Cell identity reprogrammed

Morris, Samantha A.

doi:10.1038/d41586-019-02834-8

NEWS AND VIEWS
14 October 2019

Cell identity reprogrammed

The discovery that cell differentiation can be reversed challenged theories of how cell identity is determined, laying the foundations for modern methods of reprogramming cell identity and promising new regenerative therapies.

Samantha A. Morris⁰

Samantha A. Morris
1. Samantha A. Morris is in the Departments of Developmental Biology and of Genetics, and in the Center of Regenerative Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri 63110, USA.
View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Access through your institution

Buy or subscribe

All cells of an organism derive from a single cell. As development progresses, cells become increasingly specialized to perform defined functions, a commitment that is accompanied by a restriction in the range of potential fates of those cells. In the late nineteenth century, a predominant thought was that, when they differentiate, cells retain only those pieces of heritable information required to maintain cell-type identity and function¹. This led to the theory that differentiation is an irreversible process (Fig. 1a). John Gurdon’s seminal paper in Nature on nuclear reprogramming of cell identity, with Tom Elsdale and Michael Fischberg², provided a remarkable challenge to this dogma, and formed the basis for today’s cell-reprogramming field.

Access options

Access through your institution

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

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

Nature 575, 44-45 (2019)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02834-8

References

Weismann, A. The Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity (transl. Parker, W. N. & Ronnfeldt, H.) (Scott, 1893).
Google Scholar
Gurdon, J. B., Elsdale, T. R. & Fischberg, M. Nature 182, 64–65 (1958).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Briggs, R. & King, T. J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 38, 455–463 (1952).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
DiBerardino, M. A. & Hoffner, N. J. Results Probl. Cell Differ. 11, 53–64 (1980).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
King, T. J. & Briggs, R. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 41, 321–325 (1955).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Gurdon, J. B. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 10, 622–640 (1962).
Google Scholar
Campbell, K. H., McWhir, J., Ritchie, W. A. & Wilmut, I. Nature 380, 64–66 (1996).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Wakayama, T., Perry, A. C., Zuccotti, M., Johnson, K. R. & Yanagimachi, R. Nature 394, 369–374 (1998).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Hochedlinger, K. & Jaenisch, R. Nature 415, 1035–1038 (2002).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Blau, H. M., Chiu, C. P. & Webster, C. Cell 32, 1171–1180 (1983).
Article Google Scholar
Davis, R. L., Weintraub, H. & Lassar, A. B. Cell 51, 987–1000 (1987).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Gurdon, J. B. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 22, 1–22 (2006).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Takahashi, K. & Yamanaka, S. Cell 126, 663–676 (2006).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Cohen, D. E. & Melton, D. Nature Rev. Genet. 12, 243–252 (2011).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Morris, S. A. & Daley, G. Q. Cell Res. 23, 33–48 (2013).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Vierbuchen, T. & Wernig, M. Nature Biotechnol. 29, 892–907 (2011).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Passier, R., Orlova, V. & Mummery, C. Cell Stem Cell 18, 309–321 (2016).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Mandai, M. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 376, 1038–1046 (2017).
Article PubMed Google Scholar