Article | Published:

Notch inhibition allows oncogene-independent generation of iPS cells

Nature Chemical Biology volume 10, pages 632639 (2014) | Download Citation

  • An Erratum to this article was published on 13 November 2014
  • An Erratum to this article was published on 13 November 2014

This article has been updated


The reprogramming of somatic cells to pluripotency using defined transcription factors holds great promise for biomedicine. However, human reprogramming remains inefficient and relies either on the use of the potentially dangerous oncogenes KLF4 and CMYC or the genetic inhibition of the tumor suppressor gene p53. We hypothesized that inhibition of signal transduction pathways that promote differentiation of the target somatic cells during development might relieve the requirement for non-core pluripotency factors during induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) reprogramming. Here, we show that inhibition of Notch greatly improves the efficiency of iPSC generation from mouse and human keratinocytes by suppressing p21 in a p53-independent manner and thereby enriching for undifferentiated cells capable of long-term self-renewal. Pharmacological inhibition of Notch enabled routine production of human iPSCs without KLF4 and CMYC while leaving p53 activity intact. Thus, restricting the development of somatic cells by altering intercellular communication enables the production of safer human iPSCs.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Change history

  • 29 July 2014

    In the version of this article initially published, Julia TCW's name was misspelled as Julia T C W. In addition, her initials in the author contribution statement should have read J.T. instead of J.T.C.W. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

  • 14 August 2014

    In the version of this article initially published, a black bar was erroneously placed in the scrambled shRNA column in Figure 3g. The error has been corrected for the PDF and HTML versions of the article.


Primary accessions

Gene Expression Omnibus


  1. 1.

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

  2. 2.

    et al. Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells without Myc from mouse and human fibroblasts. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 101–106 (2008).

  3. 3.

    et al. Linking the p53 tumour suppressor pathway to somatic cell reprogramming. Nature 460, 1140–1144 (2009).

  4. 4.

    et al. A more efficient method to generate integration-free human iPS cells. Nat. Methods 8, 409–412 (2011).

  5. 5.

    et al. Nicotinamide overcomes pluripotency deficits and reprogramming barriers. Stem Cells 31, 1121–1135 (2013).

  6. 6.

    et al. Suppression of induced pluripotent stem cell generation by the p53-p21 pathway. Nature 460, 1132–1135 (2009).

  7. 7.

    et al. Immortalization eliminates a roadblock during cellular reprogramming into iPS cells. Nature 460, 1145–1148 (2009).

  8. 8.

    et al. A p53-mediated DNA damage response limits reprogramming to ensure iPS cell genomic integrity. Nature 460, 1149–1153 (2009).

  9. 9.

    et al. The Ink4/Arf locus is a barrier for iPS cell reprogramming. Nature 460, 1136–1139 (2009).

  10. 10.

    et al. The p53-PUMA axis suppresses iPSC generation. Nat Commun. 4, 2174 (2013).

  11. 11.

    et al. Context-dependent enhancement of induced pluripotent stem cell reprogramming by silencing Puma. Stem Cells 30, 888–897 (2012).

  12. 12.

    et al. Nonstochastic reprogramming from a privileged somatic cell state. Cell 156, 649–662 (2014).

  13. 13.

    et al. Sirtuin 1 facilitates generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic fibroblasts through the miR-34a and p53 pathways. PLoS ONE 7, e45633 (2012).

  14. 14.

    et al. p53 counteracts reprogramming by inhibiting mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition. Cell Death Differ. 20, 312–320 (2013).

  15. 15.

    et al. MiR-138 promotes induced pluripotent stem cell generation through the regulation of the p53 signaling. Stem Cells 30, 1645–1654 (2012).

  16. 16.

    et al. p53-facilitated miR-199a-3p regulates somatic cell reprogramming. Stem Cells 30, 1405–1413 (2012).

  17. 17.

    et al. Reprogramming of human primary somatic cells by OCT4 and chemical compounds. Cell Stem Cell 7, 651–655 (2010).

  18. 18.

    et al. Promotion of reprogramming to ground state pluripotency by signal inhibition. PLoS Biol. 6, e253 (2008).

  19. 19.

    et al. A small-molecule inhibitor of Tgf-β signaling replaces Sox2 in reprogramming by inducing Nanog. Cell Stem Cell 5, 491–503 (2009).

  20. 20.

    et al. Pluripotent stem cells induced from mouse somatic cells by small-molecule compounds. Science 341, 651–654 (2013).

  21. 21.

    et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells by defined factors is greatly improved by small-molecule compounds. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 795–797 (2008).

  22. 22.

    , & The use of small molecules in somatic-cell reprogramming. Trends Cell Biol. 24, 179–187 (2014).

  23. 23.

    & Induced pluripotent stem cells: current progress and potential for regenerative medicine. Trends Mol. Med. 15, 59–68 (2009).

  24. 24.

    et al. Differentiation stage determines potential of hematopoietic cells for reprogramming into induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Genet. 41, 968–976 (2009).

  25. 25.

    The developmental capacity of nuclei taken from intestinal epithelium cells of feeding tadpoles. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 10, 622–640 (1962).

  26. 26.

    , , , & Mice cloned from skin cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 2738–2743 (2007).

  27. 27.

    & Notch: the past, the present, and the future. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 92, 1–29 (2010).

  28. 28.

    Notch signalling: a simple pathway becomes complex. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 7, 678–689 (2006).

  29. 29.

    , , , & p21WAF1/Cip1 functions as a suppressor of malignant skin tumor formation and a determinant of keratinocyte stem-cell potential. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9089–9094 (1999).

  30. 30.

    , , , & The absence of p21Cip1/WAF1 alters keratinocyte growth and differentiation and promotes ras-tumor progression. Genes Dev. 10, 3065–3075 (1996).

  31. 31.

    & Isolation and cultivation of human keratinocytes from skin or plucked hair for the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Protoc. 5, 371–382 (2010).

  32. 32.

    et al. Efficient and rapid generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from human keratinocytes. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 1276–1284 (2008).

  33. 33.

    , , & Canonical notch signaling functions as a commitment switch in the epidermal lineage. Genes Dev. 20, 3022–3035 (2006).

  34. 34.

    et al. Reference maps of human ES and iPS cell variation enable high-throughput characterization of pluripotent cell lines. Cell 144, 439–452 (2011).

  35. 35.

    et al. Divergent synthesis of multifunctional molecular probes to elucidate the enzyme specificity of dipeptidic γ-secretase inhibitors. ACS Chem. Biol. 2, 408–418 (2007).

  36. 36.

    , , , & Structural basis for cooperativity in recruitment of MAML coactivators to Notch transcription complexes. Cell 124, 973–983 (2006).

  37. 37.

    , , & Structural requirements for assembly of the CSL.Intracellular Notch1.Mastermind-like 1 transcriptional activation complex. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 21232–21239 (2003).

  38. 38.

    & Notch signaling in the integrated control of keratinocyte growth/differentiation and tumor suppression. Semin. Cancer Biol. 14, 374–386 (2004).

  39. 39.

    & Separation of human epidermal stem cells from transit amplifying cells on the basis of differences in integrin function and expression. Cell 73, 713–724 (1993).

  40. 40.

    et al. Targeting ADAM-17/notch signaling abrogates the development of systemic sclerosis in a murine model. Arthritis Rheum. 62, 3477–3487 (2010).

  41. 41.

    et al. De novo mutations in epileptic encephalopathies. Nature 501, 217–221 (2013).

  42. 42.

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

  43. 43.

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

  44. 44.

    et al. Chromatin-modifying enzymes as modulators of reprogramming. Nature 483, 598–602 (2012).

  45. 45.

    et al. Somatic coding mutations in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 471, 63–67 (2011).

Download references


The authors would like to thank E. Son for assistance with microarray data analysis, S. Sato for assistance with chimera experiments, E. Kiskinis for assistance with nanostring analysis and K. Koszka and M. Yamaki for assistance with teratoma experiments. The authors are grateful for the financial support that made this work possible. K.E. was supported by US National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 grant 5R01GM096067, NIH P01 grant 5P01GM099117 and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. A.M. was supported by NIH P01 grant 5P01GM099117. H.A. was supported by grants from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan, Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research (21390456) and Grant-in-Aid for challenging Exploratory Research (22659304) and a grant from JST-CREST. J.K.I. was supported by a Stan and Fiona Druckenmiller–New York Stem Cell Foundation postdoctoral fellowship, NIH K99 grant 1K99NS077435-01A1, NIH R00 grant 4R00NS077435-03 and the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research. C.B. was supported by a Feodor Lynen Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

Author information

Author notes

    • Justin K Ichida
    •  & Julia TCW

    These authors contributed equally to this work.


  1. Harvard Stem Cell Institute, Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

    • Justin K Ichida
    • , Julia TCW
    • , Luis A Williams
    • , Ava C Carter
    • , Marcelo T Moura
    • , Michael Ziller
    • , Sean Singh
    • , Christoph Bock
    • , Lee L Rubin
    • , Alexander Meissner
    •  & Kevin Eggan
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

    • Justin K Ichida
    • , Julia TCW
    • , Luis A Williams
    • , Ava C Carter
    • , Marcelo T Moura
    • , Sean Singh
    •  & Kevin Eggan
  3. Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

    • Julia TCW
    •  & Kevin Eggan
  4. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

    • Michael Ziller
    • , Christoph Bock
    •  & Alexander Meissner
  5. Harvard Stem Cell Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

    • Giovanni Amabile
  6. Department of Reproductive Biology, National Research Institute for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan.

    • Akihiro Umezawa
    •  & Hidenori Akutsu
  7. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

    • James E Bradner
  8. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

    • James E Bradner
  9. Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.

    • Justin K Ichida
    •  & Yingxiao Shi


  1. Search for Justin K Ichida in:

  2. Search for Julia TCW in:

  3. Search for Luis A Williams in:

  4. Search for Ava C Carter in:

  5. Search for Yingxiao Shi in:

  6. Search for Marcelo T Moura in:

  7. Search for Michael Ziller in:

  8. Search for Sean Singh in:

  9. Search for Giovanni Amabile in:

  10. Search for Christoph Bock in:

  11. Search for Akihiro Umezawa in:

  12. Search for Lee L Rubin in:

  13. Search for James E Bradner in:

  14. Search for Hidenori Akutsu in:

  15. Search for Alexander Meissner in:

  16. Search for Kevin Eggan in:


A.M. and J.E.B. hypothesized that Notch inhibition might aid reprogramming. J.K.I., J.T., A.M., A.U., L.L.R. and K.E. designed reprogramming and mechanistic experiments to test the hypothesis. J.K.I., J.T., A.C.C., L.A.W., Y.S., M.T.M., S.S., G.A. and H.A. performed reprogramming experiments and characterization of the iPSCs. C.B. and M.Z. performed bioinformatic analysis of transcriptional data characterizing the iPSCs. J.K.I., J.T., A.C.C. and Y.S. performed experiments to determine the mechanism of action of DAPT and Notch inhibition in reprogramming. K.E., J.K.I. and J.T. discovered and confirmed the mechanism of action of DAPT. K.E. and J.K.I. wrote the paper. All authors helped in paper revision.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hidenori Akutsu or Alexander Meissner or Kevin Eggan.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Text and Figures

    Supplementary Results and Supplementary Figures 1–7.

About this article

Publication history





Further reading