A comparison of non-integrating reprogramming methods

• Published in: Nature biotechnology Vol. 33; no. 1; pp. 58 - 63
• Main Authors: Schlaeger, Thorsten M, Daheron, Laurence, Brickler, Thomas R, Entwisle, Samuel, Chan, Karrie, Cianci, Amelia, DeVine, Alexander, Ettenger, Andrew, Fitzgerald, Kelly, Godfrey, Michelle, Gupta, Dipti, McPherson, Jade, Malwadkar, Prerana, Gupta, Manav, Bell, Blair, Doi, Akiko, Jung, Namyoung, Li, Xin, Lynes, Maureen S, Brookes, Emily, Cherry, Anne B C, Demirbas, Didem, Tsankov, Alexander M, Zon, Leonard I, Rubin, Lee L, Feinberg, Andrew P, Meissner, Alexander, Cowan, Chad A, Daley, George Q
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Nature Publishing Group 01.01.2015
• Subjects: Cellular Reprogramming; Comparative analysis; Drug therapy; Genetic aspects; Humans; Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells - cytology; Medicin och hälsovetenskap; Methods; Nuclear reprogramming; Physiological aspects; Ribonucleic acid; RNA; Stem cells; Surveys; United States
• ISSN: 1087-0156; 1546-1696; 1546-1696
• DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3070

Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) are useful in disease modeling and drug discovery, and they promise to provide a new generation of cell-based therapeutics. To date there has been no systematic evaluation of the most widely used techniques for generating integration-free hiPSCs. Here we compare Sendai-viral (SeV), episomal (Epi) and mRNA transfection mRNA methods using a number of criteria. All methods generated high-quality hiPSCs, but significant differences existed in aneuploidy rates, reprogramming efficiency, reliability and workload. We discuss the advantages and shortcomings of each approach, and present and review the results of a survey of a large number of human reprogramming laboratories on their independent experiences and preferences. Our analysis provides a valuable resource to inform the use of specific reprogramming methods for different laboratories and different applications, including clinical translation.