Methods for making induced pluripotent stem cells: reprogramming à la carte

Pluripotent stem-cell lines can be obtained through the reprogramming of somatic cells from different tissues and species by ectopic expression of defined factors. In theory, these cells--known as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)--are suitable for various purposes, including disease modelling, autologous cell therapy, drug or toxicity screening and basic research. Recent methodological improvements are increasing the ease and efficiency of reprogramming, and reducing the genomic modifications required to complete the process. However, depending on the downstream applications, certain technologies have advantages over others. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the existing reprogramming approaches with the aim of providing readers with a better understanding of the reprogramming process and a basis for selecting the most suitable method for basic or clinical applications.     

When cleaning facilitates cluttering – genome editing in ciliates

Many organisms remove DNA from their genomes during development. This has foremost been characterized as a means of defending genomes against mobile elements. However, genome editing actually hides such elements from purifying selection, with the survivors evolving approximately neutrally, ‘cluttering’ the germline genome, enabling it to enlarge over time.     

Does human genome editing reinforce or violate human dignity?

Germline genome editing is often disapproved of at the international policy level because of its possible threats to human dignity. However, from a critical perspective the relationship between this emerging technology and human dignity is relatively understudied. We explore the main principles that are referred to when ‘human dignity' is invoked in this context; namely, the link with eugenics, the idea of a common genetic heritage, the principle of equal birth and broader equality and justice concerns. Yet the concept is also used in favour of germline genome editing as it might improve the overall well-being of future generations. We conclude that dignity concerns do not justify a complete ban on safe heritable genome editing but should inform the implementation of side constraints to ensure that the value judgements about human traits that are inherent in this practice do not result in a diminished basic respect for those people affected by them.     

Exploiting CRISPR–Cas immune systems for genome editing in bacteria

1. Download : Download high-res image (131KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

A protein canyon in the FGF-FGF receptor dimer selects from an à la carte menu of heparan sulfate motifs

Heparan sulfate (HS) is an essential and dynamic regulator of fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signaling. Two fundamentally different crystallographic models have been proposed to explain, at the molecular level, how HS/heparin enables FGF and FGF receptor (FGFR) to assemble into a functional dimer on the cell surface. In the symmetric 'two-end' model, the heparin-binding sites of FGF and FGFR merge to form a basic canyon that recruits two HS for binding. Within this canyon, the HS molecules primarily act to orchestrate and fortify multivalent and cooperative protein-protein contacts within the dimer that are the foundations of dimerization. In contrast, in the asymmetric model, which mechanistically resembles the previously proposed trans FGF dimer model, a single heparin molecule facilitates dimerization by cross-linking two FGFs into a trans dimer that brings together the two FGFRs. Interestingly, the crystal structure upon which the asymmetric model is based contains a symmetric dimer reminiscent of the symmetric two-end model, suggesting that a different interpretation of the crystal structure has led to the postulation of the asymmetric model. Importantly, the symmetric two-end model provides an intriguing solution to the problem of how HS selectivity is achieved in FGF signaling. The model reveals that, within the canyon, FGF and FGFR no longer adhere to their individual HS binding specificities, but instead act in unison to search for a unique HS motif from a plethora of HS epitopes that are expressed in a tissue-specific and developmentally regulated fashion. Primary sequence differences within the heparin-binding sites of FGFs and FGFRs, together with ligand-induced changes in FGFR conformation, lead to the formation of distinct canyons with unique HS specificity for individual FGF-FGFR complexes.