Cumulus-specific genes are transcriptionally silent following somatic cell nuclear transfer in a mouse model

Comparative analysis of nuclear transfer embryo-derived mouse embryonic stem cells. Part II: gene regulation

In a mouse model nuclear transfer embryo-derived embryonic stem cell lines (ntESCs) of various genetic backgrounds and donor cell types were compared with reference ESCs and analyzed comprehensively at molecular level as a second part of a larger study. Expression profiles of ntESCs established by different NT-methods (piezoelectric microinjection or zona-free) were indistinguishable. However, expression profiling analyses identified differentially regulated genes between reference ESCs and ntESCs from different genetic backgrounds. A number of pluripotency and stemness marker genes significantly differed at the mRNA level between the cell lines. However, cluster and lineage analyses revealed that such differences had no effect on cell differentiation and cell fate. Regardless of the donor cell type, gene expression profiles of ntESCs were more similar to each other than to their counterpart fertilized embryo-derived ESCs of the same genotype. Overall, the results indicated that expression profile differences may be related to the genotype rather than to technical variations.

Comparative analysis of nuclear transfer embryo-derived mouse embryonic stem cells. Part I: cellular characterization

Embryonic stem cells derived from nuclear transfer embryos (ntESCs) are particularly valuable for regenerative medicine, as they are a patient-specific and histocompatible cell source for the treatment of varying diseases. However, currently, little is known about their cellular and molecular profile. In the present study, in a mouse model different donor cell-derived ntESCs from various genetic backgrounds were compared with reference ESCs and analyzed comprehensively at the cellular level. A number of pluripotency marker genes were compared by flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry analysis. Significant differences at the protein level were observed for POU5F1, SOX2, FGF4, NANOG, and SSEA-1. However, such differences had no effect on in vitro cell differentiation and cell fate: derivatives of the three germ layers were detected in all ntESC lines. The neural and cardiac in vitro differentiation revealed minor differences between the cell lines, both at the mRNA and protein level. Karyotype analyses and cell growth studies did not reveal any significant variations. Despite some differences observed, the present study revealed that ntESC lines had similar differentiation competences compared to other ESCs. The results indicate that the observed differences may be related to the genotype rather than to the nuclear transfer technology.