International Scholarly Research Notices

International Scholarly Research Notices / 2014 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2014 |Article ID 208067 | 19 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/208067

The States of Pluripotency: Pluripotent Lineage Development in the Embryo and in the Dish

Academic Editor: H. Koide
Received10 Sep 2013
Accepted22 Oct 2013
Published24 Mar 2014

Abstract

The pluripotent cell lineage of the embryo comprises a series of temporally and functionally distinct intermediary cell states, the epiblast precursor cell of the newly formed blastocyst, the epiblast population of the inner cell mass, and the early and late epiblast of the postimplantation embryo, referred to here as early and late primitive ectoderm. Pluripotent cell populations representative of the embryonic populations can be formed in culture. Although multiple pluripotent cell states are now recognised, little is known about the signals and pathways that progress cells from the epiblast precursor cell to the late primitive ectoderm in the embryo or in culture. The characterisation of cell states is most advanced in mouse where conditions for culturing distinct pluripotent cell states are well established and embryonic material is accessible. This review will focus on the pluripotent cell states present during embryonic development in the mouse and what is known of the mechanisms that regulate the progression of the lineage from the epiblast precursor cell and the ground state of pluripotency to the late primitive ectoderm present immediately prior to cell differentiation.

1. Introduction

Establishment and development of the pluripotent cell lineage in the mouse embryo are a progressive process characterised by the sequential formation of a series of temporally and functionally distinct intermediary cell states. Cells fated to form the pluripotent lineage can be identified in the interior of the compacted morula of the mouse embryo by day 3, encapsulated within cells destined to establish the trophectoderm. These cells establish the inner cell mass (ICM) of the blastocyst, which on day 3.5 comprises genetically discrete populations of epiblast precursor cells and primitive endoderm precursor cells. By 4.5 days post coitum (d.p.c.) these populations have segregated into spatially distinct regions of the ICM and cell identity has been fixed, forming the pluripotent epiblast and the extraembryonic primitive endoderm lineage (also known as the hypoblast). The epiblast proliferates rapidly and forms a psuedostratified epithelium of epiblast that has been designated primitive ectoderm. Primitive ectoderm can be distinguished from the preceding epiblast by morphology, gene expression, and differentiation potential. Analysis of the mouse embryo has revealed at least four identifiable pluripotent cell populations, or states, that comprise the pluripotent lineage—the epiblast precursor cell, the epiblast of the ICM, and the early and late epiblasts of the postimplantation embryo, referred to here as early and late primitive ectoderm.

The understanding and characterisation of cell states in culture are most advanced in mouse where conditions for forming and maintaining distinct pluripotent cell states in culture are well established. Pluripotent cell lines have been isolated from the ICM, the later primitive ectoderm of mouse and the migrating germ lineage, mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells, epiblast stem cells (EpiSC), and embryonic germ (EG) cells, respectively. Inhibition of mitogen-activated protein kinases (ERK1/2) and wingless-related MMTV protein (Wnt) signalling can be used to derive ES cells in a naïve state of pluripotency from existing ES cell lines and from the blastocyst. Pluripotent cells in the naïve state, also known as ground state, are intrinsically self-maintaining if protected from inductive differentiation stimuli. Comparison of ground state ES cells with other pluripotent cell populations in vitro and the pluripotent lineage in vivo suggests that these cells are analogous to the newly formed pluripotent lineage in the embryo and differ from conventionally isolated ES cell lines. These later cells have been termed “primed” pluripotent cells. ES cells can be induced to form cells representative of the primitive ectoderm, either by culturing in medium containing L-proline, to form early primitive ectoderm-like (EPL) cells, or in medium supplemented with FGf2 and activin A, to form culture-derived EpiSC. EPL cells and EpiSC have characteristics that distinguish them from ground state ES cells, primed ES cells, and the ICM and that highlight similarity with the primitive ectoderm of the embryo. Although multiple pluripotent cell states are now recognised, little is known about the signals and pathways that progress cells from ground state pluripotency to late primitive ectoderm in the embryo or in culture.

This paper will focus on cell states that arise as the pluripotent lineage develops in the mouse embryo and those that can be captured in culture and review the literature on the mechanisms regulating pluripotent cell state formation and maintenance. A reference diagram showing the stages of embryogenesis referred to throughout this review and defining the different pluripotent cell populations in culture and the terminology used can be found in Figure 1.

2. Inner versus Outer Cells: Differentiation in the 32-Cell Stage Embryo

2.1. Forming Trophectoderm

The eight cells, or blastomeres, that arise from the first three cleavage events of mouse embryogenesis are considered to be totipotent and unspecified, showing no differences in developmental potency and gene expression and being equally able to contribute to ICM and trophectoderm [14]. Immediately after the 3rd cleavage event, these cells form a cluster of loosely attached cells termed the morula (from the Latin for mulberry, Morus, a lovely metaphorical extension), with each cell spherical and lacking intercellular junctions with neighbouring blastomeres. Within hours of cleavage the morula compacts [5], marked by the cells flattening against each other and obscuring intercellular boundaries (shown beautifully in [6]). With compaction comes polarisation of the blastomeres, each of which develops an apical surface exposed to the environment and distinguished by localisation of surface microvilli [6, 7], a localised concentration of actin-containing microfilaments, [8] and increased ligand binding capacity [9]. These changes are accompanied by an intracellular rearrangement of the microfilaments and basal localisation of mitochondria [6]. At this stage the cells establish gap junctions [10, 11]. Compaction is mediated by E-cadherin and associated proteins [1217]. A detailed description of the mechanisms driving compaction is tangential to this review but can be found in Chen et al. [18].

The first differentiation event in the embryo is the formation of trophectoderm on the outside of the embryo as a population distinct from the inner cells (the forerunner of the inner cell mass (ICM)). Tracing the origins of trophectoderm and ICM has shown that all blastomeres of the 2-cell embryo and between 80 and 90% of blastomeres of 4-cell stage embryos contribute to both lineages, suggesting that there is little or no developmental instruction established early in embryogenesis that underlies the determination of ICM and trophectoderm [19]. Polarisation of the blastomeres at the 8-cell stage has long been thought to underpin the establishment of the first two embryonic lineages. The cell polarity model dictates that asymmetric, or differentiative, division of a blastomere in the 4th cleavage division (from 8 cells to 16 cells) will yield two cells that can be discriminated on differential inheritance of apical or basal characteristics [20]. Nonpolarised, inner cells, from the basal portion of the blastomere, are encapsulated by a layer of outer, polarised cells formed from the complementary apical portions; these populations establish the ICM and trophectoderm, respectively.

Simplistically, differentiative cleavage at the 4th cleavage division establishes the lineages. Lineage, allocation, however, appears to be a more progressive process. The phenotypic divergence of inner and outer cell populations at the 4th cleavage division is not accompanied by developmental restriction, with blastomeres of the 16-cell embryo maintaining totipotency. Outer cells of the 16-cell embryo can contribute to the ICM [21, 22]; transplantation studies have shown that blastomeres at the 16-cell stage can contribute to both inner and outer lineages [23] and aggregates of 16 isolated outer or inner blastomeres from 16-cell embryos can develop into normal, fertile mice after transfer into pseudo-pregnant recipients [24]. Contribution from the 5th cleavage division is thought to be required as not all 4th cleavage events are differentiative. Experiments enumerating cleavages at the 4th cleavage division suggest that 30% or 60% of 4th cleavage events are differentiative, [22, 25, 26]. It has been suggested that experimentally these estimations are impacted by the initial location of many cells destined for the inside of the embryo on or near the surface of the embryo [26]. Detailed morphological examination of 16-cell stage embryos suggests that in approximately 70% of embryos all blastomeres have some contact with the external environment, albeit with only a small proportion of their surface for some cells [27].

On average, the ratio of outer cells to inner cells in a 16-cell embryo is approximately 10 : 6 [21, 24], with a range of 2 to 7 inner cells [21]. Increases in inner cell number are achieved by differentiative 5th cleavage events, with a higher occurrence of differentiative cleavage in 16-cell embryos with fewer inner cells [21, 22]. Later forming inner cells are preferentially located to regions of the ICM adjacent to the trophectoderm [21]. These data have led to a model of inner cell allocation with two phases: qualitative differentiation between the lineages during the 4th cleavage event and quantitative regulation of lineage size during the 5th cleavage event [21]. Totipotency is lost and lineage identity is fixed by the 6th cleavage division, [22, 24, 28], although in a minority of 6th cleavage stage embryos a small number of differentiative cleavages have been detected [25].

Several genes have been implicated in the divergence of the ICM and trophectoderm. In the TEAD/TEF transcription factor, TEAD4 is essential for establishing trophectoderm-specific gene expression in outer cells and functional trophoblast stem cells and trophectoderm. Tead4−/− embryos fail to form a blastocyst and are unable to implant into the uterine wall [29, 30]. TEAD4 is present in all cells of the preimplantation embryo from the 4-cell stage but becomes differentially activated in inner and outer cells [31]. Tead4 activation is regulated by Hippo signalling [31], and how differential Hippo activation is regulated in the embryo is not known. It has been proposed that the high degree of interaction between inner cells activates Hippo signalling, leading to phosphorylation of the TEAD4 coactivating protein Yap by Lats; phosphorylated Yap is excluded from the nucleus resulting in inactive TEAD4. In this model outer cells, with an exposed surface, would be less likely to activate Hippo signalling, resulting in translocation of Yap to the nucleus, activation of TEAD4, and initiation of trophectoderm-specific gene expression, including CDX2, GATA3, ELF5, and EOMES. Analysis of lineage commitment in single blastocysts, however, suggests it is unlikely that cell:cell contact is the only factor regulating Hippo activation and propose that the polarisation of outer cells may inhibit Hippo signalling [32]. It is not yet clear if the activation of Cdx2 and trophectoderm-specific gene expression is through direct transcriptional activation by TEAD4 or TEAD4-mediated release of negative regulation of Cdx2 [31]. Although the process of lineage determination in outer cells commences after the 4th cleavage event, evidenced by the preferential localisation of Yap in the nucleus of outer cells, the maintenance of totipotency in outer blastomeres of the 16-cell embryo suggests that these processes are fully reversible and that commitment of outer cells to a trophectoderm fate is not initiated until after the 5th cleavage event. This is supported by transcriptional analysis of single cells which, despite revealing differences in expression of individual genes between blastomeres, was unable to separate two lineages at the 16-cell stage; resolution of trophectoderm from the inner cell lineages was achieved at the 32-cell stage after the 5th cleavage event [4].

2.2. Establishing the Inner Cell Mass

Maintenance of the inner cell phenotype, and establishment of the pluripotent cell lineage from these cells, is dependent on a triad of pluripotency regulators: Oct4, NANOG, and SOX2. Details of the activity of these proteins in pluripotent cells can be found in a review by Chambers and Tomlinson [33]. Oct4 is found in all cells of the embryo, regardless of position, from conception until early blastocyst stage (64 cells). After this time Oct4 is gradually lost in the trophectoderm but maintained in the ICM [27]. Oct4 transcripts were detected in all cells to the 32-cell stage after which they were preferentially found in the ICM [4], suggesting genetic regulation of the locus underpins differential protein localisation in the embryo. Oct4−/− embryos form blastocysts but the inner cells do not establish a pluripotent lineage and commit to trophectoderm [34]. Nanog is detected in all cells of the early blastocyst, after which it becomes progressively restricted to a subset of ICM cells which are distributed in a salt and pepper pattern throughout the cell mass [27]. As with Oct4, the transcription of Nanog is maintained at high levels in all cells until the 32-cell stage, and loss in trophectoderm is only detected at the 64-cell stage [4]. Nanog−/− embryos also fail to establish a pluripotent lineage but inner cells in these embryos differentiate to the primitive endoderm lineage [35, 36]. Sox2 is detected in the blastomeres of developing embryos and in the cells of the ICM [37]. Sox2 can also be detected in the trophectoderm but in these cells the protein is found in the cytoplasm rather than the nucleus [37]. In contrast to Oct4 and Nanog expressions, Sox2 is not expressed in the early cleavage embryo [4] or in the trophectoderm of the blastocyst [37], suggesting that Sox2 in the early embryo is derived from a long-lived, maternally derived protein or transcript pool and not the product of zygotic transcription [37, 38]. Sox2 expression increases between the 16-cell and 32-cell stages in the inner cells of the embryo [4]. Sox2−/− embryos formed blastocysts but failed to elaborate the pluripotent lineage [37]. Determining roles for Sox2 in Sox2−/− embryos is confounded by the presence of maternal protein/transcripts. Reducing Sox2 transcript levels from the 2-cell stage using miRNA technology revealed an early role for Sox2 in trophectoderm formation [38].

Determination of the inner from the outer cells between the 16- and 32-cell stages has been proposed to result from differential expression of the trophectoderm determinant Cdx2. Although found in all blastomeres of the 16-embryo [4, 27, 39], bias in Cdx2 expression levels, and higher expression in outer cells, has been reported [27]. Cdx2 acts as a negative regulator of the activity of the core pluripotency transcription factors [4043], providing a mechanism for promoting pluripotency in Cdx2 low cells, and therefore preferentially in inner cells. In contrast, Cdx2 high cells that are more likely to be outer cells are more likely to differentiate to trophectoderm. Cdx2 appears to exert control by interfering with the ability of the Oct4/Sox2/Nanog transcriptional complexes to activate the transcription of downstream targets, a class of genes required for pluripotency and that includes their own loci [43]. By the 32-cell stage Cdx2 transcript and protein is largely restricted to outer cells, relieving all inhibition of the Oct4/Sox2/Nanog transcriptional complex in ICM. Although this mechanism likely explains the establishment of alternate transcriptional networks in inner and outer cells, questions still remain. Most notably, how is the transcription of Oct4, Nanog and Cdx2 maintained in all blastomeres of the embryo prior to lineage segregation given the actions of Cdx2 on pluripotent gene expression?

3. Dividing the Inner Cell Mass: Forming Epiblast and Primitive Endoderm in the 64-Cell Stage Embryo

By transcriptional analysis, the inner cells of the 32-cell stage embryo represent a single cell population; by the 64-cell stage this population has diverged into two genetically discrete populations that are fated to form the pluripotent lineage, or epiblast, and the primitive endoderm [4]. Between the 32- and 64-cell stages, the embryo becomes a blastocyst, characterised by appearance of the blastocoelic cavity and the positioning of the inner cells, the ICM, to one pole of the embryo subjacent to the polar trophectoderm. As a consequence, cells within the ICM are differentially exposed to the blastocoelic cavity. For some time it was thought that a position adjacent to the cavity induced the differentiation of cells into the primitive endoderm lineage. This hypothesis, however, is not supported by recent analysis of the ICM population.

The expression of a number of genes/proteins in the ICM of the 64-cell embryo, including Nanog, GATA4, GATA6, SOX17, PDGFRα, FGF4 and FGFR2, acquires a salt and pepper distribution [4, 4446]. Cells expressing Gata4, Gata6, Sox17, Pdgfrα and Fgfr2 establish the primitive endoderm; although originally distributed throughout the ICM, these cells, termed here primitive endoderm precursor cells, coalesce into an epithelium at the blastocoel interface as a result of migration and cell sorting [25]. Any cells of a primitive endoderm identity that remain within the ICM are proposed to either acquire an epiblast precursor identity or die by apoptosis [25, 45]. Differential expression of Ephrins and the Slit receptor Robo2 between in vitro equivalents of the epiblast and primitive endoderm, respectively, may indicate a role for these pathways in cell segregation [47]. Changes in ICM morphology and a failure of epiblast and primitive endoderm segregation in the blastocysts exposed to inhibitors of Rho-associated kinase (ROCK) suggest a functional requirement for these kinases in lineage assortment [48]. Nanog-expressing cells, the epiblast precursor cells, become restricted by this process to the space between the polar trophectoderm and primitive endoderm and committed to the pluripotent lineage, shown functionally by the inability of these cells to generate primitive endoderm [49, 50]. The formation and coalescence of these cells mark the beginning of the pluripotent lineage. Pluripotentiality is the ability of a cell to act as the founder, or stem, cell for all the tissue found within the embryo and adult and many cell populations that are formed to support embryonic development. These cells differ from the blastomeres of the earlier embryo in that alone they cannot sustain full organismal development. Pluripotent cells, through a combination self-renewal and differentiation capacity, undergo a program of development with the sequential formation of increasingly more specialised progenitors that eventuates in the formation of all the cells in the embryo and adult.

Determination of epiblast precursor cells and primitive endoderm precursor cells occurs in response to differential FGF signalling and receptor tyrosine kinase activation [26, 51]. Embryos without Fgf4, Fgfr2, or GRB2 fail to form primitive endoderm suggesting that establishment of this tissue requires Fgf signalling [44, 5254]. In embryos cultured in inhibitors of FGF/MAP kinase signalling cells of the ICM preferentially express Nanog and primitive endoderm precursor cells cannot be detected [4, 26, 50]. Conversely, ICM cells in embryos cultured in Fgf4 preferentially form primitive endoderm precursor cells at the expense of epiblast precursor cells; this effect was dose dependent and seen at higher concentrations of Fgf4 (>250 ng/mL) [26]. A model of lineage divergence dependent on differential expression of Fgf4 and Fgfr2 and differential activation of GRB2/MAP kinase signalling has been developed. Fgf4, which is transcriptionally activated by Oct4, Sox2, and Nanog [51, 55], is expressed throughout the morula but becomes restricted to epiblast precursor cells in the ICM [4, 51]. Fgf4 from the epiblast precursor cells signals to primitive endoderm precursor cells through Fgfr2 and increases Gata6 expression via a GRB2/MAP kinase dependent mechanism [44, 51]. Gata6 in the primitive endoderm precursor inhibits the expression of Nanog and Nanog, in the epiblast precursor cells, inhibits Gata6 expression. Fgf signally thereby provides a mechanism to establish and maintain two cell identities within the ICM.

The challenge remains to elucidate the processes that establish differential signalling within the ICM between the 32- and 64-cell stages. Inner cells that are recruited at the 4th cleavage division have been shown to be more likely to give rise to epiblast precursor cells [25]. Inner cells recruited in the 5th and 6th cleavages, by contrast, are biased towards the formation of primitive endoderm [25]. It has been speculated that inner cells recruited at the 4th cleavage division upregulate Sox2 which, in complex with Oct4, reinforces the expression of Fgf4 and suppresses Fgfr2 [4]. Cells recruited later are the daughters of outer cells that have commenced the processes of commitment to the trophectoderm lineage and express Fgfr2. These cells respond to the Fgf4 in the inner region of the embryo, downregulate the pluripotency regulators, and initiate expression of Gata6 [4]. Neither early nor late arising inner cells have a fixed potential as primitive endoderm can be formed from early arising cells and epiblast precursors can be formed from late arising cells [25]. Although this model provides a mechanism for the generation of the two populations within the ICM, others have not been able to demonstrate the different potentials of early and late arising inner cells and favour a stochastic model of cell determination [26]. Treatment of the embryo with Fgf4 has shown that all inner cells can be induced to form primitive endoderm [26]. This suggests a situation in which the level of Fgf4 signalling in the embryo is balanced to induce a proportion of inner cells to form primitive endoderm. Signal levels, coupled with intrinsic and stochastic variation between individual cells, will control the proportion of cells that upregulate Gata6 expression but not their position within the ICM, generating the salt and pepper pattern of cell distribution seen.

Using the early embryo to understand how differentiation works, and in particular how the first lineages are established, has revealed little about inductive cues that function to establish the epiblast. Potentially, epiblast arises as a default state comprising those cells that are not determined as trophectoderm or primitive endoderm. Alternatively, active signals are present in embryos that specify inner cells and which maintain the identity of the epiblast precursor during primitive endoderm formation.

4. Elaboration of the Pluripotent Lineage: From Early Epiblast to Late Primitive Ectoderm

At the time that the pluripotent cell lineage is established, the ICM comprises approximately eleven cells in the primitive endoderm epithelium and eight cells in the epiblast [25]. Epiblast begins to proliferate rapidly and the consequent excrescence fills the blastocoel. Measurement of pluripotent cell proliferation times in 5.5 d.p.c. and 6 d.p.c. embryos suggests cell cycle times of 11.5 and 9 hours, respectively, an extraordinarily rapid cell cycle for a mammalian cell [5658]. This rapidity of cell cycle is achieved through adoption of an atypical cell cycle structure with over 50% of the cells at any one time being in S-phase and characterised by a short G1-phase and changes in the expression of key cell cycle regulators including cyclin A, cyclin E, and CDK2 [58]. Epiblast expands from 8 cells in the ICM to over 4000 cells in the primitive ectoderm in less than 3 days. Soon after the onset of proliferation cells in the centre of the pluripotent mass apoptose and surviving cells reorganise to form a pseudo-stratified epithelium of cells separated from the overlying primitive endoderm by a basement membrane [59]. Expansion and reorganisation of the pluripotent cells in mouse occurs around 5.0 d.p.c., concurrent with implantation of the embryo into the uterine wall. The epiblast of the postimplantation embryo has been termed primitive ectoderm. In the mouse primitive ectoderm, with the primitive endoderm derivative visceral endoderm, forms a bilaminar cup-like or cylindrical structure; embryos containing primitive ectoderm are referred to as egg cylinder stage.

The cells of the primitive ectoderm share with the epiblast of the ICM the quality of pluripotentiality yet can be distinguished from these cells in many ways. Developmentally, the potential of the primitive ectoderm is reduced compared to earlier cells with a progressive loss in the ability to contribute to the primitive endoderm lineage [49, 60]. Furthermore, primitive ectoderm, unlike epiblast of the ICM, is unable to contribute to the development of chimaeric animals after introduction into a host blastocyst [6164]. The transcriptome of the primitive ectoderm is different, most notably in the loss of a number of ICM specific genes, such as Zfp42 (Rex1) and Tfcp2l1 [65], and, notably, downregulation of Nanog, a key regulator of pluripotent cells in the ICM [66, 67]. Conversely, the expression of a number of genes, including Fgf5 [68], increases with establishment of primitive ectoderm. The transcriptional regulation of Oct4 has been shown to differ between the two populations [69], which, coupled with the downregulation of Nanog, suggests that the mechanisms underlying pluripotentiality change as cells progress from the ICM to the primitive ectoderm. Finally, these populations differ epigenetically; in female embryos the early epiblast and primitive ectoderms differ in the random inactivation of the X chromosome in the later but not the former [7074] and a comparison of pre- and postimplantation pluripotent cells shows differences in DNA-methylation patterns [75].

The primitive ectoderm persists until 6.5 d.p.c., after which the cell population progressively loses pluripotency and differentiates to form one of the embryonic germ lineages, ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm. This developmental event, known as gastrulation, has been likened by John Gurdon to birth, death, and taxes, an obligatory process without which development does not progress and life cannot exist. Gastrulation initiates with the formation of the primitive streak a region at the prospective posterior embryonic-extraembryonic boundary that is characterised morphologically by localised breakdown of the basal lamina [76]. Prior to gastrulation Wnt signalling becomes restricted to the prospective site of the primitive streak and embryos lacking Wnt signalling fail to establish the primitive streak and gastrulate (reviewed in [77, 78]). As embryogenesis proceeds, the streak extends anteriorly along the posterior midline to the distal tip of the embryo. Differentiation of cells in the primitive streak occurs as a consequence of cells undergoing an epithelial to mesenchymal transition. Without contact with a basal lamina, cells can ingress and join the layer of emerging mesoderm. During ingression cells maintain the integrity of the epiblast epithelium [76]. Once within the streak, cells lose E-cadherin in response to FGF signals and become migratory, completing the epithelial to mesenchymal transition and forming mesoderm progenitors [76, 79]. Alternatively, cells within the primitive streak can intercalate with the visceral endoderm, establishing the definitive endoderm lineage [80]. It is not known if cells destined to become endoderm complete an EMT and subsequently undergo reepithelialisation or maintain epithelial characteristics throughout differentiation. A proportion of primitive ectoderm maintains contact with the remaining basal lamina; these cells lose pluripotency to form the progenitor populations of the ectodermal lineages. Pluripotency is eventually lost from the embryo proper with the onset of somitogenesis, as shown by an inability of embryonic explants to form teratomas or establish EpiSC lines [81, 82]. The loss of functional pluripotency coincided with chromatin modifications at the Oct4 and Nanog loci that correlated with reductions in transcript levels within the embryos [81]. Prior to gastrulation (6.0–6.25 d.p.c.), a small population of cells in the proximal epiblast become specified to form the primordial germ lineage (primordial germ cells: PGCs). These cells can be recognised by the expression of Blimp 2, a transcription factor upregulated in response to BMP4 signalling emanating from the neighbouring extraembryonic ectoderm. PGCs cells migrate and colonise the allantois where they reside during gastrulation, protected from the inductive signals that induce differentiation. A discussion of the germ lineage is beyond this review and details of this process can be found in [83].

Surprisingly, given the recent prominence of pluripotent stem cell research, little is understood about the mechanisms that regulate the progression of the pluripotent lineage. Mouse mutations and in vitro assays suggest that signals emanating from the overlying primitive (visceral) endoderm are required for primitive ectoderm formation [59, 84, 85]. Analysis of the tw5 mutation in the mouse complex, which prevents formation of the pluripotent cell epithelium in the postimplantation embryo, ascribed an essential role in development of the pluripotent lineage to the expression of vacuolar protein sorting 52 (Vps52) in the visceral endoderm [86]. These studies highlight the importance of close association between the pluripotent cells and the extraembryonic endoderm for pluripotent lineage progression but give little understanding of the nature of the signals involved. Recapitulation of lineage progression in vitro, which will be described in the coming sections, provides an alternative approach to understanding this fundamental process in embryology and gaining insight into pluripotent cell biology.

5. Mouse Pluripotent Cells in Culture

5.1. Common or Garden ES Cells

The pluripotent cell population of the mouse blastocyst was first recognised by the ability of cells within the ICM to contribute to chimaeric animal formation when injected into host embryos and by the ability of the blastocyst to generate teratocarcinomas [8789]. In 1981 two groups reported the isolation and maintenance of pluripotent cells from the mouse blastocyst [90, 91], and specifically from the epiblast component of the ICM [61]. These cell lines, termed embryonic stem (ES) cells, share many of the properties of the epiblast, including pluripotentiality. ES cells have been isolated repeatedly from the 129 laboratory, and more recently from other mouse strains [9294]. ES cell lines have also been isolated from cultured blastomeres [95] and phenotypically similar cell lines, embryonic germ (EG) cells, have been isolated from the migrating germ lineage [96, 97].

Initially ES cells were maintained by co-culture with growth arrested mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEF) or MEF cell lines [90, 91]; many mouse ES cell lines are still isolated and maintained on MEFs. Feeder layers could be replaced by medium conditioned by Buffalo Rat Liver (BRL) cells that contained a diffusible differentiation-inhibiting activity (DIA) [98]. DIA was subsequently shown to be identical to leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF) [99, 100], an interleukin 6 (IL-6) class cytokine that was able to maintain pluripotentiality in ES cells in the absence of MEFs. The ability of LIF to sustain pluripotency in cells required supplementation of the medium with serum. LIF activates signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (Stat3), a transcription factor that inhibits the differentiation of ES cells and promotes their self-renewal [101, 102]. LIF and Stat3 signalling can be replaced by overexpression of the transcription factor Tfcp2l1 (also known as Crtr1), and Tfcp2l1 has been suggested to act as the bridge between LIF and the pluripotency network [103, 104]. Serum induces the inhibitor-of-differentiation (Id) proteins, an activity that can be substituted by BMP4 [105]. Other members of the IL-6 cytokine family that signal through the gp130 receptor, which include Oncostatin M (OSM), Ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF), Cardiotrophin, and IL-6 with the soluble IL-6 receptor, are also able to maintain ES cells in culture [106109]. Although LIF and the LIF receptor are expressed in a complementary pattern in the trophectoderm and ICM of the blastocyst [110], embryos deficient in LIF, the LIF receptor, gp130 and signalling components downstream of gp130 in mouse embryos develop past the blastocyst stage and have failed to show an essential role for this pathway in the maintenance of pluripotent cells in the embryo [111115]. STAT3−/− embryos arrest between 6.5 and 7.5 d.p.c. and show a defect in pluripotent lineage proliferation. The lineage, however, is formed in these embryos and embryos progress to the egg cylinder stage [115]. Signalling through gp130 has, however, been shown to be essential for resumption of embryonic development after developmental disruption, or diapause, which may explain the reliance of ES cells in culture on this pathway [116].

A variety of assays have been used to establish the pluripotentiality of ES cells. In the original reports ES cells were shown to be able to form teratocarcinomas containing derivatives of all three primary germ lineages [90, 91]; this assay had been used as a standard assay for pluripotentiality for some years to assess embryonal carcinoma cells [117]. It was also shown that, like EC cells, ES cells were able to differentiate in culture [90, 91]. ES cells have been shown to be able to colonise the ICM and participate in embryonic development, contributing to all lineages found in the embryo and adult, including the germ lineage, when reintroduced into a host blastocyst [118120]. This property is shared with cells of the ICM [89] and, to a lesser extent, EC cell lines [121, 122]. The ability of ES cells to integrate into the ICM and participate widely in development demonstrates the functional normality of these cells and their equivalence with the epiblast of the ICM. ES cells are able to generate and respond to the signals that regulate embryogenesis, including those signals that regulate the progression of the pluripotent lineage and their subsequent differentiation, even after they have been maintained for extended periods in culture. The role that LIF plays in maintaining pluripotentiality in culture is likely to be replaced in the embryo by supportive, but as yet undefined, components of the embryonic environment.

Phenotypically, ES cells share many qualities with the epiblast of the blastocyst, including expression of the pluripotent regulatory network Oct4, Nanog, and Sox2, and a number of ICM-specific transcripts [65, 123] and a rapid cell cycle supported by a cell cycle structure analogous to that seen in the pluripotent cells of the embryo [58]. ES cells, like the epiblast, are reliant on the presence of Oct4 and Sox2. Knock-down or knock-out of these gene products in ES cells leads to a loss of pluripotency and cell differentiation [124126]. The loss of Nanog from ES cells has negative implications on cell viability [35], but cells have been shown to be able to self-renew, albeit poorly, in the absence of Nanog [127]. The analogy between ES cells and the epiblast has led to ES cells being used as a surrogate for early epiblast to characterise stem cell self-renewal and differentiation. These cells in culture, however, do not grow as a homogenous population but exist in a metastable state. Heterogeneity has been revealed by the nonuniform expression in Oct4+ cells of ZFP42, DPPA3, Nanog, PECAM1, and OTX2 [35, 127131]. These genes mark interchangeable pluripotent cell states corresponding to an ICM-like state (Zfp42, Nanog, Pecam1, and Dppa3) and later pluripotent cell state (Otx2) that coexist and ensure self-renewal and perpetuation of pluripotency, and susceptibility to differentiation factors [132]. Cells expressing Nanog are thought to have a higher probability of self-renewal, reflecting the obligate self-renewal of ES cells engineered to express Nanog constitutively and that results in a cell population enriched in ICM-like cells [67, 132, 133]. Loss of Nanog expression rapidly induces changes in the population profile, and if perpetuated leads to increased differentiation [133]. The most reasonable explanation for heterogeneity in a population of ES cells is that the culture conditions for cell growth establish a disordered signalling environment which cannot support a homogenous population of cells [134]. In contrast, once the pluripotent lineage is established in the embryo no such metastability is detected.

5.2. EpiSC, Stem Cells from the Primitive Ectoderm

The technology used to establish ES cell lines from the blastocyst has not been able to establish pluripotent cell lines from primitive ectoderm. Early attempts to isolate pluripotent primitive ectoderm-derived cells from the embryo and embryoid bodies showed success but the derivation of cells from the embryo was limited by the culture environment [135]. Successful isolation of primitive ectoderm-derived cell lines, termed epiblast-derived stem cells (EpiSC), was achieved in a chemically defined medium supplemented with FGF2 and Activin A from 5.5 and 6.5 d.p.c. egg cylinder stage embryos [136, 137]. EpiSC lines have been established from the epiblast of blastocysts and embryos between 5.5 and 8.25 days of development, a window of time that coincides with the presence of pluripotent cell lineage in the embryo [81, 82, 138]. The growth of factors used to isolate these cells had been identified previously as able to maintain human pluripotent cells in culture [139141] and have been found to require intracellular signalling through SMAD2 in both cell populations [142].

The pluripotentiality of EpiSC cells has been demonstrated by the formation teratocarcinomas containing a wide variety of tissue types, including representatives of all three germ lineages, and by multilineage differentiation in culture [136, 137]. The ability of a cultured cell to participate in embryonic development is considered a gold standard definition of pluripotentiality in cells derived from model animals, like mouse, where these experiments are ethically and technically possible. Embryonic primitive ectoderm and other primitive ectoderm-like cells in culture are unable to contribute to chimaera formation when injected into the blastocyst [61, 63, 64, 143, 144], despite genetic and functional demonstrations of pluripotency [143, 145149]. Likewise, EpiSC are generally unable to colonise the ICM and participate in embryonic development when introduced into a host blastocyst [136, 150]. EpiSC introduced into the blastocyst remained physically distinct from the ICM, suggesting that the inability to contribute is a consequence of differing adhesive properties between the cells of the ICM and EpiSC preventing assimilation [136]. EpiSC modified to overexpress E-cadherin, and treated with ROCK inhibitors, can form chimaeras after blastocyst injection [151]. The analysis of EpiSC, embryonic primitive ectoderm, and other primitive ectoderm-like cells suggests that the ability of a cell to integrate with the ICM is not a defining property of pluripotency. Recently it has been shown that EpiSC, but not ES cells, can be grafted into the primitive ectoderm of postimplantation embryos where they will disperse and differentiate appropriately [152]. This suggests EpiSC are pluripotent, functionally equivalent to the primitive ectoderm, and that the lack of chimaera formation following conventional blastocyst reflects cellular differences rather than a loss of pluripotency.

However sharing the quality of pluripotency, ES cells, and EpiSC differs in a number of key respects which reflect their origins. This has been reviewed recently [153, 154]. Most notably, an X chromosome in XX EpiSC is inactivated whereas XX ES cells do not exhibit X inactivation [155]; the gene expression of EpiSC mirrors that of the primitive ectoderm with a reduction in ICM-specific gene expression and increased expression of later epiblast markers [136, 137] and the genome organisation of ES cells and EpiSC differ suggesting the populations are epigenetically distinct [156]. EpiSC preferentially use the proximal enhancer to drive Oct4 expression [136] and show lower expression of Sox2 and Nanog [36, 150] suggesting that the maintenance of pluripotency in these cells is distinct from ES cells. Moreover, EpiSC can be derived and maintained from Nanog/ epiblast or Nanog/ ES cells, suggesting, Nanog is not required for pluripotency in the primitive ectoderm [81]. These qualities all distinguish pre- and postimplantation epiblast, correlate ES cells and EpiSC with their respective embryonic origins, and suggest that these cells are distinct populations and not an equivalent cell that acquires different characteristics in response to dissimilar culture conditions. More recently, proteomic analysis has identified a number of differentially expressed surface proteins that distinguish ES cells and EpiSC and reveal differences in signalling receptors and proteins involved in cell adhesion and cell migration [47]. A subset of these proteins was analysed in the embryo and shown to be differentially expressed between epiblast and primitive ectoderm. Metabolic differences, particularly in the use of carbohydrates, have also been shown to exist between ES cells and EpiSC, with EpiSC proposed to be exclusively glycolytic and ES cells generating energy through glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation [157]. Finally, EpiSC do not easily revert to, or acquire characteristics of, the ES cell state when cultured in medium that supports ES cell renewal [155, 158], although some EpiSC lines appear to revert more readily than others [159]. Comparative analysis of a panel of independent EpiSC lines has suggested variability between lines and the maintenance in culture of EpiSC cell lines representative of earlier and later primitive ectoderm; the ability to readily revert to an earlier state was embodied in cells representative of earlier primitive ectoderm [159]. By contrast, a recent study isolating EpiSC lines from the early primitive ectoderm of the pregastrula embryo (6 d.p.c.) to primitive ectoderm of late gastrula stage mouse embryos (8.5 d.p.c.) has shown that EpiSC in culture are transcriptionally and developmentally similar and aligned with anterior primitive ectoderm of late gastrula stage embryos [82].

5.3. Manipulating Pluripotency in Culture: The Ground State

Since recognition that LIF and gp130 signalling is unlikely to underpin pluripotency in the embryo, many attempts have been made to develop culture conditions for ES cells that more closely reflect the embryonic environment. The majority of these approaches will not be covered here as they have little to add to the discussion of pluripotent cell states. An exception to this is the recent demonstration by Austin Smith and colleagues of the culture of ES cells in serum-free medium supplemented with inhibitors of ERK/FGF signalling and glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK3) signalling, a medium termed 2i or 3i depending on the inhibitors used [160, 161]. ES cells, isolated from blastocysts into 3i medium, maintained pluripotency in culture and were able to contribute to chimaera development after injection into host blastocysts [160]. The ability of this medium to sustain ES cells suggests that pluripotency in culture can be achieved by eliminating ERK signalling and preventing this pathway from priming pluripotent cells for differentiation. 2i and 3i culture conditions have been used to derive ES cell lines from hitherto refractive laboratory strains of mice [160, 162] and rats [163], suggesting that the previous failure to generate ES cells reflects an insufficiency of culture conditions and not a requirement for specific genetic or epigenetic backgrounds. Stat3−/− cells can be established and cultivated in 3i medium [160], demonstrating that, in line with the embryological evidence, the requirement for LIF/STAT signalling in pluripotency is specific to culture. Pluripotent cells cultured in ERK signalling inhibitors show compromised cell growth and viability that is alleviated by the addition of CHIR99021, a specific inhibitor of glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3). GSK3 inhibition has been shown to increase the pool of β-catenin in the cell, which in turn promotes pluripotency [164]. This function of β-catenin does not require β-catenin-mediated transcription. In the maintenance of pluripotency, β-catenin has been suggested to act through the formation of multiple protein-protein interaction complexes, one of which sequesters Tcf3 and inhibits activity, and another one that tethers Oct4 to a complex at the cell membrane, potentially preventing the association of Oct4 in differentiation promoting complexes [164]. Alternative formulations of inhibitor medium have been developed by others, substituting ERK inhibition by inhibition of SRC kinases or inhibition of calcineurin signalling [165, 166]. SRC kinase has been shown to be required for the differentiation of ES cells to primitive ectoderm [167, 168]. ERK inhibitors, SRC kinase inhibitors, and inhibition of calcineurin signalling, therefore, share a common function and prevent differentiation within the context of inhibitor-based medium formulations; this is likely through the prevention of cSRC activation, a process mediated by calcineurin-NFAT and ERK1/2 [166].

The relationship between pluripotent cells cultured in 2i medium and pluripotent cells of the embryo has been investigated. Inhibition of ERK signalling from the 8-cell stage embryo to the blastocyst does not prevent the formation of epiblast or affect the ability of epiblast-derived cells to contribute to further development when the ERK embargo is lifted [50]. ES cells cultured in 2i or 3i medium have been proposed to be equivalent to the newly formed epiblast of the blastocyst and representative of cells, that is, in the “ground state” of pluripotency, a term coined to reflect the potency of this cell in comparison to what precedes and follows it in development and the positioning of the cell at the base of all embryonic lineages.

5.4. Manipulating Pluripotency in Culture: Early Primitive Ectoderm-Like Cells

Soon after the initial isolation of mouse ES cells, it was recognised that their broad differentiation potential could be harnessed to understand the regulation of differentiation events in the embryo, to produce populations of somatic cells for research, and to characterise lineage progression and the formation of differentiation intermediates. It was also recognised early that human equivalents of the mouse ES cell and derivatives would have enormous potentials as a source of cells with clinical relevance [169, 170].

EPL cells, a product of early attempts to control the differentiation of ES cells in culture, were first described in 1999 [143]. EPL cells are formed from ES cells cultured in medium supplemented with medium conditioned by the human hepatocellular carcinoma cell line HepG2 (MEDII) [143]. Expression of Oct4, Sox2, and alkaline phosphatase [143] and a differentiation potential in culture that includes the formation of populations of the mesoderm, endoderm and ectoderm, lineages [143, 147149, 171] identify EPL cells as pluripotent, although these cells, like EpiSC and native primitive ectoderm, do not participate in chimaera formation when injected into a blastocyst [143]. The alteration in colony morphology [143], loss of ICM and ES cell-specific markers Rex1, CRTR-1, PSC1, SPP1 and GBX2, upregulation of the primitive ectoderm markers Fgf5 and PRCE [65, 143, 148, 172], increased proliferation rate [143], and a restricted ability to form cell populations characteristic of the primitive endoderm lineage [148, 149] are consistent with the formation of primitive ectoderm and discriminate these cells from ES cells.

Comparisons of EPL cells and EpiSC have not been reported except within the context of a comprehensive study of genome organisation in pluripotent cells [156]. Not surprisingly, however, EPL cells share properties with EpiSC, including an epithelial morphology, increased expression of primitive ectoderm markers when compared to mouse ES cells, and a differentiation potential that encompasses the three primary germ layers [136, 137, 147149, 172]. There are differences between these populations. Comparison of the chromatin configuration of EPL cells and EpiSC shows EpiSC, but not EPL cells, to have undergone autosomal lyonisation [156]. EpiSC express Nanog at levels equivalent to or higher than mouse ES cells [136, 137], whereas Nanog expression is diminished with EPL cell formation [172]. Nanog expression in the embryo is lost with primitive ectoderm formation and reexpressed in the late primitive ectoderm prior to gastrulation [35, 66, 67]. These data suggest that EPL cells represent a , preautosomal lyonisation primitive ectoderm, and EpiSC, the Nanog-expressing post-autosomal lyonisation primitive ectoderm. Lastly, when cultured in medium that supports ES, cells EPL cells readily revert to an ES cell state [143]. In contrast, the ability of EpiSC to revert is seen only in those lines representative of an earlier pluripotent cell state [159]. In a recent review EPL cells were defined as an intermediary state between ES cells and EpiSC [173]. This is consistent with the expression of the early postimplantation primitive ectoderm marker Espl1 by EPL cells [65].

6. Mechanisms That Regulate Pluripotent Cell Progression: What We Have Learnt In Vitro

Pluripotency in ES cells, and in the epiblast of the embryo, is maintained through the orchestrated actions of three transcription factors, Oct4, Sox2, and Nanog. Coregulatory and autoregulatory mechanisms ensure the maintenance of active concentrations of these factors within the ES cell, reinforcing the pluripotent state, expression of cofactors and effector proteins required for pluripotency, and, perhaps most importantly, suppression of differentiation regulators, including those that specify the trophectoderm and primitive endoderm lineages [174]. Paradoxically, perhaps, Oct4 and Sox2 also ensure the expression of Fgf4. FGF signalling, through the Ras-Erk pathway, is not required for the propagation of undifferentiated cells in culture; Fgf4−/− and Erk−/− ES cells can be maintained but are unable to commit to differentiation [175]. The suppression of Erk signalling is critical to maintaining cells in the ground state of pluripotency [160]. These observations suggest that autocrine Erk signalling initialises pluripotent lineage progression in culture. Oct4 and Sox2, through regulation of effectors of pluripotency and progression, generate a balance in the pluripotent cell of renewal activity and differentiation activity and ensure that ES cells are poised to exit self-renewal and commit to lineage specification.

The ability to recapitulate the formation of primitive ectoderm from ICM with the formation of EPL cells from ES cells in culture provides a manipulable system to understand the signals regulating this process. EPL cell formation is induced by the amino acid L-proline, either as exogenously added amino acid at concentrations >100 μM or as a component of the conditioned medium MEDII [176178]. The activity associated with L-proline appears specific, as other amino acids tested and analogues of proline did not exhibit the bioactivity, with the exception of ornithine [176178]. Transport of L-proline into the cell by the amino acid transporter SNAT2 is required [177]. Many, but not all, L-proline-containing peptides are active, and activity is consistent with the ability of free l-proline to be liberated from the peptide through the actions of extracellular proteinases [176].

Primitive ectoderm can also be formed from ES cells within embryoid bodies (EBs) [135, 179]. In EBs, as in the embryo, the signals regulating primitive ectoderm formation originate from the overlying primitive endoderm [59, 84, 180182]. In EBs this signal has been characterized as a small, diffusible signal [59, 181], and it is tempting to speculate that it may be L-proline. L-proline uptake by SNAT2 can be inhibited by competitive concentrations of other amino acid substrates of SNAT2; inhibition of L-Proline uptake during EB differentiation prolonged the expression of ES cell markers, consistent with a requirement for L-proline uptake in primitive ectoderm formation (author unpublished). Although preliminary, these data are consistent with a role for L-proline in the regulation of primitive ectoderm formation within an in vitro model of early embryonic development.

How L-proline induces EPL cell formation from ES cells is not fully understood. Amino acids are canonically sensed in cells by two pathways mediated by mTOR or GCN2 [183, 184] that regulate biosynthetic activity across a number of pathways. mTOR activity has been shown to be necessary for L-proline activity but not sufficient, as addition of other activators of the mTOR signalling pathway failed to alter the ES cell phenotype [176]. This implies the involvement of additional, proline-specific pathways. L-proline is an unusual amino acid, the only secondary amino acid that is incorporated into proteins. The distinctive structure of l-proline, with the alpha nitrogen contained within a pyrrolidine ring, precludes metabolism by the normal amino acid metabolic enzymes. The central enzyme in proline metabolism is proline dehydrogenase (PRODH or POX) which converts L-proline to Δ1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate (P5C) and generates superoxide (ROS) [185, 186]. A competitive inhibitor of proline dehydrogenase (PRODH or POX), 3,4-dehydro-L-proline (DHP), inhibited the activity of L-proline on ES cells [178]. In addition, L-proline activity was inhibited by well characterized ROS scavengers, including glutathione, N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC), and ascorbic acid [178]. Ornithine, the other amino acid reported to differentiate ES cells to primitive ectoderm [178], can be converted to L-proline through the formation of P5C by ornithine aminotransferase (OAT) and reduction of P5C to L-proline by P5C reductase. These observations suggest that the biological activity associated with L-proline requires L-proline metabolism.

A requirement for Src family kinases in the formation of primitive ectoderm from ES cells was shown by the ability of broad specificity inhibitors to prevent ES cell differentiation on LIF withdrawal [168]. Using an elegant chemical genetics approach the formation of primitive ectoderm from ES cells in culture was shown to require signalling through cSRC and that inhibiting this transition effectively inhibited further differentiation [167]. The relationship between activation of this pathway and L-proline metabolism has not been established but it is of note that SRC kinase can be activated by increased intracellular ROS [187].

An alternative approach to understanding the progression of the pluripotent lineage and primitive ectoderm formation has been to look for transcription factors that regulate ES cell progression. Otx2 is differentially expressed between ES cells and EPL cells/EpiSC [131, 172]. Otx2 expression is seen in about 50% of Oct4+ common or garden ES cells (generally those with lower Nanog expression) whereas all Oct4+ EpiSC expressed Otx2. Expression in ES cells cultured in 2i medium is much lower [188]. Manipulation of Otx2 levels suggested that this transcription factor regulates the balance between ICM-like cells and primitive ectoderm-like cells in common or garden ES cell populations, with Otx2−/− cells resembling cells cultured in 2i medium and Otx2-overexpressing cells acquiring characteristics of EpiSC and primitive ectoderm [131]. How signalling by L-proline, mTOR, and cSRC integrates with transcriptional regulation by Otx2 and pluripotency regulation is not known.

7. How the Lineage Develops: A Model

If we imagine the pluripotent lineage as the sequential progression of cells from newly formed epiblast in the ground state of pluripotency in the preimplantation blastocyst to epiblast of the late primitive ectoderm, it is possible from in vitro analysis of pluripotent cells to begin to identify intermediary cell states and mechanisms regulating cellular transitions. Ground state pluripotent cells are characterised by the ubiquitous expression of Nanog and by a stable pluripotent cell transcription network. This state is achieved in culture by shielding cells from inductive environmental cues and preventing signalling through ERK1/2 and activation of cSrc. The nature of the shield in the embryo, if it exists, is not known. In vitro, increased ERK signalling results in cells becoming primed or able to respond to differentiation signals [175] and deletion of Erk2−/− biases cells towards self-renewal [189]. Increasing ERK activity likely occurs in response to an accumulation of endogenously producing FGF4 that activates an autocrine response within the cells and suggests that a threshold exists beyond which the ground state of pluripotency is unsustainable.

The identity of the first primed cell population is not clear. In the embryo this cell is likely to be ephemeral, forming but responding immediately to environmental cues to form primitive ectoderm. Potentially this cell has been captured in culture, the Nanog+, Rex1+, and Dppa3+ cell components of ES cells populations cultured conventionally in LIF. Differences have begun to emerge in that distinguish ground state ES cells with ES cells cultured in LIF/serum [190, 191], and we have defined functional differences in the ability of these two populations to respond to L-proline (Boon Siang Nicholas Tan and Joy Rathjen, unpublished observations). ES cells cultured in LIF are also distinct from EPL cells, responding to BMP4 with self-renewal rather than differentiation [171] and maintaining the expression of Nanog [172]. The transitory nature and inherent instability of this initial primed cell explain the metastable state adopted in ES cell cultures in LIF, with ES cells within the mix sporadically responding to increased ERK signalling, despite the inhibitory presence of LIF/STAT3 signalling, and responding to environmental cues (most likely L-proline within the medium) to form an early primitive ectoderm-like cell. The early stages of ES cell differentiation can be reversed [133, 143]. Under the influence of LIF within the medium, a proportion of the early primitive ectoderm-like cells will revert to the primed ES cell state. Thus, in ES cells cultured in LIF, pluripotent cells will be continually cycling between a primed ES state and an EPL cell state as the balance of LIF/STAT3 and ERK signalling fluctuates. Reversion is unlikely to be complete in the presence of LIF, so a proportion of cells will commit to lineage differentiation. These cells would accumulate within the population if regular passaging was not used to select against them.

Primitive ectoderm-like cells comprise a component of the population present at any one time in ES cells cultured in LIF. The prevalence of these cells will depend on many factors, the composition of the medium, the quality of the serum or serum replacer, and the number of differentiated cells within the population (which is a function of the time since passage). Primitive ectoderm-like cells will also be selected against at the point of passage, as differentiation of EPL cells can be triggered by disrupting cell to cell contacts [192] and later primitive ectoderm-like cells are much less likely to establish colonies after reduction to a single cell suspension (author unpublished) [137]. The poorer propagation ability of these cells is probably reflected in the poor colony forming ability of ES cells, with only between 25 and 50% of cells/passage establishing colonies [143, 193].

The balance of cells within the metastable state can be influenced by culturing ES cells without LIF, a documented antagonist of primitive ectoderm formation [143, 194], and in medium supplemented with MEDII to form effectively pure populations of EPL cells. The developmental progression that is seen when EPL cells are formed within cell aggregates in MEDII without passage suggests that EPL cells do not represent a static cell population but a self-perpetuating continuum that stretches from the earliest primitive ectoderm to primitive ectoderm that is committed to differentiation [147, 171]. It is tempting to speculate that maturation of EPL cells within aggregates is driven by the ever increasing expression of Fgf5 by the cells [147, 171] and the accumulation of FGF5 in the environment. This is consistent with a role for ERK signalling maturation of the lineage [195]. In adherent culture with regular passage EPL cells can be maintained, although achieving this is extremely difficult and the cells are prone to differentiate. This is likely a consequence on the reliance of EPL cells on cell to cell contacts for stability and the ability of EPL cell dissociation to trigger differentiation [192].

The ability to capture embryonic primitive ectoderm as EpiSC suggests that with appropriate culture conditions cells late within the developmental continuum of primitive ectoderm can be stabilised in culture. EpiSC can also be established from ES cells through the manipulation of culture medium [155]. Although it is possible that the culture conditions induce differentiation, it is more likely that EpiSC establishment occurs as a function of culture. Changing ES cell medium to one supplemented with FGF2 and Activin A removes LIF, resulting in differentiation towards somatic lineages. Cells will transit through a primitive ectoderm-like state, which can be captured and stabilised in the new medium.

8. Terminology

A difficulty that is encountered when comparing cell populations in culture with those present in the pluripotent lineage of the embryo is the inconsistent use of terminology. In the embryo epiblast refers to the entirety of the pluripotent lineage, which implies that pluripotent cells in culture are all epiblast derived or epiblast like. Yet only those cells initially derived from the 5.5 and 6.5 d.p.c. epiblast, EpiSC, are attributed to this tissue. In the mouse embryo the biological distinction between pre- and peri/postimplantation epiblast is denoted by the use of primitive ectoderm for the later population; this has been reflected in the terminology for EPL cells but is not used to denote other primitive ectoderm-derived or primitive ectoderm-like cells. ES is a term that reflects the stem-like properties and differentiation potential of the cells in culture but has come to refer in mouse to cells derived from, or analogous to, the epiblast of the blastocyst. The adoption of embryonic stem to denote the human pluripotent cells in culture has been questioned recently as although these cells are blastocyst-derived they are demonstrably distinct from mouse ES cells/early epiblast and more like EPL cells/EpiSC/primitive ectoderm [154]. The ad hoc and inconsistent use of terminology has resulted in a need for a comprehensive knowledge of the field and of the quirks of cell nomenclature before the nuances of similarity and differences between cells in culture and the embryo can be appreciated. It is not reasonable to expect either field to alter terminology at this point in history, but a clear and concise understanding of the embryonic terminology and a consistent use of terms to describe cell states in the embryo need to be developed to allow accurate cross referencing between the lineage in vivo and cells in vitro. Others have suggested the use of preimplantation epiblast and early and late postimplantation epiblast to define the subpopulations present in the embryo [173]. This nomenclature is applicable to embryonic development of mouse and human, but falls down when used to describe the epiblast of mammalian species in which implantation is not coincident with epiblast epithelialisation. Establishment of pluripotent cells from these species, such as pig, encourages the development of a more general terminology. The author would propose a simple solution to the issue, based on the use of early, middle and late epiblast (Figure 1). Early epiblast in the embryo comprises pluripotent cells of the blastocyst, present prior to the epithelialisation of the epiblast and in culture cells in the ground state of pluripotency. Middle epiblast in the embryo is the epiblast of the peri-implantation epiblast and the newly formed epithelialized epiblast of the primitive ectoderm, present before autosomal lyonisation and X-inactivation in the female. In culture this describes EPL cells and EpiSC, derived from the embryo or from ES cells, which can readily revert to an ES cell-like state. Late epiblast of the embryo is present immediately prior to gastrulation and persists as the pluripotent cell population in the gastrulating embryo and has undergone autosomal lyonisation and X-inactivation in the female. In culture late epiblast is represented by EpiSC and potentially by EPL cells which have been cultured as aggregates for 5 days, which no longer readily revert to an ES cell state. Straddling the early to middle epiblast boundary are primed ES cells, and their alignment with either population depends on the composition of the metastable state.

9. Human ES Cells: Where Do They Fit?

That human blastocysts contained pluripotent cells that could be cultured in vitro was first recognised by Bob Edwards, but it was not until the last years of the twentieth century that these cells were isolated as cell lines [196, 197]. More than any others, these cells triggered the realisation that pluripotent cells existed in multiple states in culture and an ongoing debate about their identity. They are derived from the early epiblast but in culture they are different from primed ES cells and do not show hallmarks of ground state pluripotency. They grow in large, epithelial-like colonies, culture very poorly when dissociated into single cells unless ROCK inhibitors are present [198], and are not maintained by LIF but require, like EpiSC, a medium supplemented with FGFs and Tgfβs [139141]. Recent advances in human ES cell culture include multiple medium formulations that support the cells in chemically defined and xeno-free environments [141, 199201]. Like EPL cells human, ES cells respond to BMP4 stimulation with differentiation rather than maintenance [171, 172, 202, 203] and like EpiSC they have an almost exclusively glycolytic metabolism [157]. Although continuing culture of human ES cells in the ground state of pluripotency has proven difficult, there are reports to suggest that the cells can revert to an early epiblast phenotype [204207] and be maintained in the naïve or ground state [208]. Prima facie, and contrary to their origin, these cells appear to adopt in culture a middle-epiblast identity. Analysis of successful human ES cell isolation events suggests that the pluripotent cell mass in the human blastocyst continues development in vitro prior to the outgrowth of cell lines, and that the origin of the cell lines is more accurately described as a post-ICM intermediate with similarity to the epiblast [209]. Establishment of lines from a more advanced stage of the pluripotent lineage likely accounts for the middle-epiblast identity of these cells in culture. At odds with this are multiple reports demonstrating that human ES cells form trophectoderm when BMP4 is added (reviewed in [210]), a characteristic that is not consistent with middle-epiblast of the mouse or the lineage restrictions that occur within the cleavage stage mouse embryo. Potentially, this difference in potency results from species specific differences in early embryonic development, reflecting, for example, the different capabilities of mouse and human to interrupt development and establish diapause [211]. Or perhaps, like primed ES cells, these cells do not align with the developmental continuum but represent a metastable population that maintains pluripotency in cells cycling through more primitive and more advanced states and which maintains a subpopulation of cells that can form trophectoderm. It is clear that human ES cells in culture form complex populations comprised of multiple cell types including subpopulations of cells showing characteristics of early lineage progenitors [212, 213]. Finally, and much more radically, perhaps pluripotency in human ES cells is not stable and trophectoderm formation is evidence of a loss of regulatory control.

10. Concluding Remarks

In 2013 it is unusual to write a review on pluripotency that does not include a section on reprogramming and iPS cells [214]. I make no apologies for this; this review is about pluripotent cell states in the embryo and in culture and including discussion of reprogrammed cells was beyond my scope. Although the ability to form iPS cells appears, at this point in time, to tell us little about the regulators that drive cells from early to middle and late-epiblasts, these cells hold enormous potential to refine our understanding of a cell state and pluripotency in the future. Reprogramming has the potential to highlight functionally the pathways that are critical to pluripotent cells in culture, not just those that maintain pluripotency but also those that impose physiological control on the cells. It is well documented that many abortive reprogramming events occur, indicative of a strong selective pressure against nonoptimal cellular networks. This selective pressure ensures a limited number of outcomes from the diverse starting population generated in a reprogramming experiment and will reflect networks essential to a pluripotent cell state in culture.

The embryo tells us that the pluripotent cells exist as a lineage, a continuum of cell populations that differ genetically, epigenetically, and functionally but which share a common quality of pluripotency. With the exception of the early epiblast, which is present in embryos that are suspended in diapause, there is little evidence of a stable pluripotent cell state during embryogenesis. This raises questions—does a pluripotent cell state exist in the embryo that is stable and sustainable after a cell has undergone the ground state to primed transition, or does the transition to a primed cell initiate an inevitable sequence of events that guarantee differentiation? Embryologically an inevitable program of differentiation makes sense. Pluripotency is a dangerous state and when uncontrolled results in tumours; ensuring differentiation by eliminating stable states that could persist and seed teratocarcinomas would act as an effective control mechanism to protect the early embryo. The ramifications of a continuum, though, are that the maintenance of primed cells in culture requires the establishment of a metastable population with cells cycling between earlier and later cell states, a process which responds to selective pressures exerted by the culture medium and cell passage, and which produces populations specific to culture, as seen in common or garden ES cell culture. A metastable state could be equally true of EpiSC, in which population diversity has been demonstrated functionally [150] and genetically [159], and human ES cells, in which many subpopulations have been defined genetically [212]. In maintenance conditions it is likely that EPL cells also adopt a metastable state cycling between early and later primitive ectoderm.

Pluripotent cells in culture are, and will continue to be, powerful tools for understanding the lineage and provide unique windows into pluripotency but, with the exception of ground state ES cells, have to be used with the knowledge that they are likely representative of a transient moment of embryogenesis captured in culture. This does not limit the current pathways being pursued to exploit the clinical applications of human ES cells. These considerations do, however, suggest research directions. In an ideal world pluripotent cell lines would be isolated from the newly formed epiblast into conditions that support the ground state of pluripotency and maintained as stocks in ground state. Priming pluripotent cells and the transition to primitive ectoderm in current differentiation paradigms are generally left to chance but these processes are regulated in the embryo and can be regulated in culture. Understanding the embryological pathways and recapitulating them within differentiation protocols will provide superior pluripotent cell substrates for further differentiation. In my opinion primitive ectoderm-like cells will always be a better place to start any differentiation protocol to the somatic lineages.

Conflict of Interests

The author declares that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Professor Peter Rathjen for endless discussions on the state of pluripotency and for critically reading this paper. She would also thank all those who work within this area; the breadth of the area covered has meant that not all authors who have made contributions have been able to be cited. Joy Rathjen is supported by the University of Tasmania and the Menzies Research Institute Tasmania. She is also an Associate Investigator with Stem Cells Australia, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

References

  1. S. J. Kelly, “Studies of the developmental potential of 4- and 8-cell stage mouse blastomeres,” Journal of Experimental Zoology, vol. 200, no. 3, pp. 365–376, 1977. View at: Google Scholar
  2. W. Garner and A. McLaren, “Cell distribution in chimaeric mouse embryos before implantation,” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 495–503, 1974. View at: Google Scholar
  3. H. Balakier and R. A. Pedersen, “Allocation of cells to inner cell mass and trophectoderm lineages in preimplantation mouse embryos,” Developmental Biology, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 352–362, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  4. G. Guo, M. Huss, G. Q. Tong et al., “Resolution of cell fate decisions revealed by single-cell gene expression analysis from zygote to blastocyst,” Developmental Cell, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 675–685, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. J. B. Levy, M. H. Johnson, H. Goodall, and B. Maro, “The timing of compaction: control of a major developmental transition in mouse early embryogenesis,” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 95, pp. 213–237, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
  6. T. Ducibella, T. Ukena, M. Karnovsky, and E. Anderson, “Changes in cell surface and cortical cytoplasmic organization during early embryogenesis in the preimplantation mouse embryo,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 153–167, 1977. View at: Google Scholar
  7. W. J. Reeve and C. A. Ziomek, “Distribution of microvilli on dissociated blastomeres from mouse embryos: evidence for surface polarization at compaction,” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 62, pp. 339–350, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
  8. E. Lehtonen and R. A. Badley, “Localization of cytoskeletal proteins in preimplantation mouse embryos,” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 55, pp. 211–225, 1980. View at: Google Scholar
  9. A. H. Handyside, “Distribution of antibody and lectin-binding sites on dissociated blastomeres from mouse morulae: evidence for polarization at compaction,” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 60, pp. 99–116, 1980. View at: Google Scholar
  10. J. R. McLachlin, S. Caveney, and G. M. Kidder, “Control of gap junction formation in early mouse embryos,” Developmental Biology, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 155–164, 1983. View at: Google Scholar
  11. F. D. Houghton, K. J. Barr, G. Walter et al., “Functional significance of Gap junctional coupling in preimplantation development,” Biology of Reproduction, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 1403–1412, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  12. D. Riethmacher, V. Brinkmanni, and C. Birchmeier, “A targeted mutation in the mouse E-cadherin gene results in defective preimplantation development,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 855–859, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. L. Larue, M. Ohsugi, J. Hirchenhain, and R. Kemler, “E-cadherin null mutant embryos fail to form a trophectoderm epithelium,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 91, no. 17, pp. 8263–8267, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. N. G. Kan, M. P. Stemmler, D. Junghans et al., “Gene replacement reveals a specific role for E-cadherin in the formation of a functional trophectoderm,” Development, vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 31–41, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. V. Hyenne, S. Louvet-Vallée, A. El-Amraoui, C. Petit, B. Maro, and M. Simmler, “Vezatin, a protein associated to adherens junctions, is required for mouse blastocyst morphogenesis,” Developmental Biology, vol. 287, no. 1, pp. 180–191, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. I. Khang, S. Sonn, J. Park, K. Rhee, D. Park, and K. Kim, “Expression of epithin in mouse preimplantation development: its functional role in compaction,” Developmental Biology, vol. 281, no. 1, pp. 134–144, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. W. N. De Vries, A. V. Evsikov, B. E. Haac et al., “Maternal β-catenin and E-cadherin in mouse development,” Development, vol. 131, no. 18, pp. 4435–4445, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. L. Chen, D. Wang, Z. Wu, L. Ma, and G. Q. Daley, “Molecular basis of the first cell fate determination in mouse embryogenesis,” Cell Research, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 982–993, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. Y. Kurotaki, K. Hatta, K. Nakao, Y. Nabeshima, and T. Fujimori, “Blastocyst axis is specified independently of early cell lineage but aligns with the ZP shape,” Science, vol. 316, no. 5825, pp. 719–723, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. M. H. Johnson and C. A. Ziomek, “The foundation of two distinct cell lineages within the mouse morula,” Cell, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 71–80, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
  21. T. P. Fleming, “A quantitative analysis of cell allocation to trophectoderm and inner cell mass in the mouse blastocyst,” Developmental Biology, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 520–531, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  22. R. A. Pedersen, K. Wu, and H. Balakier, “Origin of the inner cell mass in mouse embryos: cell lineage analysis by microinjection,” Developmental Biology, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 581–595, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
  23. R. L. Gardner, “Contributions of blastocyst micromanipulation to the study of mammalian development,” Bioessays, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 168–180, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  24. A. Suwińska, R. Czołowska, W. Ozdzeński, and A. K. Tarkowski, “Blastomeres of the mouse embryo lose totipotency after the fifth cleavage division: expression of Cdx2 and Oct4 and developmental potential of inner and outer blastomeres of 16- and 32-cell embryos,” Developmental Biology, vol. 322, no. 1, pp. 133–144, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. S. A. Morris, R. T. Y. Teo, H. Li, P. Robson, D. M. Glover, and M. Zernicka-Goetz, “Origin and formation of the first two distinct cell types of the inner cell mass in the mouse embryo,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 14, pp. 6364–6369, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. Y. Yamanaka, F. Lanner, and J. Rossant, “FGF signal-dependent segregation of primitive endoderm and epiblast in the mouse blastocyst,” Development, vol. 137, no. 5, pp. 715–724, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. J. Dietrich and T. Hiiragi, “Stochastic patterning in the mouse pre-implantation embryo,” Development, vol. 134, no. 23, pp. 4219–4231, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. J. Dyce, M. George, H. Goodall, and T. P. Fleming, “Do trophectoderm and inner cell mass cells in the mouse blastocyst maintain discrete lineages,” Development, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 685–698, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  29. N. Nishioka, S. Yamamoto, H. Kiyonari et al., “Tead4 is required for specification of trophectoderm in pre-implantation mouse embryos,” Mechanisms of Development, vol. 125, no. 3-4, pp. 270–283, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. R. Yagi, M. J. Kohn, I. Karavanova et al., “Transcription factor TEAD4 specifies the trophectoderm lineage at the beginning of mammalian development,” Development, vol. 134, no. 21, pp. 3827–3836, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. N. Nishioka, K. Inoue, K. Adachi et al., “The hippo signaling pathway components Lats and Yap pattern tead4 activity to distinguish mouse trophectoderm from inner cell mass,” Developmental Cell, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 398–410, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. C. Lorthongpanich, T. P. Doris, V. Limviphuvadh, B. B. Knowles, and D. Solter, “Developmental fate and lineage commitment of singled mouse blastomeres,” Development, vol. 139, no. 20, pp. 3722–3731, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. I. Chambers and S. R. Tomlinson, “The transcriptional foundation of pluripotency,” Development, vol. 136, no. 14, pp. 2311–2322, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. J. Nichols, B. Zevnik, K. Anastassiadis et al., “Formation of pluripotent stem cells in the mammalian embryo depends on the POU transcription factor Oct4,” Cell, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 379–391, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. K. Mitsui, Y. Tokuzawa, H. Itoh et al., “The homeoprotein nanog is required for maintenance of pluripotency in mouse epiblast and ES cells,” Cell, vol. 113, no. 5, pp. 631–642, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. J. Silva, J. Nichols, T. W. Theunissen et al., “Nanog is the gateway to the pluripotent ground state,” Cell, vol. 138, no. 4, pp. 722–737, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. A. A. Avilion, S. K. Nicolis, L. H. Pevny, L. Perez, N. Vivian, and R. Lovell-Badge, “Multipotent cell lineages in early mouse development depend on SOX2 function,” Genes and Development, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 126–140, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. M. Keramari, J. Razavi, K. A. Ingman et al., “Sox2 is essential for formation of trophectoderm in the preimplantation embryo,” PLoS ONE, vol. 5, no. 11, Article ID e13952, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. A. Ralston and J. Rossant, “Cdx2 acts downstream of cell polarization to cell-autonomously promote trophectoderm fate in the early mouse embryo,” Developmental Biology, vol. 313, no. 2, pp. 614–629, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. L. Chen, A. Yabuuchi, S. Eminli et al., “Cross-regulation of the nanog and Cdx2 promoters,” Cell Research, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1052–1061, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. H. Niwa, Y. Toyooka, D. Shimosato et al., “Interaction between Oct3/4 and Cdx2 determines trophectoderm differentiation,” Cell, vol. 123, no. 5, pp. 917–929, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. K. Wang, S. Sengupta, L. Magnani, C. A. Wilson, R. W. Henry, and J. G. Knott, “Brg1 is required for Cdx2-mediated repression of Oct4 expression in mouse blastocysts,” PLoS ONE, vol. 5, no. 5, Article ID e10622, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. A. Nishiyama, L. Xin, A. A. Sharov et al., “Uncovering early response of gene regulatory networks in ESCs by systematic induction of transcription factors,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 420–433, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. C. Chazaud, Y. Yamanaka, T. Pawson, and J. Rossant, “Early lineage segregation between epiblast and primitive endoderm in mouse blastocysts through the Grb2-MAPK pathway,” Developmental Cell, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 615–624, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. B. Plusa, A. Piliszek, S. Frankenberg, J. Artus, and A. Hadjantonakis, “Distinct sequential cell behaviours direct primitive endoderm formation in the mouse blastocyst,” Development, vol. 135, no. 18, pp. 3081–3091, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. J. Artus, A. Piliszek, and A. Hadjantonakis, “The primitive endoderm lineage of the mouse blastocyst: sequential transcription factor activation and regulation of differentiation by Sox17,” Developmental Biology, vol. 350, no. 2, pp. 393–404, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. P. J. Rugg-Gunn, B. J. Cox, F. Lanner et al., “Cell-surface proteomics identifies lineage-specific markers of embryo-derived stem cells,” Developmental Cell, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 887–901, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. A. M. Laeno, D. A. Tamashiro, and V. B. Alarcon, “Rho-associated kinase activity is required for proper morphogenesis of the inner cell mass in the mouse blastocyst,” Biology of Reproduction, vol. 89, no. 5, p. 122, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. R. L. Gardner, “Regeneration of endoderm from primitive ectoderm in the mouse embryo: fact or artifact?” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 88, pp. 303–326, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  50. J. Nichols, J. Silva, M. Roode, and A. Smith, “Suppression of Erk signalling promotes ground state pluripotency in the mouse embryo,” Development, vol. 136, no. 19, pp. 3215–3222, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. S. Frankenberg, F. Gerbe, S. Bessonnard et al., “Primitive endoderm differentiates via a three-step mechanism involving nanog and RTK signaling,” Developmental Cell, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1005–1013, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. A. M. Cheng, T. M. Saxton, R. Sakai et al., “Mammalian Grb2 regulates multiple steps in embryonic development and malignant transformation,” Cell, vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 793–803, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. E. Arman, R. Haffner-Krausz, Y. Chen, J. K. Heath, and P. Lonai, “Targeted disruption of fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptor 2 suggests a role for FGF signaling in pregastrulation mammalian development,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 95, no. 9, pp. 5082–5087, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. S. N. Goldin and V. E. Papaioannou, “Paracrine action of FGF4 during periimplantation development maintains trophectoderm and primitive endoderm,” Genesis, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 40–47, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. H. Yuan, N. Corbi, C. Basilico, and L. Dailey, “Developmental-specific activity of the FGF-4 enhancer requires the synergistic action of Sox2 and Oct-3,” Genes and Development, vol. 9, no. 21, pp. 2635–2645, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  56. M. H. L. Snow, “Gastrulation in the mouse: growth and regionalization of the epiblast,” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 42, pp. 293–303, 1977. View at: Google Scholar
  57. D. Solter, N. Škreb, and I. Damjanov, “Cell cycle analysis in the mouse egg-cylinder,” Experimental Cell Research, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 331–334, 1971. View at: Google Scholar
  58. E. Stead, J. White, R. Faast et al., “Pluripotent cell division cycles are driven by ectopic Cdk2, cyclin A/E and E2F activities,” Oncogene, vol. 21, no. 54, pp. 8320–8333, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. E. Coucouvanis and G. R. Martin, “Signals for death and survival: a two-step mechanism for cavitation in the vertebrate embryo,” Cell, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 279–287, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  60. R. L. Gardner and J. Rossant, “Investigation of the fate of 4.5 day post-coitum mouse inner cell mass cells by blastocyst injection,” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 52, pp. 141–152, 1979. View at: Google Scholar
  61. F. A. Brook and R. L. Gardner, “The origin and efficient derivation of embryonic stem cells in the mouse,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 94, no. 11, pp. 5709–5712, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. R. S. Beddington, “The origin of foetal tissues during gastrulation in the rodent,” in Development in Mammals, M. H. Johnson, Ed., pp. 1–32, Elesevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1983. View at: Google Scholar
  63. J. Rossant, “Cell commitment in early rodent development,” in Development in Mammals, M. H. Johnson, Ed., pp. 119–150, Elesevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1977. View at: Google Scholar
  64. R. L. Gardner, “Manipulations on the blastocyst,” Advances in Bioscience, vol. 6, pp. 279–296, 1971. View at: Google Scholar
  65. T. A. Pelton, S. Sharma, T. C. Schulz, J. Rathjen, and P. D. Rathjen, “Transient pluripotent cell populations during primitive ectoderm formation: correlation of in vivo and in vitro pluripotent cell development,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 329–339, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  66. A. H. Hart, L. Hartley, M. Ibrahim, and L. Robb, “Identification, cloning and expression analysis of the pluripotency promoting nanog genes in mouse and human,” Developmental Dynamics, vol. 230, no. 1, pp. 187–198, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. I. Chambers, D. Colby, M. Robertson et al., “Functional expression cloning of Nanog, a pluripotency sustaining factor in embryonic stem cells,” Cell, vol. 113, no. 5, pp. 643–655, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. O. Haub and M. Goldfarb, “Expression of the fibroblast growth factor-5 gene in the mouse embryo,” Development, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 397–406, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  69. P. Gu, B. Goodwin, A. C.-K. Chung et al., “Orphan nuclear receptor LRH-1 is required to maintain Oct4 expression at the epiblast stage of embryonic development,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 3492–3505, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. M. Sugimoto, S. Tan, and N. Takagi, “X chromosome inactivation revealed by the X-linked lacZ transgene activity in periimplantation mouse embryos,” International Journal of Developmental Biology, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 177–182, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  71. R. L. Gardner and M. F. Lyon, “Biological sciences: X chromosome inactivation studied by injection of a single cell into the mouse blastocyst,” Nature, vol. 231, no. 5302, pp. 385–386, 1971. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. S. Rastan, “Timing of X-chromosome inactivation in postimplanation mouse embryos,” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 71, pp. 11–24, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  73. M. Monk and M. I. Harper, “Sequential X chromosome inactivation coupled with cellular differentiation in early mouse embryos,” Nature, vol. 281, no. 5729, pp. 311–313, 1979. View at: Google Scholar
  74. E. Heard, “Recent advances in X-chromosome inactivation,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 247–255, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. J. Borgel, S. Guibert, Y. Li et al., “Targets and dynamics of promoter DNA methylation during early mouse development,” Nature Genetics, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1093–1100, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. M. Williams, C. Burdsal, A. Periasamy, M. Lewandoski, and A. Sutherland, “Mouse primitive streak forms in situ by initiation of epithelial to mesenchymal transition without migration of a cell population,” Developmental Dynamics, vol. 241, no. 2, pp. 270–283, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. S. S. Tanaka, Y. Kojima, Y. L. Yamaguchi, R. Nishinakamura, and P. P. L. Tam, “Impact of WNT signaling on tissue lineage differentiation in the early mouse embryo,” Development Growth and Differentiation, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 843–856, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. P. P. Tam, D. A. Loebel, and S. S. Tanaka, “Building the mouse gastrula: signals, asymmetry and lineages,” Current Opinion in Genetics and Development, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 419–425, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. B. Ciruna and J. Rossant, “FGF signaling regulates mesoderm cell fate specification and morphogenetic movement at the primitive streak,” Developmental Cell, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 37–49, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. P. P. L. Tam, P. Khoo, S. L. Lewis et al., “Seqeuential allocation and global pattern of movement of the definitive endoderm in the mouse embryo during gastrulation,” Development, vol. 134, no. 2, pp. 251–260, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. R. Osorno, A. Tsakiridis, F. Wong et al., “The developmental dismantling of pluripotency is reversed by ectopic Oct4 expression,” Development, vol. 139, no. 13, pp. 2288–2298, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. Y. Kojima, K. Kaufman-Francis, J. B. Studdert et al., “The transcriptional and functional properties of mouse epiblast stem cells resemble the anterior primitive streak,” Cell Stem Cell, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. K. A. Ewen and P. Koopman, “Mouse germ cell development: from specification to sex determination,” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, vol. 323, no. 1, pp. 76–93, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. W. S. Chen, K. Manova, D. C. Weinstein et al., “Disruption of the HNF-4 gene, expressed in visceral endoderm, leads to cell death in embryonic ectoderm and impaired gastrulation of mouse embryos,” Genes and Development, vol. 8, no. 20, pp. 2466–2477, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  85. D. D. Spyropoulos and M. R. Capecchi, “Targeted disruption of the even-skipped gene, evx1, causes early postimplantation lethality of the mouse conceptus,” Genes and Development, vol. 8, no. 16, pp. 1949–1961, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  86. M. Sugimoto, M. Kondo, M. Hirose et al., “Molecular identification of tw5: Vps52 promotes pluripotential cell differentiation through cell-cell interactions,” Cell Reports, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 1363–1374, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. L. C. Stevens, “The development of transplantable teratocarcinomas from intratesticular grafts of pre- and postimplantation mouse embryos,” Developmental Biology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 364–382, 1970. View at: Google Scholar
  88. D. Solter, N. Škreb, and I. Damjanov, “Extrauterine growth of mouse egg-cylinders results in malignant teratoma,” Nature, vol. 227, no. 5257, pp. 503–504, 1970. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. R. L. Gardner, “Mouse chimaeras obtained by the injection of cells into the blastocyst,” Nature, vol. 220, no. 5167, pp. 596–597, 1968. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. M. J. Evans and M. H. Kaufman, “Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos,” Nature, vol. 292, no. 5819, pp. 154–156, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
  91. G. R. Martin, “Isolation of a pluripotent cell line from early mouse embryos cultured in medium conditioned by teratocarcinoma stem cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 78, no. 12, pp. 7634–7638, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
  92. B. Ledermann and K. Burki, “Establishment of a germ-line competent C57BL/6 embryonic stem cell line,” Experimental Cell Research, vol. 197, no. 2, pp. 254–258, 1991. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. E. Kawase, H. Suemori, N. Takahashi, K. Okazaki, K. Hashimoto, and N. Nakatsuji, “Strain difference in establishment of mouse embryonic stem (ES) cell lines,” International Journal of Developmental Biology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 385–390, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  94. J. McWhir, A. E. Schnieke, R. Ansell et al., “Selective ablation of differentiated cells permits isolation of embryonic stem cell lines from murine embryos with a non-permissive genetic background,” Nature Genetics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 223–226, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. H. R. Eistetter, “Pluripotent embryonal stem cell lines can be established from disaggregated mouse morulae,” Development Growth and Differentiation, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 275–282, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  96. Y. Matsui, K. Zsebo, and B. L. M. Hogan, “Derivation of pluripotential embryonic stem cells from murine primordial germ cells in culture,” Cell, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 841–847, 1992. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. J. L. Resnick, L. S. Bixler, L. Cheng, and P. J. Donovan, “Long-term proliferation of mouse primordial germ cells in culture,” Nature, vol. 359, no. 6395, pp. 550–551, 1992. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. A. G. Smith and M. L. Hooper, “Buffalo rat liver cells produce a diffusible activity which inhibits the differentiation of murine embryonal carcinoma and embryonic stem cells,” Developmental Biology, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  99. A. G. Smith, J. K. Heath, D. D. Donaldson et al., “Inhibition of pluripotential embryonic stem cell differentiation by purified polypeptides,” Nature, vol. 336, no. 6200, pp. 688–690, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  100. R. L. Williams, D. J. Hilton, S. Pease et al., “Myeloid leukaemia inhibitory factor maintains the developmental potential of embryonic stem cells,” Nature, vol. 336, no. 6200, pp. 684–687, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  101. H. Niwa, T. Burdon, I. Chambers, and A. Smith, “Self-renewal of pluripotent embryonic stem cells is mediated via activation of STAT3,” Genes and Development, vol. 12, no. 13, pp. 2048–2060, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  102. T. Matsuda, T. Nakamura, K. Nakao et al., “STAT3 activation is sufficient to maintain an undifferentiated state of mouse embryonic stem cells,” EMBO Journal, vol. 18, no. 15, pp. 4261–4269, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. G. Martello, P. Bertone, and A. Smith, “Identification of the missing pluripotency mediator downstream of leukaemia inhibitory factor,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 32, no. 19, pp. 2561–2574, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. S. Ye, P. Li, C. Tong, and Q.-L. Ying, “Embryonic stem cell self-renewal pathways converge on the transcription factor Tfcp2l1,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 32, no. 19, pp. 2548–2560, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. Q. Ying, J. Nichols, I. Chambers, and A. Smith, “BMP induction of Id proteins suppresses differentiation and sustains embryonic stem cell self-renewal in collaboration with STAT3,” Cell, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 281–292, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. D. P. Gearing and A. G. Bruce, “Oncostatin M binds the high-affinity leukemia inhibitory factor receptor,” New Biologist, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 61–65, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  107. J. C. Conover, N. Y. Ip, W. T. Poueymirou et al., “Ciliary neurotrophic factor maintains the pluripotentiality of embryonic stem cells,” Development, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 559–565, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  108. D. Pennica, K. J. Shaw, T. A. Swanson et al., “Cardiotrophin-1. Biological activities and binding to the leukemia inhibitory factor receptor/gp130 signaling complex,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 270, no. 18, pp. 10915–10922, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. J. Nichols, I. Chambers, and A. Smith, “Derivation of germline competent embryonic stem cells with a combination of interleukin-6 and soluble interleukin-6 receptor,” Experimental Cell Research, vol. 215, no. 1, pp. 237–239, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. J. Nichols, D. Davidson, T. Taga, K. Yoshida, I. Chambers, and A. Smith, “Complementary tissue-specific expression of LIF and LIF-receptor mRNAs in early mouse embryogenesis,” Mechanisms of Development, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 123–131, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. J.-L. Escary, J. Perreau, D. Dumenil, S. Ezine, and P. Brulet, “Leukaemia inhibitory factor is necessary for maintenance of haematopoietic stem cells and thymocyte stimulation,” Nature, vol. 363, no. 6427, pp. 361–364, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. M. Li, M. Sendtner, and A. Smith, “Essential function of LIF receptor in motor neurons,” Nature, vol. 378, no. 6558, pp. 724–727, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. K. Yoshida, T. Taga, M. Saito et al., “Targeted disruption of gp130, a common signal transducer for the interleukin 6 family of cytokines, leads to myocardial and hematological disorders,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 407–411, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. K. Kawasaki, Y. Gao, S. Yokose et al., “Osteoclasts are present in gp130-deficient mice,” Endocrinology, vol. 138, no. 11, pp. 4959–4965, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. K. Takeda, K. Noguchi, W. Shi et al., “Targeted disruption of the mouse Stat3 gene leads to early embryonic lethality,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 94, no. 8, pp. 3801–3804, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. J. Nichols, I. Chambers, T. Taga, and A. Smith, “Physiological rationale for responsiveness of mouse embryonic stem cells to gp130 cytokines,” Development, vol. 128, no. 12, pp. 2333–2339, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  117. G. R. Martin, “Teratocarcinomas and mammalian embryogenesis,” Science, vol. 209, no. 4458, pp. 768–776, 1980. View at: Google Scholar
  118. K. R. Thomas and M. R. Capecchi, “Site-directed mutagenesis by gene targeting in mouse embryo-derived stem cells,” Cell, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 503–512, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  119. E. Robertson, A. Bradley, M. Kuehn, and M. Evans, “Germ-line transmission of genes introduced into cultured pluripotential cells by retroviral vector,” Nature, vol. 323, no. 6087, pp. 445–448, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
  120. A. Bradley, M. Evans, M. H. Kaufman, and E. Robertson, “Formation of germ-line chimaeras from embryo-derived teratocarcinoma cell lines,” Nature, vol. 309, no. 5965, pp. 255–256, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
  121. C. L. Stewart, “Formation of viable chimaeras by aggregation between teratocarcinomas and preimplantation mouse embryos,” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 67, pp. 167–179, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  122. M. J. Dewey, D. W. Martin Jr., G. R. Martin, and B. Mintz, “Mosaic mice with teratocarcinoma-derived mutant cells deficient in hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 74, no. 12, pp. 5564–5568, 1977. View at: Google Scholar
  123. G. Chapman, J. L. Remiszewski, G. C. Webb, T. C. Schulz, C. D. K. Bottema, and P. D. Rathjen, “The mouse homeobox gene, Gbx2: genomic organization and expression in pluripotent cells in vitro and in vivo,” Genomics, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 223–233, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. H. Niwa, J. Miyazaki, and A. G. Smith, “Quantitative expression of Oct-3/4 defines differentiation, dedifferentiation or self-renewal of ES cells,” Nature Genetics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 372–376, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  125. S. Masui, Y. Nakatake, Y. Toyooka et al., “Pluripotency governed by Sox2 via regulation of Oct3/4 expression in mouse embryonic stem cells,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 625–635, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. N. Ivanova, R. Dobrin, R. Lu et al., “Dissecting self-renewal in stem cells with RNA interference,” Nature, vol. 442, no. 7102, pp. 533–538, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. I. Chambers, J. Silva, D. Colby et al., “Nanog safeguards pluripotency and mediates germline development,” Nature, vol. 450, no. 7173, pp. 1230–1234, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. Y. Toyooka, D. Shimosato, K. Murakami, K. Takahashi, and H. Niwa, “Identification and characterization of subpopulations in undifferentiated ES cell culture,” Development, vol. 135, no. 5, pp. 909–918, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  129. K. Hayashi, S. M. C. D. S. Lopes, F. Tang, and M. A. Surani, “Dynamic equilibrium and heterogeneity of mouse pluripotent stem cells with distinct functional and epigenetic states,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 391–401, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. T. Furusawa, K. Ohkoshi, C. Honda, S. Takahashi, and T. Tokunaga, “Embryonic stem cells expressing both platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1 and stage-specific embryonic antigen-1 differentiate predominantly into epiblast cells in a chimeric embryo,” Biology of Reproduction, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 1452–1457, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  131. D. Acampora, L. G. Di Giovannantonio, and A. Simeone, “Otx2 is an intrinsic determinant of the embryonic stem cell state and is required for transition to a stable epiblast stem cell condition,” Development, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 43–55, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  132. J. Silva and A. Smith, “Capturing pluripotency,” Cell, vol. 132, no. 4, pp. 532–536, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  133. B. D. MacArthur, A. Ana, M. Lenz et al., “Nanog-dependent feedback loops regulate murine embryonic stem cell heterogeneity,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 1139–1147, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  134. A. Smith, “Nanog heterogeneity: tilting at windmills?” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 6–7, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  135. J. Rathjen, J. M. Washington, M. D. Bettess, and P. D. Rathjen, “Identification of a biological activity that supports maintenance and proliferation of pluripotent cells from the primitive ectoderm of the mouse,” Biology of Reproduction, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 1863–1871, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  136. P. J. Tesar, J. G. Chenoweth, F. A. Brook et al., “New cell lines from mouse epiblast share defining features with human embryonic stem cells,” Nature, vol. 448, no. 7150, pp. 196–199, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  137. I. G. M. Brons, L. E. Smithers, M. W. B. Trotter et al., “Derivation of pluripotent epiblast stem cells from mammalian embryos,” Nature, vol. 448, no. 7150, pp. 191–195, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  138. F. J. Najm, J. G. Chenoweth, P. D. Anderson et al., “Isolation of epiblast stem cells from preimplantation mouse embryos,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 318–325, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  139. G. M. Beattie, A. D. Lopez, N. Bucay et al., “Activin A maintains pluripotency of human embryonic stem cells in the absence of feeder layers,” Stem Cells, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 489–495, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  140. M. Amit, M. K. Carpenter, M. S. Inokuma et al., “Clonally derived human embryonic stem cell lines maintain pluripotency and proliferative potential for prolonged periods of culture,” Developmental Biology, vol. 227, no. 2, pp. 271–278, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  141. T. E. Ludwig, V. Bergendahl, M. E. Levenstein, J. Yu, M. D. Probasco, and J. A. Thomson, “Feeder-independent culture of human embryonic stem cells,” Nature Methods, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 637–646, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  142. M. Sakaki-Yumoto, J. Liu, M. Ramalho-Santos, N. Yoshida, and R. Derynck, “Smad2 is essential for maintenance of the human and mouse primed pluripotent stem cell state,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 288, no. 25, pp. 18546–18560, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  143. J. Rathjen, J. Lake, M. D. Bettess, J. M. Washington, G. Chapman, and P. D. Rathjen, “Formation of a primitive ectoderm like cell population, EPL cells, from ES cells in response to biologically derived factors,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 112, no. 5, pp. 601–612, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  144. R. L. Gardner, M. F. Lyon, E. P. Evans, and M. D. Burtenshaw, “Clonal analysis of X-chromosome inactivation and the origin of the germ line in the mouse embryo,” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 88, pp. 349–363, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  145. K. A. Lawson, J. J. Meneses, and R. A. Pedersen, “Clonal analysis of epiblast fate during germ layer formation in the mouse embryo,” Development, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 891–911, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  146. E. Tzouanacou, A. Wegener, F. J. Wymeersch, V. Wilson, and J. Nicolas, “Redefining the progression of lineage segregations during mammalian embryogenesis by clonal analysis,” Developmental Cell, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 365–376, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  147. J. Rathjen, B. P. Haines, K. M. Hudson, A. Nesci, S. Dunn, and P. D. Rathjen, “Directed differentiation of pluripotent cells to neural lineages: homogeneous formation and differentiation of a neurectoderm population,” Development, vol. 129, no. 11, pp. 2649–2661, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  148. J. Lake, J. Rathjen, J. Remiszewski, and P. D. Rathjen, “Reversible programming of pluripotent cell differentiation,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 555–566, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  149. S. Vassilieva, H. N. Goh, K. X. Lau et al., “A system to enrich for primitive streak-derivatives, definitive endoderm and mesoderm, from pluripotent cells in culture,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 6, Article ID e38645, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  150. D. W. Han, N. Tapia, J. Y. Joo et al., “Epiblast stem cell subpopulations represent mouse embryos of distinct pregastrulation stages,” Cell, vol. 143, no. 4, pp. 617–627, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  151. S. Ohtsuka, S. Nishikawa-Torikai, and H. Niwa, “E-cadherin promotes incorporation of mouse epiblast stem cells into normal development,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 9, Article ID e45220, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  152. Y. Huang, R. Osorno, A. Tsakiridis, and V. Wilson, “In Vivo differentiation potential of epiblast stem cells revealed by chimeric embryo formation,” Cell Reports, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 1571–1578, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  153. J. G. Chenoweth, R. D. G. McKay, and P. J. Tesar, “Epiblast stem cells contribute new insight into pluripotency and gastrulation,” Development Growth and Differentiation, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 293–301, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  154. J. Nichols and A. Smith, “Naive and primed pluripotent states,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 487–492, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  155. G. Guo, J. Yang, J. Nichols et al., “Klf4 reverts developmentally programmed restriction of ground state pluripotency,” Development, vol. 136, no. 7, pp. 1063–1069, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  156. I. Hiratani, T. Ryba, M. Itoh et al., “Genome-wide dynamics of replication timing revealed by in vitro models of mouse embryogenesis,” Genome Research, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 155–169, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  157. W. Zhou, M. Choi, D. Margineantu et al., “HIF1α induced switch from bivalent to exclusively glycolytic metabolism during ESC-to-EpiSC/hESC transition,” EMBO Journal, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 2103–2116, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  158. S. Bao, F. Tang, X. Li et al., “Epigenetic reversion of post-implantation epiblast to pluripotent embryonic stem cells,” Nature, vol. 461, no. 7268, pp. 1292–1295, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  159. C. Bernemann, B. Greber, K. Ko et al., “Distinct developmental ground states of epiblast stem cell lines determine different pluripotency features,” Stem Cells, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1496–1503, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  160. Q. Ying, J. Wray, J. Nichols et al., “The ground state of embryonic stem cell self-renewal,” Nature, vol. 453, no. 7194, pp. 519–523, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  161. J. Silva, O. Barrandon, J. Nichols, J. Kawaguchi, T. W. Theunissen, and A. Smith, “Promotion of reprogramming to ground state pluripotency by signal inhibition,” PLoS Biology, vol. 6, no. 10, p. e253, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  162. J. Nichols, K. Jones, J. M. Phillips et al., “Validated germline-competent embryonic stem cell lines from nonobese diabetic mice,” Nature Medicine, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 814–818, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  163. M. Buehr, S. Meek, K. Blair et al., “Capture of authentic embryonic stem cells from rat blastocysts,” Cell, vol. 135, no. 7, pp. 1287–1298, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  164. F. Faunes, P. Hayward, S. M. Descalzo et al., “A membrane-associated beta-catenin/Oct4 complex correlates with ground-state pluripotency in mouse embryonic stem cells,” Development, vol. 140, no. 6, pp. 1171–1183, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  165. T. Shimizu, J. Ueda, J. C. Ho et al., “Dual inhibition of Src and GSK3 maintains mouse embryonic stem cells, whose differentiation is mechanically regulated by Src signaling,” Stem Cells, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1394–1404, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  166. X. Li, L. Zhu, A. Yang et al., “Calcineurin-NFAT signaling critically regulates early lineage specification in mouse embryonic stem cells and embryos,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 46–58, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  167. M. A. Meyn III and T. E. Smithgall, “Chemical genetics identifies c-Src as an activator of primitive ectoderm formation in murine embryonic stem cells,” Science Signaling, vol. 2, no. 92, p. ra64, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  168. M. A. Meyn III, S. J. Schreiner, T. P. Dumitrescu, G. J. Nau, and T. E. Smithgall, “Src family kinase activity is required for murine embryonic stem cell growth and differentiation,” Molecular Pharmacology, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 1320–1330, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  169. P. D. Rathjen, J. Lake, L. M. Whyatt, M. D. Bettess, and J. Rathjen, “Properties and uses of embryonic stem cells: prospects for application to human biology and gene therapy,” Reproduction, Fertility and Development, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 31–47, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  170. R. G. Edwards, “Human embryo as a source of cells,” Bone Marrow Transplantation, vol. 9, supplement 1, pp. 90–92, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  171. N. T. Harvey, J. N. Hughes, A. Lonic et al., “Response to BMP4 signalling during ES cell differentiation defines intermediates of the ectoderm lineage,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 123, no. 10, pp. 1796–1804, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  172. J. N. Hughes, N. Dodge, P. D. Rathjen, and J. Rathjen, “A novel role for γ-secretase in the formation of primitive streak-like intermediates from ES cells in culture,” Stem Cells, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 2941–2951, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  173. M. F. Pera and P. P. L. Tam, “Extrinsic regulation of pluripotent stem cells,” Nature, vol. 465, no. 7299, pp. 713–720, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  174. B. V. Johnson, N. Shindo, P. D. Rathjen, J. Rathjen, and R. A. Keough, “Understanding pluripotency—how embryonic stem cells keep their options open,” Molecular Human Reproduction, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 513–520, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  175. T. Kunath, M. K. Saba-El-Leil, M. Almousailleakh, J. Wray, S. Meloche, and A. Smith, “FGF stimulation of the Erk1/2 signalling cascade triggers transition of pluripotent embryonic stem cells from self-renewal to lineage commitment,” Development, vol. 134, no. 16, pp. 2895–2902, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  176. J. M. Washington, J. Rathjen, F. Felquer et al., “L-proline induces differentiation of ES cells: a novel role for an amino acid in the regulation of pluripotent cells in culture,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 298, no. 5, pp. C982–C992, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  177. B. S. N. Tan, A. Lonic, M. B. Morris, P. D. Rathjen, and J. Rathjen, “The amino acid transporter SNAT2 mediates l-proline-induced differentiation of ES cells,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 300, no. 6, pp. C1270–C1279, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  178. L. Casalino, S. Comes, G. Lambazzi et al., “Control of embryonic stem cell metastability by L-proline catabolism,” Journal of Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 108–122, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  179. T. C. Doetschman, H. Eistetter, and M. Katz, “The in vitro development of blastocyst-derived embryonic stem cell lines: formation of visceral yolk sac, blood islands and myocardium,” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 87, pp. 27–45, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  180. C. Coffinier, D. Thépot, C. Babinet, M. Yaniv, and J. Barra, “Essential role for the homeoprotein vHNF1/HNF1β in visceral endoderm differentiation,” Development, vol. 126, no. 21, pp. 4785–4794, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  181. E. Coucouvanis and G. R. Martin, “BMP signaling plays a role in visceral endoderm differentiation and cavitation in the early mouse embryo,” Development, vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 535–546, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  182. E. Barbacci, M. Reber, M. Ott, C. Breillat, F. Huetz, and S. Cereghini, “Variant hepatocyte nuclear factor 1 is required for visceral endoderm specification,” Development, vol. 126, no. 21, pp. 4795–4805, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  183. A. Bruhat, C. Jousse, V. Carraro, A. M. Reimold, M. Ferrara, and P. Fafournoux, “Amino acids control mammalian gene transcription: activating transcription factor 2 is essential for the amino acid responsiveness of the CHOP promoter,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 20, no. 19, pp. 7192–7204, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  184. E. Kim, “Mechanisms of amino acid sensing in mTOR signaling pathway,” Nutrition Research and Practice, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 64–71, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  185. S. P. Donald, X.-Y. Sun, C.-A. A. Hu et al., “Proline oxidase, encoded by p53-induced gene-6, catalyzes the generation of proline-dependent reactive oxygen species,” Cancer Research, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1810–1815, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  186. Y. Liu, G. L. Borchert, A. Surazynski, C.-A. Hu, and J. M. Phang, “Proline oxidase activates both intrinsic and extrinsic pathways for apoptosis: the role of ROS/superoxides, NFAT and MEK/ERK signaling,” Oncogene, vol. 25, no. 41, pp. 5640–5647, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  187. E. Giannoni, F. Buricchi, G. Raugei, G. Ramponi, and P. Chiarugi, “Intracellular reactive oxygen species activate Src tyrosine kinase during cell adhesion and anchorage-dependent cell growth,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 25, no. 15, pp. 6391–6403, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  188. H. Marks, T. Kalkan, R. Menafra et al., “The transcriptional and epigenomic foundations of ground state pluripotency,” Cell, vol. 149, no. 3, pp. 590–604, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  189. W. B. Hamilton, K. Kaji, and T. Kunath, “ERK2 suppresses self-renewal capacity of embryonic stem cells, but is not required for multi-lineage commitment,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 4, Article ID e60907, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  190. Y. Miyanari and M. Torres-Padilla, “Control of ground-state pluripotency by allelic regulation of Nanog,” Nature, vol. 483, no. 7390, pp. 470–473, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  191. E. Habibi, A. B. Brinkman, J. Arand et al., “Whole-genome bisulfite sequencing of two distinct interconvertible DNA methylomes of mouse embryonic stem cells,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 360–369, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  192. J. N. Hughes, J. M. Washington, Z. Zheng et al., “Manipulation of cell: cell contacts and mesoderm suppressing activity direct lineage choice from pluripotent primitive ectoderm-like cells in culture,” PLoS ONE, vol. 4, no. 5, Article ID e5579, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  193. A. G. Smith, “Mouse embryo stem cells: their identification, propagation and manipulation,” Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 385–399, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  194. M. M. Shen and P. Leder, “Leukemia inhibitory factor is expressed by the preimplantation uterus and selectively blocks primitive ectoderm formation in vitro,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 89, no. 17, pp. 8240–8244, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  195. Z. Zheng, R. U. de Iongh, P. D. Rathjen, and J. Rathjen, “A requirement for FGF signalling in the formation of primitive streak-like intermediates from primitive ectoderm in culture,” PloS ONE, vol. 5, no. 9, Article ID e12555, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  196. B. E. Reubinoff, M. F. Pera, C. Fong, A. Trounson, and A. Bongso, “Embryonic stem cell lines from human blastocysts: somatic differentiation in vitro,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 399–404, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  197. J. A. Thomson, “Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts,” Science, vol. 282, no. 5391, pp. 1145–1147, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  198. K. Watanabe, M. Ueno, D. Kamiya et al., “A ROCK inhibitor permits survival of dissociated human embryonic stem cells,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 681–686, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  199. G. Chen, D. R. Gulbranson, Z. Hou et al., “Chemically defined conditions for human iPSC derivation and culture,” Nature Methods, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 424–429, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  200. R. C. B. Wong, M. F. Pera, and A. Pébay, “Maintenance of human embryonic stem cells by sphingosine-1-phosphate and platelet-derived growth factor,” Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 874, pp. 167–175, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  201. K. Hasegawa, S. Y. Yasuda, J.-L. Teo et al., “Wnt signaling orchestration with a small molecule DYRK inhibitor provides long-term xeno-free human pluripotent cell expansion,” Stem Cells Translational Medicine, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 18–28, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  202. R. Xu, X. Chen, D. S. Li et al., “BMP4 initiates human embryonic stem cell differentiation to trophoblast,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 1261–1264, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  203. A. S. Bernardo, T. Faial, L. Gardner et al., “BRACHYURY and CDX2 mediate BMP-induced differentiation of human and mouse pluripotent stem cells into embryonic and extraembryonic lineages,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 144–155, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  204. C. Buecker, H. Chen, J. M. Polo et al., “A murine ESC-like state facilitates transgenesis and homologous recombination in human pluripotent stem cells,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 535–546, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  205. J. Hanna, A. W. Cheng, K. Saha et al., “Human embryonic stem cells with biological and epigenetic characteristics similar to those of mouse ESCs,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 20, pp. 9222–9227, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  206. C. J. Lengner, A. A. Gimelbrant, J. A. Erwin et al., “Derivation of pre-X inactivation human embryonic stem cells under physiological oxygen concentrations,” Cell, vol. 141, no. 5, pp. 872–883, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  207. Q. Gu, J. Hao, X.-Y. Zhao et al., “Rapid conversion of human ESCs into mouse ESC-like pluripotent state by optimizing culture conditions,” Protein & Cell, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 71–79, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  208. O. Gafni, L. Weinberger, A. A. Mansour et al., “Derivation of novel human ground state naive pluripotent stem cells,” Nature, vol. 504, no. 7479, pp. 282–286, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  209. T. O'Leary, B. Heindryckx, S. Lierman et al., “Tracking the progression of the human inner cell mass during embryonic stem cell derivation,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 278–282, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  210. T. Ezashi, B. P. Telugu, and R. M. Roberts, “Model systems for studying trophoblast differentiation from human pluripotent stem cells,” Cell and Tissue Research, vol. 349, no. 3, pp. 809–824, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  211. M. B. Renfree and G. Shaw, “Diapause,” Annual Review of Physiology, vol. 62, pp. 353–375, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  212. S. R. Hough, A. L. Laslett, S. B. Grimmond, G. Kolle, and M. F. Pera, “A continuum of cell states spans pluripotency and lineage commitment in human embryonic stem cells,” PLoS ONE, vol. 4, no. 11, Article ID e7708, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  213. M. F. Pera, “Defining pluripotency,” Nature Methods, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 885–886, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  214. K. Takahashi and S. Yamanaka, “Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors,” Cell, vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 663–676, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2014 Joy Rathjen. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

2323 Views | 612 Downloads | 3 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.