Advertisement

Chicken Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: Establishment and Characterization

Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1650)

Abstract

In mammals, the introduction of the OSKM (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc) genes into somatic cells has allowed generating induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. So far, this process has been only clearly demonstrated in mammals. Here, using chicken as an avian model, we describe a set of protocols allowing the establishment, characterization, maintenance, differentiation, and injection of putative reprogrammed chicken Induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) cells.

Key words

Chicken Induced pluripotent stem cells Transfection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from INRA and from ANR with the CRB-ANIM project (CRB-ANIM-ANR-11-INBS-0003).

References

  1. 1.
    Aubel P, Pain B (2013) Chicken embryonic stem cells: establishment and characterization. In: Alberio R (ed) Epiblast stem cells: methods and protocols. Humana Press, Totowa, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lavial F, Acloque H, Bertocchini F, Macleod DJ, Boast S, Bachelard E, Montillet G, Thenot S, Sang HM, Stern CD, Samarut J, Pain B (2007) The Oct4 homologue PouV and Nanog regulate pluripotency in chicken embryonic stem cells. Development 134:3549–3563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jean C, Oliveira NMM, Intarapat S, Fuet A, Mazoyer C, De Almeida I, Trevers K, Boast S, Aubel P, Bertocchini F, Stern CD, Pain B (2015) Transcriptome analysis of chicken ES, blastodermal and germ cells reveals that chick ES cells are equivalent to mouse ES cells rather than EpiSC. Stem Cell Res 14:54–67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Takahashi K, Yamanaka S (2006) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126:663–676CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Takahashi K, Yamanaka S (2016) A decade of transcription factor mediated reprogramming to pluripotency. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 17:183–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fuet A., Montillet G. Jean C., Aubel P., Kress C., Gervier S., Pain B. (2017). Somatic reprogramming in avian species remains elusive but provides new stem cell lines. Submitted.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Theunissen TW, Costa Y, Radzisheuskaya A, van Oosten AL, Lavial F, Pain B, Castro LF, Silva JC (2011) Reprogramming capacity of Nanog is functionally conserved in vertebrates and resides in a unique homeodomain. Development 138:4853–4865CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang W, Lin C, Lu D, Ning Z, Cox T, Melvin D, Wang X, Bradley A, Liu P (2008) Chromosomal transposition of PiggyBac in mouse embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:9290–9295CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univ Lyon, Université Lyon 1INSERM, INRA, Stem Cell and Brain Research Institute, U1208, USC1361BronFrance

Personalised recommendations