Imagine if the future of medicine began not in a laboratory but with a simple skin cell. What if our cells having a powerful reset button which turn our own cells into powerful agents of healing?? A future where every cell of our body holds the promise of new beginnings. Welcome to the world of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs), where these cells are like biological chameleons, capable of shedding their specialized roles to differentiate almost any type of cell in the human body

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells with self-renewing capabilities and differentiate into multiple cell lineages. They hold tremendous potential in regenerative medicine due to their ability to replace or repair damaged tissues and organs. Based on location and potency stem cells are categorized into three main types: Embryonic stem cells (ESCs), Adult stem cells (ASCs), and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)

ESCs in Regenerative Medicine

Embryonic stem cells, derived from the inner cell mass of early-stage embryos, are pluripotent in nature. This means they have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the body, except for the placenta. This versatility makes ESCs an attractive option for treating a wide variety of diseases, including heart disease, neurodegenerative disorders, and diabetes. However, the use of ESCs in regenerative medicine is not without controversy. The primary ethical concern arises from the need to destroy embryos to obtain these cells, leading to moral debates about the status of the embryo [1]. Additionally, ESC-derived tissues may provoke immune rejection in patients, particularly if the cells are not autologous [2]. 

iPSCs

The ethical concerns surrounding ESCs led scientists to seek alternative sources of pluripotent cells, leading to the development of iPSCs. In 2006, Shinya Yamanaka and colleagues demonstrated that adult somatic cells, such as skin cells, could be reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells by introducing a specific set of genes, later known as the Yamanaka factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc) [3]. These iPSCs exhibit similar properties to ESCs, including the ability to differentiate into various cell types, but without the ethical issues associated with ESCs.

Reprogramming of iPSCs

The process of reprogramming iPSCs involves introducing the Yamanaka factors into somatic cells via several methods, with the most well-known involving the use of viral vectors (retroviral, Lentiviral and Adenoviral). However, this process raises safety concerns due to the integration of the factors into the genome, which can lead to genomic instability and tumorigenesis [4]. To address these issues, non-viral techniques such as episomal vectors, protein-based, and mRNA-based approaches have been developed, offering safer and more efficient alternatives without genomic integration [5].

Advancements in iPSC Reprogramming

Recent advances have focused on improving the reprogramming process to address safety concerns. One significant breakthrough is the Reprocell’s StemRNA™ 3rd Gen Reprogramming Kit, which combines non-modified RNA and microRNA technology, offering stem cell researchers greater versatility, simplicity, and time efficiency. It enables the reprogramming of human fibroblasts, blood, and urine cells using a single, multi-purpose kit, streamlining the process and providing a reliable approach to generating iPSCs and making them more viable for clinical applications in regenerative medicine.

How iPSCs Address the Concerns of ESCs

iPSCs address many of the ethical and practical challenges associated with ESCs. Since iPSCs are derived from adult somatic cells, there is no need for the use of embryos, thus bypassing the ethical concerns surrounding ESC research [6]. Furthermore, because iPSCs can be derived from a patient’s own cells, they offer the potential for autologous therapies, eliminating the risk of immune rejection that is a concern with ESC-based treatments. This makes iPSCs particularly promising for personalized medicine, where therapies can be customised to the individual’s genetic makeup.

iPSCs in Regenerative Medicine

Regenerative medicine using iPSCs represents a paradigm shift with profound implications for the future of healthcare. In clinical settings, it provides a revolutionary approach for repairing or replacing damaged tissues and organs, addressing critical issues such as tissue scarcity and organ transplant compatibility.

From treating heart disease [7] and generating dopamine-producing neurons for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease [8] to creating insulin-producing cells for diabetes management and repairing spinal cord injuries, iPSCs are poised to transform the medical landscape.

In addition, iPSCs show promise in treating other conditions, including hematopoietic disorders [9], musculoskeletal injuries [10], and liver damage, by generating specific cell types required for repair [11]. iPSCs have demonstrated potential in correcting genetic deficiencies, such as those in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy [10, 12], where gene editing techniques like Human Artificial Chromosomes (HAC) and Microcell-mediated Chromosome Transfer (MMCT) [13]. Furthermore, iPSCs are increasingly utilized in generating hepatocytes for liver conditions and red blood cells for global blood supply needs [11]. The technology also shows potential in treating degenerative diseases like Retinitis Pigmentosa [14, 15] and age-related macular degeneration by differentiating iPSCs into retinal cells [16]. Also, the integration of cutting-edge genome editing technologies, such as CRISPR/Cas systems [17, 18], further enhances the ability to correct genetic mutations and model diseases with unprecedented accuracy.

The potential of iPSCs goes far beyond just addressing ethical and immunological concerns. Their versatility opens exciting new possibilities in medicine. For example, in the lab, iPSCs are being used to create disease models for studying conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and cardiovascular disease [19]. By generating patient-specific iPSCs, researchers can model diseases more accurately and test new drug therapies in a personalized manner [20].

The ultimate goal is to use iPSCs to generate whole organs for transplantation, bypassing the need for organ donors and reducing the risk of organ rejection. While we are still far from this reality, the development of iPSCs is paving the way for breakthroughs in organ regeneration.

Conclusion

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are rewriting the future of regenerative medicine. By addressing ethical concerns, reducing immune rejection, and driving personalized medicine, iPSCs offer unparalleled opportunities for medical innovation. As advancements in research and genome editing continue, iPSCs are poised to transform the way we understand and treat diseases, bringing us closer to a future of ethical and effective healthcare solutions.

References

  1. Chu G. Embryonic stem-cell research and the moral status of embryos. Intern Med J. 2003 Nov;33(11):530-1. doi: 10.1046/j.1445-5994.2003.00476.x. PMID: 14656257.
  2. Otsuka, R., Wada, H., Murata, T. et al.Immune reaction and regulation in transplantation based on pluripotent stem cell technology. Inflamm Regener 40, 12 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41232-020-00125-8
  3. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006 Aug 25;126(4):663-76. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.024. Epub 2006 Aug 10. PMID: 16904174.
  4. Al Abbar A, Ngai SC, Nograles N, Alhaji SY, Abdullah S. Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: Reprogramming Platforms and Applications in Cell Replacement Therapy. Biores Open Access. 2020 Apr 28;9(1):121-136. doi: 10.1089/biores.2019.0046. PMID: 32368414; PMCID: PMC7194323.
  5. Stadtfeld M, Nagaya M, Utikal J, et al. . Induced pluripotent stem cells generated without viral integration. Science. 2008;322:945–949
  6. Yamanaka, S. (2009) Elite and Stochastic Models for Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Generation. Nature, 460, 49-52.
  7. Shin, S. S., et al. (2015). “Stem cell therapy in heart disease: Current state and future directions.” Stem Cells International, 2015, 123745.
  8. Garofalo, F., et al. (2014). “Induced pluripotent stem cell therapy for Parkinson’s disease: Applications and challenges.” Journal of Neural Transmission, 121(5), 485-499.
  9. Suh, Y., et al. (2012). “Induced pluripotent stem cells for the treatment of hematopoietic disorders.” International Journal of Hematology, 95(6), 572-579.
  10. Tanaka, Y., et al. (2013). “Potential of induced pluripotent stem cells in treating musculoskeletal injuries.” Musculoskeletal Research, 17(1), 41-52.F
  11. Hannan, N. R., et al. (2013). “Induced pluripotent stem cells in hepatocyte generation for liver disease.” Stem Cells Translational Medicine, 2(4), 212-220.
  12. Buzin, C. H., et al. (2015). “Gene editing in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: Progress and potential with iPSCs.” Muscular Dystrophy, 43(3), 301-309.
  13. Wilson, G. H., et al. (2017). “Human artificial chromosomes and MMCT: Emerging technologies in gene therapy for genetic disorders.” Genetics in Medicine, 19(7), 815-821.
  14. Zhu, J., et al. (2013). “iPSC-derived retinal cells as a therapeutic option for Retinitis Pigmentosa.” Nature Biotechnology, 31(4), 300-309.
  15. Kimbrel E. a., Lanza R. Current status of pluripotent stem cells: moving the first therapies to the clinic. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14(September):681–92.
  16. Song, Z., et al. (2014). “Potential of induced pluripotent stem cells for treating age-related macular degeneration.” Nature Medicine, 20(4), 437-445.
  17. Cong, L., et al. (2013). “Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems.” Science, 339(6121), 819-823.
  18. Hsu, P. D., et al. (2014). “Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome editing.” Cell, 157(6), 1262-1278.
  19. Koyanagi-Aoi, M., et al. (2013). “Modeling neurological diseases using iPSCs for drug testing.” Cell Stem Cell, 13(5), 618-630.
  20. Nakamura, M., et al. (2014). “Patient-specific iPSC models for studying neurological diseases.” Science Translational Medicine, 6(248), 248ra101.

Author

Swati Shukla

Scientific Sales Associate ( Stem Cells )