Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The promise of induced pluripotent stem cells in research and therapy

Abstract

The field of stem-cell biology has been catapulted forward by the startling development of reprogramming technology. The ability to restore pluripotency to somatic cells through the ectopic co-expression of reprogramming factors has created powerful new opportunities for modelling human diseases and offers hope for personalized regenerative cell therapies. While the field is racing ahead, some researchers are pausing to evaluate whether induced pluripotent stem cells are indeed the true equivalents of embryonic stem cells and whether subtle differences between these types of cell might affect their research applications and therapeutic potential.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Morphology of pluripotent stem cell types.
Figure 2: Medical applications of iPS cells.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Takahashi, K. & Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126, 663–676 (2006). This breakthrough paper describes the derivation of iPS cells directly from mouse somatic cells through the ectopic co-expression of reprogramming transcription factors, providing an alternative source of pluripotent cells for research.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dreisch, H. Entwicklungsmechanische Studien I. Der Wert der ersten beiden Furchungszellen in der Echinodermenentwickelung. Experimentelle Erzeugung von Teil und Doppelbildungen. Z. Wiss. Zool. 53, 160–183 (1891).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dewey, M. J., Martin, D. W. Jr, Martin, G. R. & Mintz, B. Mosaic mice with teratocarcinoma-derived mutant cells deficient in hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 74, 5564–5568 (1977).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Gardner, R. L. Mouse chimeras obtained by the injection of cells into the blastocyst. Nature 220, 596–597 (1968).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brinster, R. L. The effect of cells transferred into the mouse blastocyst on subsequent development. J. Exp. Med. 140, 1049–1056 (1974).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Evans, M. J. & Kaufman, M. H. Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos. Nature 292, 154–156 (1981).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Martin, G. R. Isolation of a pluripotent cell line from early mouse embryos cultured in medium conditioned by teratocarcinoma stem cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 7634–7638 (1981).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Thomson, J. A. et al. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282, 1145–1147 (1998).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vogel, G. & Holden, C. Ethics questions add to concerns about NIH lines. Science 321, 756–757 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mosher, J. T. et al. Lack of population diversity in commonly used human embryonic stem-cell lines. N. Engl. J. Med. 362, 183–185 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tabar, V. et al. Therapeutic cloning in individual parkinsonian mice. Nature Med. 14, 379–381 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Noggle, S. et al. Human oocytes reprogram somatic cells to a pluripotent state. Nature 478, 70–75 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Park, I. H. et al. Reprogramming of human somatic cells to pluripotency with defined factors. Nature 451, 141–146 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Takahashi, K. et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 131, 861–872 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yu, J. et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science 318, 1917–1920 (2007).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stadtfeld, M., Brennand, K. & Hochedlinger, K. Reprogramming of pancreatic β cells into induced pluripotent stem cells. Curr. Biol. 18, 890–894 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Eminli, S., Utikal, J., Arnold, K., Jaenisch, R. & Hochedlinger, K. Reprogramming of neural progenitor cells into induced pluripotent stem cells in the absence of exogenous Sox2 expression. Stem Cells 26, 2467–2474 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim, J. B. et al. Pluripotent stem cells induced from adult neural stem cells by reprogramming with two factors. Nature 454, 646–650 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hanna, J. et al. Direct reprogramming of terminally differentiated mature B lymphocytes to pluripotency. Cell 133, 250–264 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Aoi, T. et al. Generation of pluripotent stem cells from adult mouse liver and stomach cells. Science 321, 699–702 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Utikal, J., Maherali, N., Kulalert, W. & Hochedlinger, K. Sox2 is dispensable for the reprogramming of melanocytes and melanoma cells into induced pluripotent stem cells. J. Cell Sci. 122, 3502–3510 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Sun, N. et al. Feeder-free derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells from adult human adipose stem cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15720–15725 (2009).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Maherali, N. et al. A high-efficiency system for the generation and study of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 3, 340–345 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Tesar, P. J. et al. New cell lines from mouse epiblast share defining features with human embryonic stem cells. Nature 448, 196–199 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wray, J., Kalkan, T. & Smith, A. G. The ground state of pluripotency. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 38, 1027–1032 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hanna, J. H., Saha, K. & Jaenisch, R. Pluripotency and cellular reprogramming: facts, hypotheses, unresolved issues. Cell 143, 508–525 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Maherali, N. & Hochedlinger, K. Guidelines and techniques for the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 3, 595–605 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stadtfeld, M., Maherali, N., Breault, D. T. & Hochedlinger, K. Defining molecular cornerstones during fibroblast to iPS cell reprogramming in mouse. Cell Stem Cell 2, 230–240 (2008). This study enumerated the molecular markers and functional criteria for defining reprogrammed cell populations.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Chan, E. M. et al. Live cell imaging distinguishes bona fide human iPS cells from partially reprogrammed cells. Nature Biotechnol. 27, 1033–1037 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Payer, B., Lee, J. T. & Namekawa, S. H. X-inactivation and X-reactivation: epigenetic hallmarks of mammalian reproduction and pluripotent stem cells. Hum. Genet. 130, 265–280 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Maherali, N. et al. Directly reprogrammed fibroblasts show global epigenetic remodeling and widespread tissue contribution. Cell Stem Cell 1, 55–70 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Stadtfeld, M. et al. Aberrant silencing of imprinted genes on chromosome 12qF1 in mouse induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 465, 175–181 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Boland, M. J. et al. Adult mice generated from induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 461, 91–94 (2009).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhao, X. Y. et al. iPS cells produce viable mice through tetraploid complementation. Nature 461, 86–90 (2009).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Eakin, G. S., Hadjantonakis, A. K., Papaioannou, V. E. & Behringer, R. R. Developmental potential and behavior of tetraploid cells in the mouse embryo. Dev. Biol. 288, 150–159 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Eggan, K. & Jaenisch, R. Differentiation of F1 embryonic stem cells into viable male and female mice by tetraploid embryo complementation. Methods Enzymol. 365, 25–39 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lensch, M. W., Schlaeger, T. M., Zon, L. I. & Daley, G. Q. Teratoma formation assays with human embryonic stem cells: a rationale for one type of human-animal chimera. Cell Stem Cell 1, 253–258 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Park, I. H. et al. Disease-specific induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell 134, 877–886 (2008). This study derived iPS cells from patients with a range of diseases, demonstrating the applications of iPS cells for disease modelling, pathogenesis studies and drug development.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Daley, G. Q. et al. Broader implications of defining standards for the pluripotency of iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell 4, 200–202 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Miura, K. et al. Variation in the safety of induced pluripotent stem cell lines. Nature Biotechnol. 27, 743–745 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Feng, Q. et al. Hemangioblastic derivatives from human induced pluripotent stem cells exhibit limited expansion and early senescence. Stem Cells 28, 704–712 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hu, B. Y. et al. Neural differentiation of human induced pluripotent stem cells follows developmental principles but with variable potency. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 4335–4340 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Kim, K. et al. Epigenetic memory in induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 467, 285–290 (2010). This report describes an exhaustive comparison of pluripotent stem cells derived from mouse embryos or reprogrammed through nuclear transfer or transcription factor co-expression, by using several in vitro differentiation assays and methylation analysis; it revealed that iPS cells manifest molecular and behavioural features of the donor tissue of origin, indicating a 'memory' of the somatic tissue.

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Hu, Q., Friedrich, A. M., Johnson, L. V. & Clegg, D. O. Memory in induced pluripotent stem cells: reprogrammed human retinal-pigmented epithelial cells show tendency for spontaneous redifferentiation. Stem Cells 28, 1981–1991 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bar-Nur, O., Russ, H. A., Efrat, S. & Benvenisty, N. Epigenetic memory and preferential lineage-specific differentiation in induced pluripotent stem cells derived from human pancreatic islet Beta cells. Cell Stem Cell 9, 17–23 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Urbach, A., Bar-Nur, O., Daley, G. Q. & Benvenisty, N. Differential modeling of fragile X syndrome by human embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 6, 407–411 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Bock, C. et al. Reference maps of human ES and iPS cell variation enable high-throughput characterization of pluripotent cell lines. Cell 144, 439–452 (2011). This study generated genome-wide reference maps of DNA methylation and gene expression, together with the differentiation potential of each cell line, providing a resource for assessing the similarity of ES cells and iPS cells, as well as for predicting the differentiation efficiency of a particular cell line and creating a scorecard for the comprehensive characterization of any pluripotent cell line.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Pick, M. et al. Clone- and gene-specific aberrations of parental imprinting in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cells 27, 2686–2690 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ben-David, U., Mayshar, Y. & Benvenisty, N. Large-scale analysis reveals acquisition of lineage-specific chromosomal aberrations in human adult stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 9, 97–102 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hussein, S. M. et al. Copy number variation and selection during reprogramming to pluripotency. Nature 471, 58–62 (2011). This study showed that significantly more CNVs were present in early-passage human iPS cells than in intermediate-passage human iPS cells, fibroblasts or human ES cells; it also provided evidence that CNVs conferred a selective disadvantage.

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Laurent, L. C. et al. Dynamic changes in the copy number of pluripotency and cell proliferation genes in human ESCs and iPSCs during reprogramming and time in culture. Cell Stem Cell 8, 106–118 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Ghosh, Z. et al. Persistent donor cell gene expression among human induced pluripotent stem cells contributes to differences with human embryonic stem cells. PLoS ONE 5, e8975 (2010).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Wernig, M. et al. A drug-inducible transgenic system for direct reprogramming of multiple somatic cell types. Nature Biotechnol. 26, 916–924 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Mikkelsen, T. S. et al. Dissecting direct reprogramming through integrative genomic analysis. Nature 454, 49–55 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Lister, R. et al. Hotspots of aberrant epigenomic reprogramming in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 471, 68–73 (2011). This study analysed the methylomes of human iPS cells, ES cells, somatic cells, and differentiated iPS and ES cells, and revealed megabase-scale DMRs in iPS cells, indicating incomplete reprogramming of these cells.

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Shen, Y. et al. X-inactivation in female human embryonic stem cells is in a nonrandom pattern and prone to epigenetic alterations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 4709–4714 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Tchieu, J. et al. Female human iPSCs retain an inactive X chromosome. Cell Stem Cell 7, 329–342 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Marchetto, M. C. et al. A model for neural development and treatment of Rett syndrome using human induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell 143, 527–539 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Pomp, O. et al. Unexpected X chromosome skewing during culture and reprogramming of human somatic cells can be alleviated by exogenous telomerase. Cell Stem Cell 9, 156–165 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Bernstein, B. E. et al. A bivalent chromatin structure marks key developmental genes in embryonic stem cells. Cell 125, 315–326 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Newman, A. M. & Cooper, J. B. Lab-specific gene expression signatures in pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 7, 258–262 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Humpherys, D. et al. Epigenetic instability in ES cells and cloned mice. Science 293, 95–97 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Soldner, F. et al. Parkinson's disease patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells free of viral reprogramming factors. Cell 136, 964–977 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Carey, B. W. et al. Reprogramming factor stoichiometry influences the epigenetic state and biological properties of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 9, 588–598 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ohi, Y. et al. Incomplete DNA methylation underlies a transcriptional memory of somatic cells in human iPS cells. Nature Cell Biol. 13, 541–549 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Polo, J. M. et al. Cell type of origin influences the molecular and functional properties of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature Biotechnol. 28, 848–855 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Martinez, Y. et al. Cellular diversity within embryonic stem cells: pluripotent clonal sublines show distinct differentiation potential. J. Cell. Mol. Med. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1582-4934.2011.01334.x (in the press).

  68. Osafune, K. et al. Marked differences in differentiation propensity among human embryonic stem cell lines. Nature Biotechnol. 26, 313–315 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Muller, F. J. et al. A bioinformatic assay for pluripotency in human cells. Nature Methods 8, 315–317 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Lee, G. et al. Modelling pathogenesis and treatment of familial dysautonomia using patient-specific iPSCs. Nature 461, 402–406 (2009).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Moretti, A. et al. Patient-specific induced pluripotent stem-cell models for long-QT syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 1397–1409 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Itzhaki, I. et al. Modelling the long QT syndrome with induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 471, 225–229 (2011). This study generated iPS cells from patients with long QT syndrome and stimulated them to differentiate into cardiomyocytes that paralleled the disease phenotype in vitro , and these cells were then used to evaluate the potency of existing and new therapeutic agents.

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Agarwal, S. et al. Telomere elongation in induced pluripotent stem cells from dyskeratosis congenita patients. Nature 464, 292–296 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Batista, L. F. et al. Telomere shortening and loss of self-renewal in dyskeratosis congenita induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 474, 399–402 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Agarwal, S. & Daley, G. Q. Telomere dynamics in dyskeratosis congenita: the long and the short of iPS. Cell Res. 21, 1157–1160 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Hanna, J. et al. Treatment of sickle cell anemia mouse model with iPS cells generated from autologous skin. Science 318, 1920–1923 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Wernig, M. et al. Neurons derived from reprogrammed fibroblasts functionally integrate into the fetal brain and improve symptoms of rats with Parkinson's disease. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 5856–5861 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Zhao, T., Zhang, Z. N., Rong, Z. & Xu, Y. Immunogenicity of induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 474, 212–215 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Harrison, N. J., Baker, D. & Andrews, P. W. Culture adaptation of embryonic stem cells echoes germ cell malignancy. Int. J. Androl. 30, 275–281 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Mayshar, Y. et al. Identification and classification of chromosomal aberrations in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 7, 521–531 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Murry, C. E. & Keller, G. Differentiation of embryonic stem cells to clinically relevant populations: lessons from embryonic development. Cell 132, 661–680 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Lowry, W. E. et al. Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cells from dermal fibroblasts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 2883–2888 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Huangfu, D. et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from primary human fibroblasts with only Oct4 and Sox2. Nature Biotechnol. 26, 1269–1275 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Sommer, C. A. et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell generation using a single lentiviral stem cell cassette. Stem Cells 27, 543–549 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Anokye-Danso, F. et al. Highly efficient miRNA-mediated reprogramming of mouse and human somatic cells to pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 8, 376–388 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Woltjen, K. et al. piggyBac transposition reprograms fibroblasts to induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 458, 766–770 (2009).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Somers, A. et al. Generation of transgene-free lung disease-specific human induced pluripotent stem cells using a single excisable lentiviral stem cell cassette. Stem Cells 28, 1728–1740 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Zhou, W. & Freed, C. R. Adenoviral gene delivery can reprogram human fibroblasts to induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cells 27, 2667–2674 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Stadtfeld, M., Nagaya, M., Utikal, J., Weir, G. & Hochedlinger, K. Induced pluripotent stem cells generated without viral integration. Science 322, 945–949 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Okita, K., Nakagawa, M., Hyenjong, H., Ichisaka, T. & Yamanaka, S. Generation of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells without viral vectors. Science 322, 949–953 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Si-Tayeb, K. et al. Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cells by simple transient transfection of plasmid DNA encoding reprogramming factors. BMC Dev. Biol. 10, 81 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Fusaki, N., Ban, H., Nishiyama, A., Saeki, K. & Hasegawa, M. Efficient induction of transgene-free human pluripotent stem cells using a vector based on Sendai virus, an RNA virus that does not integrate into the host genome. Proc. Jpn Acad. 85, 348–362 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Kim, D. et al. Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cells by direct delivery of reprogramming proteins. Cell Stem Cell 4, 472–476 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Zhou, H. et al. Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells using recombinant proteins. Cell Stem Cell 4, 381–384 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Warren, L. et al. Highly efficient reprogramming to pluripotency and directed differentiation of human cells with synthetic modified mRNA. Cell Stem Cell 7, 618–630 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Miyoshi, N. et al. Reprogramming of mouse and human cells to pluripotency using mature microRNAs. Cell Stem Cell 8, 633–638 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Hanna, J. et al. Human embryonic stem cells with biological and epigenetic characteristics similar to those of mouse ESCs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 9222–9227 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Buecker, C. et al. A murine ESC-like state facilitates transgenesis and homologous recombination in human pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 6, 535–546 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Li, W. et al. Generation of rat and human induced pluripotent stem cells by combining genetic reprogramming and chemical inhibitors. Cell Stem Cell 4, 16–19 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Nichols, J. & Smith, A. Naive and primed pluripotent states. Cell Stem Cell 4, 487–492 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

G.Q.D. is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (RO1-DK70055, RO1-DK59279 and UO1-HL100001, as well as special funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (RC2-HL102815), the Roche Foundation for Anemia Research, Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. G.Q.D. is an affiliate member of the Broad Institute, a recipient of Clinical Scientist Awards in Translational Research from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research. We gratefully acknowledge A. de Los Angeles for providing the images for Fig. 1a, d, f; T. Onder, for Fig. 1b; and A. Cherry, for Fig. 1c, e.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Q. Daley.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

G.Q.D. is a member of the scientific advisory boards and holds stock in, or receives consulting fees from, the following companies: Johnson & Johnson, Verastem, Epizyme, iPierian, Solasia Pharma and MPM Capital.

Additional information

Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robinton, D., Daley, G. The promise of induced pluripotent stem cells in research and therapy. Nature 481, 295–305 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10761

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10761

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing