be determined by macroH2A1 deposition. These findings are of rather general interest as they highlight the epigenetic state of repressed loci as determinant for reprogramming efficiency.

How various layers of epigenetic repression restrict somatic cell nuclear reprogramming is poorly understood. The transfer of mammalian somatic cell nuclei into Xenopus oocytes induces transcriptional reprogramming of previously repressed genes. Here, we address the mechanisms that restrict reprogramming following nuclear transfer by assessing the stability of the inactive X chromosome (Xi) in different stages of inactivation. We find that the Xi of mouse post-implantation-derived epiblast stem cells (EpiSCs) can be reversed by nuclear transfer, while the Xi of differentiated or extraembryonic cells is irreversible by nuclear transfer to oocytes. After nuclear transfer, Xist RNA is lost from chromatin of the Xi. Most epigenetic marks such as DNA methylation and Polycomb-deposited H3K27me3 do not explain the differences between reversible and irreversible Xi. Resistance to reprogramming is associated with incorporation of the histone variant macroH2A, which is retained on the Xi of differentiated cells, but absent from the Xi of EpiSCs. Our results uncover the decreased stability of the Xi in EpiSCs, and highlight the importance of combinatorial epigenetic repression involving macroH2A in restricting transcriptional reprogramming by oocytes.