fluorescent protein

Monitoring the Undifferentiated Stage of Stem Cells—the Pluripotency Markers

Human embryonic stem (ES) cells or induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells promise to serve as an unlimited source for transplantation or tissue-specific differentiation. However, obtaining and maintaining stem cells are very difficult tasks for multiple reasons. For instance, most stem cell lines tend to spontaneously differentiate in culture, and even if the cells form stem cell-like colonies, they may be of a heterogeneous population.

To identify pluripotency of stem cells, expression of stem cell-specific marker genes (i.e. Oct-3/4, Sox2, Nanog, Rex-1) is monitored by RT-PCR. Alkaline phosphatase activity and methylation profiles of promoters of pluripotency-relevant genes are often analyzed as well. Compared to murine cells, it is noticeably more difficult to obtain human iPSCs, of which stem cell-like colonies sometimes turn out not to be pluripotent cells. We highly recommend testing iPSCs, especially human iPSCs, with antibodies against stage-specific embryonic antigens such as SSEA-3, SSEA-4, TRA-1-60, and TRA-1-81.

However, all of these methods require cell destruction or fixation for analysis, therefore, are inconvenient and costly. Furthermore, many studies using ES or iPS cells involve differentiation of stem cells into different lineages, a method for observing live cells to know their undifferentiation/differentiation stages would be very helpful. There have been a number of publications using murine Oct-4, Nanog, and Rex-1 promoter driven fluorescent proteins as markers for pluripotency tests [1-3]. Allele Biotech provides, under its iPS product line, packaged and validated lentiviral particles that would insert these 3 promoter-FP reporters into the stem cells. Although currently these promoters are of mouse sequences, their use in human stem cells have been reported.

    New product of the week 01-25-10 to 01-31-10:

All-In-One-Vector: Human OSKM Lentiviral Paticles, with Oct-4, Sox-2, Klf, and c-Myc all expressed from a single virus, ready-to-use.

    • Promotion of the week:

human iPS cell detection primer set, the same as the landmark Yamanaka paper [4] on creating human iPS for the first time.

1. Da Yong WU, Zhen YAO (2005). Isolation and characterization of the murine Nanog gene promoter. Cell Research, 15 (5): 317–324.
2. Rachel Eiges, Maya Schuldiner..et.al (2001). Establishment of human embryonic stem cell?transfected clones carrying a marker for undifferentiated cell. Current Biology 11: 514–518.
3. Guangjin Pan, Jun Li, Yali Zhou, Hui Zheng, and Duanqing pei (2006). A negative feedback loop of transcription factors that control stem cell pluripotency and self?renewal. ASEB Journal 20: E1094? E1102
4. Takahashi et al, Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cell from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors (2007). Cell 131, 861-872

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 28th, 2010 iPSCs and other stem cells No Comments

Getting the most from fluorescent proteins, Part 2

On Feb 3rd in our previous blog entry on fluorescent proteins, we discussed some basic tips on setting yourself up for success with fluorescent protein based experiments. Here are some more ideas to help boost your imaging success:

1.    Know your background.

All cells contain endogenous fluorescent materials which can confound image interpretation, especially when your fluorescent protein signal is weak.  Make sure you’re familiar with the autofluorescence of your cell type before starting your FP experiments: take some images of non- expressing control cells using the same filters and excitation wavelength as you plan to use for your FP imaging.

Keep in mind that for mammalian cells, autofluorescence is confined mainly to the blue and green regions of the visual spectrum, while in other organisms (e.g. plants, yeast, and bacteria), some cell types may contain fluorescent compounds in other regions of the spectrum. For any given species and cell type, there is likely to be a wavelength “window” with the least autofluorescence; try to choose a fluorescent protein in this wavelength range for maximum signal above background.

2.    Sometimes two (or more) FPs are better than one.

If you are having trouble obtaining sufficient fluorescent signal from a fluorescent protein fusion construct, consider adding an extra copy of the fluorescent protein to boost your brightness.  While this is not recommended unless all else has failed, for low-abundance proteins it can substantially increase the likelihood of detection.  It is possible to create a functional fusion of two or more copies of fluorescent protein in many cases, although the larger size of such a tag increases the chances of mislocalization, so proper controls and validation are essential if you use this technique.  Also, remember that it is generally difficult to use PCR to amplify tandem copies of any gene, including FPs, so restriction-based subcloning is the most reliable way to create multi-copy FP tags.

3.    The best fluorescent proteins don’t stick together!

Truly monomeric fluorescent proteins make the best fusion tags, since they don’t produce localization artifacts due to multimerization. Even weak dimers, such as EGFP and its derivatives, can cause trouble if your fusion protein is at high concentration or in a confined space like a membrane or vesicle.

Are you still using your old EGFP fusion constructs?  If so, make sure to validate your localization results by other methods, or switch to a truly monomeric FP such as mTFP1 or mWasabi.  If you prefer to keep your original constructs, note that any Aequorea GFP-derived FP can be made completely monomeric by adding the A206K mutation.

One final warning — many commercially available FPs that were initially advertised as being monomeric later turned out to be dimers!  With any new FP you try, validate your results before making your conclusions.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009 Fluorescent proteins No Comments