Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Biological importance of OCT transcription factors in reprogramming and development


Ectopic expression of Oct4, Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc can reprogram somatic cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Attempts to identify genes or chemicals that can functionally replace each of these four reprogramming factors have revealed that exogenous Oct4 is not necessary for reprogramming under certain conditions or in the presence of alternative factors that can regulate endogenous Oct4 expression. For example, polycistronic expression of Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc can elicit reprogramming by activating endogenous Oct4 expression indirectly. Experiments in which the reprogramming competence of all other Oct family members tested and also in different species have led to the decisive conclusion that Oct proteins display different reprogramming competences and species-dependent reprogramming activity despite their profound sequence conservation. We discuss the roles of the structural components of Oct proteins in reprogramming and how donor cell epigenomes endow Oct proteins with different reprogramming competences.


The OCT protein family comprises eight transcription factors that bind to specific target sequences to regulate gene expression1,2,3. These factors play important roles in the maintenance of cellular identity in different tissues and in mediating cell fate decisions throughout embryonic development4,5,6. Because Oct proteins regulate the expression of hundreds of target genes that determine and maintain cellular identity, ectopic expression of Oct proteins is widely used as a means to redirect and reprogram cellular identity7,8,9,10,11,12,13. Well-studied examples include reprogramming of somatic cells into induced neural stem cells (iNSCs) with Oct9 or into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) with Oct47,10.

Arguably, the most studied Oct family member is Oct4, not only because of its essential physiological role in early development but also because of its unique transcriptional functions in reprogramming biology5,14,15,16,17. Oct4 is the only OCT protein that can induce pluripotency18,19,20,21, which has been a somewhat surprising revelation since OCT family members display profound sequence conservation. Notwithstanding, these observations have fueled long-standing interest in understanding exactly how OCT4 evokes pluripotency and why other Oct family members do not have this effect.

Recent studies offer exciting new insights into the biology of reprogramming both with and, interestingly, without exogenously administered Oct4. It was shown that reprogramming somatic cells to pluripotency can in fact be achieved by completely abrogating ectopic Oct4 expression22,23. This result indicates that reprogrammed cells acquire and establish a self-sustaining pluripotent state that is evoked by endogenous Oct4 expression. Importantly, it was shown that reprogramming without the use of exogenous Oct4 significantly improves the overall quality of the iPSCs because exogenous Oct4 can disrupt imprinted gene expression and create off-target effects23. Indeed, iPSCs generated without the use of exogenous Oct4 display superior developmental potential as determined by a tetraploid complementary assy. These observations, together with results from other recent studies, revealed that the induction of pluripotency can be achieved as long as endogenous Oct4 can be activated, either directly or indirectly24,25,26,27,28,29,30. Essentially, it has become clear that, while endogenous Oct4 expression is necessary, exogenous Oct4 is sufficient but not necessary for reprogramming somatic cells.

Along these lines, it was recently shown that virtually all OCT proteins harbor reprogramming competence, and they can activate the pluripotency network to different degrees under optimal conditions31,32; these conditions are differentially inferred by diverse donor cell epigenomes that differ not only between donor cell types but also between species. It appears that reprogramming competence not only can be significantly enhanced, for example, by chemical intervention, but can also be synthesized completely de novo via optimal combinations of chemically altered donor cell epigenomes and exogenously provided transcriptional regulators that activate the pluripotency network under defined culture conditions31,32. Here, we review our current understanding of how Oct proteins function in the reprogramming process and discuss the differential roles of exogenous and endogenous Oct4 in reprogramming biology. We provide an overview of factors that can replace Oct4 in murine and human reprogramming and discuss how these replacements enable the acquisition of pluripotency. We elaborate on recent findings showing how reprogramming can be achieved without administration of exogenous Oct4 and share our view on how different reprogramming competences of Oct proteins are differentially mediated in different species.

POU proteins: an overview

The POU (Pit-Oct-Unc) protein family comprises 15 transcription factors that bind to specific target sequences33,34,35,36. POU proteins have diverse roles in a wide range of cellular processes4,5,6 and are categorized into six classes (POU I to POU VI) based on the sequence similarity of their DNA-binding domains (DBDs)1,3. Only proteins in the POU II, III and V classes, which predominantly bind to the octamer motif (consensus sequence ATGCAAAT) and its variants, are classified as octamer-binding (Oct) proteins. Proteins in other POU classes (POU I, IV and VI) display lower binding affinity for the octamer motif and thus are classified as nonoctamer-binding proteins.

The Oct protein group constitutes eight family members (Oct1, Oct2, Oct4, Oct6, Oct7, Oct8, Oct9 and Oct11), and the numbering of each protein is based on the position at which DNA probes used in electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSAs) are bound2. Oct proteins share a highly conserved bipartite DNA-binding domain (DBD), consisting of two structurally independent subdomains, a 75 amino acid N-terminal POU-specific domain (POUS) and a 60 amino acid C-terminal POU homeodomain (POUH)1,3,4,37,38. Each POU domain can bind a sequence of four base pairs in the major groove of the cognate DNA sequence, thereby placing each POU domain on either side of the DNA helix and effectively encircling target DNA sequences37,38. A linker, which varies in length and sequence between Oct proteins, is flanked by these two POU domains4,6,37. This linker also influences the binding specificity and conformation of Oct proteins to DNA sequences, although it does not appear to physically interact with the DNA sequence itself39,40. Posttranslational modifications of POU domains, including ubiquitylation, glycosylation, SUMOylation, phosphorylation and oxidation, also influence the binding ability of Oct proteins to cognate DNA sequences41,42,43,44,45. Oct proteins form homodimers or heterodimers with other partner proteins on specific target sequences46,47,48,49, adding an additional layer of target gene control. Oct proteins harbor two transactivation domains (TADs) that are located on each side of the DBD5. In contrast to DBDs, TADs exhibit little sequence conservation and vary in length between Oct proteins. TADs are known to play important roles in the transcriptional stimulation of target genes by interacting with basal transcription machinery and other cofactors50,51.

Biological functions of Oct proteins in development

Oct proteins of the POU II class include Oct1 (also known as Otf-1 and Pou2f1), Oct2 (also known as Pou2f2) and Oct11 (also known as Skn-1 and Pou2f3)4,5,6. Although they belong to the same class, their expression patterns and functions are grossly different during embryonic development. Oct1 is ubiquitously expressed and can be detected in almost all cell types52,53, whereas the expression of Oct2 and Oct11 is largely restricted to specific cell types. Oct2 is highly expressed in B lymphocytes and plays an important role in normal germinal center reactions54,55,56. Oct11 is highly expressed in skin epithelial cells and taste cells and is critical for epidermal differentiation and the composition of taste receptor cells57,58,59.

Oct4 belongs to the POU V class4,5,6. It is the best-characterized OCT member because of its profound biological importance in early embryonic development, germ cell maintenance, stem cell pluripotency and cellular reprogramming5,14,15,16,17. Oct4 is highly expressed in totipotent and pluripotent cells, including oocytes, early cleavage-stage embryos, inner cell mass (ICM) of blastocysts, epiblasts, embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and germ cells60,61,62. Oct4 expression is regulated by two cis-enhancer elements (distal and proximal enhancers) that are located 2 kb upstream of its transcriptional start site63,64. Interestingly, the activity of these enhancers differs between cell types. The proximal enhancer (PE) is active in epiblasts of postimplantation embryos and epiblast stem cells (EpiSCs), whereas the distal enhancer (DE) is active in the ICM, ESCs and germ cells64,65,66. Reducing the expression levels of Oct4 in ESCs triggers their differentiation towards primitive endodermal, mesodermal and trophectodermal cell lineages67,68. Oct4-deficient embryos are viable to the blastocyst stage, but the ICM cannot be formed in these embryos69. These observations, together with the discovery of iPSC technology10,70, have underscored the functional importance of Oct4 for both the maintenance and establishment of pluripotency.

POU III factors (Oct6, Oct7, Oct8 and Oct9) are prominently expressed in cells and tissues of the central nervous system (CNS)1,71,72. They play critical roles in neurogenesis and gliogenesis73,74,75,76,77. Interestingly, the deletion of any one of these genes in mice does not lead to severe phenotypes74,75,78. Distinct phenotypes are only observed when two or three of POU III factors are simultaneously deleted, indicating their functional redundancy. The DBDs in POU III factors are highly conserved, and consequently, these factors display similar DNA-binding characteristics and DNA-dependent dimerization features18,20,79,80, providing a molecular explanation for their functional redundancy. Along this line, overexpression of any POU III factor can convert fibroblasts into neural lineage cells7,8,9,11,12,13. Thus, similar to Oct4, POU III factors are not only essential regulators of normal development but can also convert cellular phenotypes upon ectopic expression.

Oct6 (also known as SCIP, Tst-1 and Pou3f1) is expressed in Schwann cells, oligodendrocyte progenitor cells (OPCs) and keratinocytes71,73,74,75,76,78,81. Furthermore, Oct6 play an important role in the specification and differentiation of neuroectodermal lineages82,83,84,85. It was shown that Oct6 is expressed in ESCs72,86,87. However, we and others have recently failed to detect Oct6 expression in the ICM, iPSCs or ESCs32,83,88,89,90,91. Instead, its expression was detected in epiblasts of E5.5–E6.5 postimplantation embryos and EpiSCs32,83,88,89,90,91. Epiblasts and EpiSCs represent a more developmentally differentiated state compared to the ICM, iPSCs or ESCs and display gene expression characteristics of gastrula-stage ectoderm66,92,93. To date, knockout studies of Oct6 in epiblasts and EpiSCs have not been performed. Therefore, the specific role and functionality of Oct6 in epiblast formation and maintenance of the primed state of pluripotency remain incompletely understood. However, one can speculate that its role in embryonic development is not as critical as that of Oct4 because homozygous Oct6-knockout mice are born, although they die soon after birth because of respiratory defects73,94.

Reprogramming of somatic cells to pluripotency

Yamanaka and Takahashi made a landmark discovery showing that ectopic expression of Oct4, Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc can reprogram somatic cells into iPSCs10,70. These four reprogramming factors work interdependently to inactivate features of somatic cell identity and concurrently to activate properties of pluripotent stem cells95,96,97,98. During cell fate transition, cells undergo dramatic changes at the morphological, transcriptional and epigenetic levels. Notably, only a small proportion of these cells pass through all of these changes and eventually became bona fide iPSCs. Therefore, the reprogramming process is stochastic and inefficient99.

Various gain- and loss-of-function screenings have led to the discovery of specific genes and molecular pathways that inhibit or enhance the reprogramming process19,26,31,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112. For example, specific epigenetic modifications, including DNA methylation, H3K9 methylation and H3K79 methylation marks, and/or the related enzymes (e.g., DNMTs, HDACs, LSD1, and DOT1L) can act as barriers to the reprogramming process. Therefore, forced elimination of these epigenetic barriers either through genetic inactivation or chemical inhibition can enhance or improve the reprogramming process31,100,102,103,106,107,108,109,112. In contrast, forced expression of chromatin remodelers, such as Dppa2 and Dppa4, can reset the epigenome of somatic cells to a pluripotent configuration that enhances both reprogramming efficiency and kinetics113. In addition, other transcription factors, including Esrrb, Glis1, Nr5a2, Prdm14, Rarg, Sall4, Tbx3, Foxa2, Foxf1, Foxh1, Lhx1 and T, can each significantly enhance reprogramming when overexpressed together with Oct4, Sox2, Kfl4 and c-Myc19,26,101,104,105,110,111,114. Other studies have shown that altering culture conditions and/or using different donor cell types can result in completely different reprogramming outcomes115,116,117,118. For example, adding specific nutrients (e.g., vitamin C) to the culture medium or inducing hypoxic cell culture conditions can greatly enhance reprogramming efficiency116,118. Furthermore, significantly higher reprogramming efficiency can also be achieved with donor cells that contain inherent phenotypic plasticity and/or high replication potential115,117.

Despite the significant advances that have been made to improve and understand the reprogramming process with Oct proteins, critical questions have remained unanswered, e.g., Is exogenous Oct4 expression truly essential for inducing pluripotency? More importantly, how are reprogramming competences of Oct proteins actually mediated and what are the structural bases that define them? Finally, how or why do reprogramming competences of Oct proteins differ, particularly among species?

Exogenous Oct4, but not endogenous Oct4, is dispensable for reprogramming

For many years and for several reasons, it has been widely assumed that exogenously administered Oct4 is the most important and, in fact, indispensable factor for the reprogramming process. First, while Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc can each be replaced by their respective family members, Oct4 cannot be replaced by any of its paralogs18,19,20,21. Second, and again in contrast to Sox2, Klf4 or c-Myc, Oct4 alone can elicit reprogramming when specific pathways or molecules are inhibited by compounds (e.g., VPA, a HDAC inhibitor, or CHIR-99021, a GSK-3 inhibitor) or when a specific cell type is used as a donor cell (e.g., NSCs)119,120,121,122,123. Finally, perturbation of key Oct4 functions by deletion of structural components or by introduction of inactivating point mutations completely abolishes the reprogramming process18,20,124,125.

However, the view that exogenous Oct4 is indispensable for reprogramming has recently changed. Undoubtedly, including Oct4 in reprogramming cocktails appears to be the most efficient means to generate iPSCs. However, recent studies have revealed that exogenous Oct4 can be entirely omitted from reprogramming cocktails or can be replaced by its family members, different transcription factors or small molecules22,24,25,26,27,29,30,31,32,126,127,128,129. For example, Nr5a1 (also known as Sf-1), Nr5a2 (also known as Lrh1) or Sall4/Nanog can each functionally replace Oct4 and elicit reprogramming together with Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc24,26. Notably, these genes lie genetically upstream of Oct4, such that their ectopic expression can directly activate endogenous Oct4 expression, resulting in iPSC generation24,130,131,132 (Fig. 1a). The DNA demethylase Tet1 can also functionally replace Oct4 in reprogramming25. Ectopic expression of Tet1 mediates demethylation at the regulatory regions of Oct4, consequently resulting in activation of endogenous Oct4. These studies clearly demonstrate that the induction of pluripotency in conjunction with Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc can be mediated without exogenous Oct4 by the use of alternative factors that are capable of directly activating endogenous Oct4 expression.

Fig. 1: iPSCs can be generated by direct or indirect activation of endogenous Oct4.

a Direct activation of endogenous Oct4 by Oct4 upstream genes or chemical compounds. b Indirect activation of endogenous Oct4 by lineage specifiers or polycistronic expression of Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc.

Interestingly, genes that do not directly regulate the endogenous Oct4 locus can also elicit reprogramming in conjunction with Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc (Fig. 1b). These genes include Gata1–6, Sox7, Pax1, Cebpa, Hnf4a and Grb2, most of which, in normal physiological processes, do not lie genetically upstream of Oct4 and are not expressed in ESCs or iPSCs. Most of these factors normally function as lineage-specific transcription factors and play important roles in cell fate determination of mesodermal and endodermal lineages during embryonic development29,30. A study aiming to decipher the molecular mechanisms of Gata factor-based reprogramming revealed that ectopic expression of Gata factors can activate Sall4, which in turn activates endogenous Oct4, consequently resulting in iPSC generation without exogenously administered Oct430. Based on these observations, it has been speculated that activating endogenous Oct4 expression indirectly may be a common way to elicit reprogramming by all other lineage-specific transcription factors. However, Nkx3.1 and Oct6, which are also lineage-specific transcription factors, do not seem to follow this mode of action. Indeed, we and others have recently revealed that Nkx3.1 and Oct6 can directly bind to regulatory regions of Oct4 to regulate its expression32,126. Thus, these observations clearly suggest that the indirect mode of action might not apply to the reprogramming function of all other lineage-specific transcription factors.

In addition to ectopic expression of genetic factors, specific chemicals can also functionally replace exogenous Oct4 and induce pluripotency in conjunction with Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc27,28. For instance, NSCs transduced with Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc and subsequently cultured in the presence of BIX-01294, an inhibitor of the histone methyltransferase G9a, give rise to iPSC colonies28 (Fig. 1a). G9a is critical for de novo DNA methylation at regulatory regions of Oct4133,134. Thus, BIX-01294 treatment results in demethylation at regulatory regions of Oct4, leading to activation of endogenous Oct4 expression28. BIX-01294-mediated reprogramming does not seem to be effective with mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs), indicating that inhibition of different molecular pathways is required for eliciting reprogramming of different types of donor cells. In MEFs, exogenous Oct4 can be functionally replaced by various other small molecules, including forskolin (a cAMP agonist), 2-methyl-5-hydroxytryptamine (a 5-HT3 agonist) or D4476 (a casein kinase 1 inhibitor)27 (Fig. 1a). The precise molecular mechanism by which each of these chemicals induces pluripotency in conjunction with Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc remains elusive. However, it is likely that some, or perhaps all, of these chemicals induce endogenous Oct4 expression either directly or indirectly since iPSC colonies would otherwise not be formed. With these studies, it has been established that exogenous Oct4 is dispensable for reprogramming, but endogenous Oct4 is not, which is in agreement with the fact that endogenous Oct4 is absolutely required for the establishment of pluripotency in preimplantation-stage embryos69.

Reprogramming with Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc alone produces high-quality iPSCs

We and others recently showed that iPSC generation is possible without exogenous administration of Oct4 or any of its known replacers (Oct4 upstream genes, lineage-specification transcription factors or chemicals) when Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc are connected together by the 2 A peptide and ectopically expressed from a single polycistronic vector in MEFs22,128. Integrative ChIP-seq and RNA-seq analyses of cells undergoing reprogramming with Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc alone revealed that Sox2 and Klf4 can directly bind and mediate the activation of pluripotency genes, including but not limited to Sall4 and Nanog, which in turn mediate the activation of endogenous Oct4 expression22,128. Interestingly, reprogramming by Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc alone is context-dependent for various reasons. First, only polycistronic expression of Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc can elicit reprogramming22,128. Monocistronic expression of Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc does not yield iPSC colonies, indicating that stoichiometric cooperativity with these three reprogramming factors is necessary for eliciting reprogramming. Second, iPSC generation is possible by lentiviral and episomal delivery of Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc but not by retroviral delivery due to rapid retroviral silencing that occurs in the early phase of reprogramming. Interestingly, the simultaneous expression of Sox2 and Klf4 activates retrovirus silencing machinery (e.g., Trim28, Setdb1 and Chaf1a/b), which in turn mediates retroviral silencing128. Finally, reprogramming with Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc alone is species-dependent, such that reprogramming in this manner can be achieved in mouse cells but not in human cells128. In future studies, elucidating exactly why or how the function of these three factors differs between species will provide important mechanistic insights that will further help to define the molecular impediments to the reprogramming process.

The poor quality of iPSCs yields from reprogramming is a key limitation that precludes the development of iPSC-based applications in regenerative biomedicine. It has been shown that the quality of iPSCs can be directly influenced by the stoichiometric expression of reprogramming factors (e.g., Oct4high/Klf4high/Sox2low/c-Myclow), supplements of cell culture media (e.g., vitamin C) and/or the choice of reprogramming factors (e.g., Sall4/Nanog/Esrrb/Lin28a or Oct4/Sox2/Klf4)135,136,137. Although reprogramming with c-Myc together with Oct, Sox2 and Klf4 provides larger yields of iPSCs, c-Myc exerts a detrimental effect on imprinted loci, resulting in significantly reduced developmental potential135. Intriguingly, we recently discovered that the quality of iPSCs is dramatically reduced by exogenously expressed Oct4128. In fact, iPSC lines generated by polycistronic expression of Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc without Oct4 produced all-iPSC mice much more efficiently than iPSC lines generated by conventional polycistronic expression of the four factors. By comparing transcriptomes and epigenomes between a series of iPSC lines generated with the two different reprogramming cocktails, i.e., with and without exogenous Oct4, we came to the decisive conclusion that ectopic Oct4 expression reduces iPSC quality by anomalously activating off-target genes unrelated to pluripotency and disrupting imprinted gene expression128. Considering the immense usage of iPSCs in various biomedical applications, investigations into whether iPSC lines generated without exogenous Oct4 by alternative factors are of good quality are warranted.

It has been shown that obtaining high-quality iPSCs is strongly correlated with lower reprogramming efficiency135,136. Consistently, reprogramming without Oct4 but with Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc produces fewer iPSC colonies with slower reprogramming kinetics, but the majority of the iPSC lines derived from these colonies are of superior quality, as assessed by molecular profiling and their contribution to tetraploid complementation128. Thus, the theme that “less is more” appears to hold true for reprogramming biology. Reprogramming systems that yield iPSCs with high efficiency and fast kinetics come with the price of generating a high proportion (too high) of low-quality iPSCs.

Transactivation domains and donor-cell epigenomes are tightly linked to reprogramming competences

Despite the iPSC quality drawbacks that can occur by reprogramming with exogenous Oct4, it is by far the strongest pluripotency inducer. The observation that Oct4 cannot be functionally replaced by other Oct family members in murine reprogramming18,20,21,31, although Oct proteins share profound sequence conservation, has fueled interest in understanding what makes Oct4 uniquely competent in inducing pluripotency. We and others have compared the structures and biochemical properties of Oct proteins to better understand the molecular basis of the reprogramming processes. Interestingly, despite their high similarities in protein sequences, the DNA-binding profiles of Oct proteins and their DNA-dependent dimerization with Sox2 are remarkably different18,20,80. Specifically, Oct4 preferentially forms heterodimers with Sox2 through the canonical SoxOct motif (CATTGTTATGCAAAT), which is highly enriched in enhancers of pluripotency genes, including Nanog, Fgf4, Utf1 and Pou5f118,46,47,80. In contrast, other Oct proteins, such as Oct6 and Oct7, preferentially form homodimers through the more palindromic octamer recognition element (MORE; ATGCATATGCAT) motif, which is predominantly found in the regulatory regions of neural genes, including Neurog1, Olig1 and Ascl118,47,48,49. The formation of Oct4-Sox2 heterodimers through SoxOct motifs appears to be necessary for inducing pluripotency because mutations that disrupt Oct4-Sox2 heterodimer formation abolish reprogramming competence18,138,139. Oct6 and Oct7 can also bind to the SoxOct motif in EMSAs, albeit with low efficiency18,80. However, ChIP assays with ESCs, neural precursor cells (NPCs) and cells undergoing reprogramming failed to detect Oct6 and Oct7 binding to the SoxOct motif13,20,32,77,80,140. The discrepancy of these results might be due to the different experimental settings and sensitivities of these two different assays. Notwithstanding, these studies clearly indicate that Oct proteins display differential DNA-dependent dimerization properties and DNA-binding profiles, providing an explanation for why they display different reprogramming competences and, more specifically, why Oct4 cannot be functionally replaced by its family members in murine reprogramming.

To support this idea, through structural modeling, we found that methionine at position 151 is critical for the homodimerization of Oct proteins through the MORE motif18. This amino acid is contained in POU III factors (e.g., Oct6) but not in Oct4. Therefore, amino acid substitution of methionine 151 with serine (Oct4S151M) increases its ability to form homodimers through the MORE motif18. In contrast, amino acid substitution of methionine to serine in residue 151 of Oct6 (Oct6M151S) reduced its ability to form homodimers through the MORE motif18. Although the binding propensities of these two mutants to the MORE motif were significantly altered, their respective binding propensity for the SoxOct motif was not substantially changed compared to that of their wild-type counterparts18. As such, Oct4S151M still produced iPSC colonies similar to wild-type Oct4 and Oct6M151S was unable elicit reprogramming similar to wild-type Oct618. These findings indicate the binding preference of Oct proteins for MORE is not the key to their reprogramming competences. Previously, it was shown that two amino acids at residues 7 and 22 in the POU-specific domain of Oct4 are essential to form an Oct4-Sox2-DNA ternary structure141. Interestingly, changing these amino acids by substituting aspartic acid with lysine at residue 7 and lysine with threonine at residue 22 in Oct6M151S (OCT6 M151S/D7K,K22T) enables this engineered Oct6 mutant to bind to the SoxOct motif. Consequently, it is capable of producing iPSC colonies18. However, the reprogramming efficiency of this mutant was extremely low. Thus, other structural features in addition DNA-dependent dimerization are required to mediate Oct6-mediated reprogramming efficiently in murine cells.

In mouse ESCs, Oct4 mutants in which both N-TAD and C-TAD are deleted show severe phenotypes and cannot maintain a pluripotent state142. Interestingly, only one TAD in Oct4 is needed to maintain the functionality of Oct4, since mouse ESCs in which either the N-TAD or C-TAD of Oct4 is deleted maintain pluripotency142. However, when the reprogramming competences of Oct6-Oct4 domain-swapped chimeras were tested, the chimeric proteins (O466 and O664) in which either N- or C-TADs of Oct4 was introduced into the corresponding site of Oct6 did not acquire reprogramming activity32. However, when both N- and C-TADs of Oct4 were introduced into corresponding sites of Oct6, the chimeric protein (O464) induced the formation of iPSC colonies32. Overall, these observations reveal interconnected functional features of TAD and DBD, which together are crucial for mouse cell reprogramming and pluripotency maintenance: differential DNA-dependent binding propensities through the DBD and functional features of the TAD that are yet to be discovered.

OCT6 is a pluripotency inducer and acts as a pioneer transcription factor in human reprogramming

Oct4 has been used for iPSC generation from cells obtained from a number of different species, including mice, humans, rats, monkeys and gorillas10,70,143,144,145, underscoring the universality and conserved fundamental function of Oct4 for inducing pluripotency. Notably, most studies addressing the possibility of replacing Oct4 for reprogramming have been performed with mouse cells24,25,26,29,30. However, because of its ever more increasing significance for biomedicine, there is great interest in determining whether Oct4 replacers can function similarly in cells from other species, especially humans. Until recently, Nxk3.1 was the only known factor that can induce pluripotency in addition to Oct4 in both human and mouse cells126. Nr5a1, Nr5a2, Tet1, Sall4, Nanog and Gata3 can all replace Oct4 in reprogramming murine cells to pluripotency. However, these paralogs fail to produce iPSC colonies in conjunction with Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc in human cells32, clearly indicating their mouse-specific reprogramming competence. A potential explanation for these divergence outcomes might involve the differences in the chromatin structures and epigenomes in human and mouse cells. This is because the accessibility of reprogramming factors to target sites differ between human and mouse cells146,147,148,149. Thus, the reprogramming competences of these Oct4 replacers are likely differentially regulated depending on the epigenetic state of the donor cells. In agreement with this concept, we recently showed that creating an epigenetically permissive environment for human donor cells through a combinational treatment of compounds that affect chromatin modifications, including DNA methylation and histone methylation, enabled the generation of iPSC colonies upon administration of Nr5a1, Nr5a2, Tet1, Sall4, Nanog and Gata331. Together, these findings triggered our hypothesis that other factors which can replace Oct4 specifically in human reprogramming might exist.

By executing a functional screening of 100 tested candidate genes, we surprisingly found that Oct6 can induce pluripotency in conjunction with Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc in human cells32. This observation was especially intriguing because Oct6 cannot generate iPSC colonies from mouse cells18,20,21. Notably, human and mouse Oct6 proteins share 98.89% identity, and both proteins can elicit reprogramming of human cells but not of mouse cells32. Therefore, its species-dependent reprogramming competence is not mediated by sequence variations of orthologous Oct6 proteins but by the differences in mouse and human cell epigenomes. Indeed, if the levels of specific epigenetic modifications, including H3K27 methylation, H3K79 methylation, H3K4 methylation and H3K9 methylation, are modulated, ectopic Oct6 expression enables iPSC generation from mouse cells31.

Although Oct4 and Oct6 are functionally interchangeable for inducing human pluripotency, OCT6-mediated reprogramming is significantly slower and less efficient than that mediated by OCT432. Comparative RNA-seq analysis of TRA-1–60+/CD31 cells collected over the time course of reprogramming with Oct4 and Oct6 revealed that the mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition (MET) was not different. This finding supports the argument that Oct proteins do not affect or delay the MET process during reprogramming. However, the activation of pluripotency genes is remarkably delayed in Oct6-mediated reprogramming32. Integrative ChIP-seq and RNA-seq analyses revealed that the delayed activation of pluripotency genes in Oct6-based reprogramming is largely due to the delayed binding of Oct6 to regulatory regions of corresponding genes32. Consequently, Oct6-mediated reprogramming is relatively inefficient and slow. Importantly, Oct6 can directly bind to the Oct4 locus, underscoring the concept that endogenous Oct4 expression is essential to the reprogramming process. Therefore, Oct6 lies genetically upstream of Oct4, at least in humans. In mice, Oct4 and Oct6 are coexpressed in EpiSCs and epiblasts32,83,88,89,90,91. Therefore, in future studies, it will be important to investigate whether and how Oct4 is regulated by Oct6, or vice versa, in these specific cell types to better understand the species-specific impediments of reprogramming with these factors.

Oct4 fulfills the criteria of being a pioneering transcription factor, such that it can engage nucleosomal DNA and thereby initiate regulation of its target genes that promote a change in cell fate148,149,150. To date, exactly how this pioneering activity is achieved remains poorly understood. We recently showed that the pioneering activity of Oct4 depends on functional synergism between Oct4 C-TAD and Oct4 DBD32. The absence of Oct4 C-TAD significantly abolishes the ability of Oct4 to bind pluripotency gene enhancers, and more importantly, its function is only possible when it is connected to the Oct4 DBD. In fact, introducing Oct4 C-TAD to corresponding sites of Oct6 does not change the binding of Oct6 to pluripotency gene enhancers and its reprogramming competence32. Intriguingly, in contrast to Oct4, Oct6 displays its pioneering synergistic activity with its DBD through the N-TAD. Interestingly, the Oct4 C-TAD can be functionally replaced by the Oct6 N-TAD but not the Oct6 C-TAD32. Similarly, when the N-TAD of Oct6 is connected with Oct4 DBD, the binding ability of these chimeras to enhancers of pluripotency genes dramatically increases. It has been shown that the N-TAD of Gata3 is critical for Gata3-mediated chromatin remodeling and its pioneering activity151. The C-TAD of Ebf is also required for its pioneering activity and B cell reprogramming152. Furthermore, the C-TAD of Hnf3 (also known as FoxA) is critical for its pioneering function153. Overall, these observations support our conclusion that the C-TAD of Oct4 and the N-TAD of Oct6 are critical for their pioneering activities and reprogramming competences.

Concluding remarks

Reprogramming somatic cells to pluripotency is, in fact, a complicated process, and this process does not rely on a single molecular pathway. Our recent findings together with those of other studies clearly suggest that molecular pathways and roadmaps to reach pluripotency can be diverse, depending on the epigenetic state of the donor cells and the exogenously provided transcription factors. Therefore, modulating epigenomes by chemical intervention and introducing different combinations of transcription factors in different donor cell types and also in different species might further enhance our understanding of reprogramming mechanisms.


  1. 1.

    Rosenfeld, M. G. POU-domain transcription factors: pou-er-ful developmental regulators. Genes Dev. 5, 897–907 (1991).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Schöler, H. R. Octamania: the POU factors in murine development. Trends Genet. 7, 323–329 (1991).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Wegner, M., Drolet, D. W. & Rosenfeld, M. G. POU-domain proteins: structure and function of developmental regulators. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 5, 488–498 (1993).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Herr, W. & Cleary, M. A. The POU domain: versatility in transcriptional regulation by a flexible two-in-one DNA-binding domain. Genes Dev. 9, 1679–1693 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kang, J., Shakya, A. & Tantin, D. Stem cells, stress, metabolism and cancer: a drama in two Octs. Trends Biochem Sci. 34, 491–499 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Malik, V., Zimmer, D. & Jauch, R. Diversity among POU transcription factors in chromatin recognition and cell fate reprogramming. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 75, 1587–1612 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Han, D. W. et al. Direct reprogramming of fibroblasts into neural stem cells by defined factors. Cell Stem Cell 10, 465–472 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Lujan, E., Chanda, S., Ahlenius, H., Sudhof, T. C. & Wernig, M. Direct conversion of mouse fibroblasts to self-renewing, tripotent neural precursor cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 2527–2532 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Sheng, C. et al. Direct reprogramming of Sertoli cells into multipotent neural stem cells by defined factors. Cell Res. 22, 208–218 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Takahashi, K. & Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126, 663–676 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Tsunemoto, R. et al. Diverse reprogramming codes for neuronal identity. Nature 557, 375–380 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Vierbuchen, T. et al. Direct conversion of fibroblasts to functional neurons by defined factors. Nature 463, 1035–1041 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Wapinski, O. L. et al. Hierarchical mechanisms for direct reprogramming of fibroblasts to neurons. Cell 155, 621–635 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Pan, G. J., Chang, Z. Y., Scholer, H. R. & Pei, D. Stem cell pluripotency and transcription factor Oct4. Cell Res. 12, 321–329 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Shi, G. & Jin, Y. Role of Oct4 in maintaining and regaining stem cell pluripotency. Stem Cell Res Ther. 1, 39 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Tantin, D. Oct transcription factors in development and stem cells: insights and mechanisms. Development 140, 2857–2866 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Wu, G. & Scholer, H. R. Role of Oct4 in the early embryo development. Cell Regen. 3, 7 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Jerabek, S. et al. Changing POU dimerization preferences converts Oct6 into a pluripotency inducer. EMBO Rep. (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Maekawa, M. et al. Direct reprogramming of somatic cells is promoted by maternal transcription factor Glis1. Nature 474, 225–229 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Malik, V. et al. Pluripotency reprogramming by competent and incompetent POU factors uncovers temporal dependency for Oct4 and Sox2. Nat. Commun. 10, 3477 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    An, Z. et al. Sox2 and Klf4 as the functional core in pluripotency induction without exogenous Oct4. Cell Rep. 29, 1986–2000 e1988 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Velychko, S. et al. Fusion of reprogramming factors alters the trajectory of somatic lineage conversion. Cell Rep. 27, 30–39 e34 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Buganim, Y. et al. Single-cell expression analyses during cellular reprogramming reveal an early stochastic and a late hierarchic phase. Cell 150, 1209–1222 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Gao, Y. et al. Replacement of Oct4 by Tet1 during iPSC induction reveals an important role of DNA methylation and hydroxymethylation in reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 12, 453–469 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Heng, J. C. et al. The nuclear receptor Nr5a2 can replace Oct4 in the reprogramming of murine somatic cells to pluripotent cells. Cell Stem Cell 6, 167–174 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Shi, Y. et al. A combined chemical and genetic approach for the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2, 525–528 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Shu, J. et al. Induction of pluripotency in mouse somatic cells with lineage specifiers. Cell 153, 963–975 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Shu, J. et al. GATA family members as inducers for cellular reprogramming to pluripotency. Cell Res. 25, 169–180 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kim, K. P. et al. Permissive epigenomes endow reprogramming competence to transcriptional regulators. Nat. Chem. Biol. (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kim, K. P. et al. Reprogramming competence of OCT factors is determined by transactivation domains. Sci. Adv. 6, (2020).

  33. 33.

    Falkner, F. G. & Zachau, H. G. Correct transcription of an immunoglobulin kappa gene requires an upstream fragment containing conserved sequence elements. Nature 310, 71–74 (1984).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Parslow, T. G., Blair, D. L., Murphy, W. J. & Granner, D. K. Structure of the 5’ ends of immunoglobulin genes: a novel conserved sequence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81, 2650–2654 (1984).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Herr, W. et al. The POU domain: a large conserved region in the mammalian pit-1, oct-1, oct-2, and Caenorhabditis elegans unc-86 gene products. Genes Dev. 2, 1513–1516 (1988).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Lenardo, M. J. et al. Repression of the IgH enhancer in teratocarcinoma cells associated with a novel octamer factor. Science 243, 544–546 (1989).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Phillips, K. & Luisi, B. The virtuoso of versatility: POU proteins that flex to fit. J. Mol. Biol. 302, 1023–1039 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Verrijzer, C. P. et al. The DNA binding specificity of the bipartite POU domain and its subdomains. EMBO J. 11, 4993–5003 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kong, X. et al. Functional interplay between the RK motif and linker segment dictates Oct4-DNA recognition. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 4381–4392 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    van Leeuwen, H. C., Strating, M. J., Rensen, M., de Laat, W. & van der Vliet, P. C. Linker length and composition influence the flexibility of Oct-1 DNA binding. EMBO J. 16, 2043–2053 (1997).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Brumbaugh, J. et al. Phosphorylation regulates human OCT4. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 7162–7168 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Constable, S., Lim, J. M., Vaidyanathan, K. & Wells, L. O-GlcNAc transferase regulates transcriptional activity of human Oct4. Glycobiology 27, 927–937 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Li, S. et al. Disruption of OCT4 ubiquitination increases OCT4 protein stability and ASH2L-B-mediated H3K4 methylation promoting pluripotency acquisition. Stem Cell Rep. 11, 973–987 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Marsboom, G. et al. Glutamine metabolism regulates the pluripotency transcription factor OCT4. Cell Rep. 16, 323–332 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Wei, F., Scholer, H. R. & Atchison, M. L. Sumoylation of Oct4 enhances its stability, DNA binding, and transactivation. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 21551–21560 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Ambrosetti, D. C., Basilico, C. & Dailey, L. Synergistic activation of the fibroblast growth factor 4 enhancer by Sox2 and Oct-3 depends on protein-protein interactions facilitated by a specific spatial arrangement of factor binding sites. Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 6321–6329 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Remenyi, A. et al. Crystal structure of a POU/HMG/DNA ternary complex suggests differential assembly of Oct4 and Sox2 on two enhancers. Genes Dev. 17, 2048–2059 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Rhee, J. M., Gruber, C. A., Brodie, T. B., Trieu, M. & Turner, E. E. Highly cooperative homodimerization is a conserved property of neural POU proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 273, 34196–34205 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Tomilin, A. et al. Synergism with the coactivator OBF-1 (OCA-B, BOB-1) is mediated by a specific POU dimer configuration. Cell 103, 853–864 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Mitchell, P. J. & Tjian, R. Transcriptional regulation in mammalian cells by sequence-specific DNA binding proteins. Science 245, 371–378 (1989).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Seipel, K., Georgiev, O. & Schaffner, W. Different activation domains stimulate transcription from remote (‘enhancer’) and proximal (‘promoter’) positions. EMBO J. 11, 4961–4968 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Fletcher, C., Heintz, N. & Roeder, R. G. Purification and characterization of OTF-1, a transcription factor regulating cell cycle expression of a human histone H2b gene. Cell 51, 773–781 (1987).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Sturm, R. A., Das, G. & Herr, W. The ubiquitous octamer-binding protein Oct-1 contains a POU domain with a homeo box subdomain. Genes Dev. 2, 1582–1599 (1988).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Hodson, D. J. et al. Regulation of normal B-cell differentiation and malignant B-cell survival by OCT2. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E2039–E2046 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Muller, M. M., Ruppert, S., Schaffner, W. & Matthias, P. A cloned octamer transcription factor stimulates transcription from lymphoid-specific promoters in non-B cells. Nature 336, 544–551 (1988).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Scheidereit, C. et al. A human lymphoid-specific transcription factor that activates immunoglobulin genes is a homoeobox protein. Nature 336, 551–557 (1988).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Andersen, B. et al. Skn-1a and Skn-1i: two functionally distinct Oct-2-related factors expressed in epidermis. Science 260, 78–82 (1993).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Andersen, B. et al. Functions of the POU domain genes Skn-1a/i and Tst-1/Oct-6/SCIP in epidermal differentiation. Genes Dev. 11, 1873–1884 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Matsumoto, I., Ohmoto, M., Narukawa, M., Yoshihara, Y. & Abe, K. Skn-1a (Pou2f3) specifies taste receptor cell lineage. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 685–687 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Okamoto, K. et al. A novel octamer binding transcription factor is differentially expressed in mouse embryonic cells. Cell 60, 461–472 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Rosner, M. H. et al. A POU-domain transcription factor in early stem cells and germ cells of the mammalian embryo. Nature 345, 686–692 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Scholer, H. R., Ruppert, S., Suzuki, N., Chowdhury, K. & Gruss, P. New type of POU domain in germ line-specific protein Oct-4. Nature 344, 435–439 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Nordhoff, V. et al. Comparative analysis of human, bovine, and murine Oct-4 upstream promoter sequences. Mamm. Genome 12, 309–317 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Yeom, Y. I. et al. Germline regulatory element of Oct-4 specific for the totipotent cycle of embryonal cells. Development 122, 881–894 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Choi, H. W. et al. Distinct enhancer activity of Oct4 in naive and primed mouse pluripotency. Stem Cell Rep. 7, 911–926 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Loh, Y. H. et al. The Oct4 and Nanog transcription network regulates pluripotency in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat. Genet. 38, 431–440 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Niwa, H., Miyazaki, J. & Smith, A. G. Quantitative expression of Oct-3/4 defines differentiation, dedifferentiation or self-renewal of ES cells. Nat. Genet. 24, 372–376 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Nichols, J. et al. Formation of pluripotent stem cells in the mammalian embryo depends on the POU transcription factor Oct4. Cell 95, 379–391 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    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 

  71. 71.

    He, X. et al. Expression of a large family of POU-domain regulatory genes in mammalian brain development. Nature 340, 35–41 (1989).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Schöler, H. R., Hatzopoulos, A. K., Balling, R., Suzuki, N. & Gruss, P. A family of octamer-specific proteins present during mouse embryogenesis: evidence for germline-specific expression of an Oct factor. EMBO J. 8, 2543–2550 (1989).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Bermingham, J. R. Jr. et al. Tst-1/Oct-6/SCIP regulates a unique step in peripheral myelination and is required for normal respiration. Genes Dev. 10, 1751–1762 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Friedrich, R. P., Schlierf, B., Tamm, E. R., Bosl, M. R. & Wegner, M. The class III POU domain protein Brn-1 can fully replace the related Oct-6 during schwann cell development and myelination. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 1821–1829 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Jaegle, M. et al. The POU proteins Brn-2 and Oct-6 share important functions in Schwann cell development. Genes Dev. 17, 1380–1391 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Jaegle, M. et al. The POU factor Oct-6 and Schwann cell differentiation. Science 273, 507–510 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Lodato, M. A. et al. SOX2 co-occupies distal enhancer elements with distinct POU factors in ESCs and NPCs to specify cell state. PLoS Genet 9, e1003288 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Schreiber, J. et al. Redundancy of class III POU proteins in the oligodendrocyte lineage. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 32286–32293 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Chang, Y. K. et al. Quantitative profiling of selective Sox/POU pairing on hundreds of sequences in parallel by Coop-seq. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 832–845 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Mistri, T. K. et al. Selective influence of Sox2 on POU transcription factor binding in embryonic and neural stem cells. EMBO Rep. 16, 1177–1191 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Faus, I., Hsu, H. J. & Fuchs, E. Oct-6: a regulator of keratinocyte gene expression in stratified squamous epithelia. Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 3263–3275 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Iwafuchi-Doi, M. et al. Transcriptional regulatory networks in epiblast cells and during anterior neural plate development as modeled in epiblast stem cells. Development 139, 3926–3937 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Kamiya, D. et al. Intrinsic transition of embryonic stem-cell differentiation into neural progenitors. Nature 470, 503–509 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Yasuhara, N. et al. Triggering neural differentiation of ES cells by subtype switching of importin-alpha. Nat. Cell Biol. 9, 72–79 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Zhu, Q. et al. The transcription factor Pou3f1 promotes neural fate commitment via activation of neural lineage genes and inhibition of external signaling pathways. Elife 3, (2014).

  86. 86.

    Meijer, D. et al. The octamer binding factor Oct6: cDNA cloning and expression in early embryonic cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 18, 7357–7365 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Suzuki, N., Rohdewohld, H., Neuman, T., Gruss, P. & Schöler, H. R. Oct-6: a POU transcription factor expressed in embryonal stem cells and in the developing brain. EMBO J. 9, 3723–3732 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Acampora, D. et al. Loss of the Otx2-binding site in the Nanog promoter affects the integrity of embryonic stem cell subtypes and specification of inner cell mass-derived epiblast. Cell Rep. 15, 2651–2664 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Kurek, D. et al. Endogenous WNT signals mediate BMP-induced and spontaneous differentiation of epiblast stem cells and human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cell Rep. 4, 114–128 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Li, G. et al. Dysregulation of the SIRT1/OCT6 axis contributes to environmental stress-induced neural induction defects. Stem Cell Rep. 8, 1270–1286 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Yasuhara, N. et al. Importin alpha subtypes determine differential transcription factor localization in embryonic stem cells maintenance. Developmental Cell 26, 123–135 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Brons, I. G. et al. Derivation of pluripotent epiblast stem cells from mammalian embryos. Nature 448, 191–195 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Kojima, Y. et al. The transcriptional and functional properties of mouse epiblast stem cells resemble the anterior primitive streak. Cell Stem Cell 14, 107–120 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    DeVeale, B. et al. Oct4 is required ~E7.5 for proliferation in the primitive streak. PLoS Genet 9, e1003957 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Adachi, K. & Scholer, H. R. Directing reprogramming to pluripotency by transcription factors. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 22, 416–422 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Buganim, Y., Faddah, D. A. & Jaenisch, R. Mechanisms and models of somatic cell reprogramming. Nat. Rev. Genet 14, 427–439 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Hochedlinger, K. & Plath, K. Epigenetic reprogramming and induced pluripotency. Development 136, 509–523 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Papp, B. & Plath, K. Epigenetics of reprogramming to induced pluripotency. Cell 152, 1324–1343 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Hanna, J. et al. Direct cell reprogramming is a stochastic process amenable to acceleration. Nature 462, 595–601 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Cacchiarelli, D. et al. Integrative analyses of human reprogramming reveal dynamic nature of induced pluripotency. Cell 162, 412–424 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Chia, N. Y. et al. A genome-wide RNAi screen reveals determinants of human embryonic stem cell identity. Nature 468, 316–320 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    dos Santos, R. L. et al. MBD3/NuRD facilitates induction of pluripotency in a context-dependent manner. Cell Stem Cell 15, 102–110 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Ebrahimi, A. et al. Bromodomain inhibition of the coactivators CBP/EP300 facilitate cellular reprogramming. Nat. Chem. Biol. 15, 519–528 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Feng, B. et al. Reprogramming of fibroblasts into induced pluripotent stem cells with orphan nuclear receptor Esrrb. Nat. Cell Biol. 11, 197–203 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Han, J. et al. Tbx3 improves the germ-line competency of induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 463, 1096–1100 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Hu, X. et al. Tet and TDG mediate DNA demethylation essential for mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition in somatic cell reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 14, 512–522 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Mali, P. et al. Butyrate greatly enhances derivation of human induced pluripotent stem cells by promoting epigenetic remodeling and the expression of pluripotency-associated genes. Stem Cells 28, 713–720 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

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

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Rais, Y. et al. Deterministic direct reprogramming of somatic cells to pluripotency. Nature 502, 65–70 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Tsubooka, N. et al. Roles of Sall4 in the generation of pluripotent stem cells from blastocysts and fibroblasts. Genes Cells 14, 683–694 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Wang, W. et al. Rapid and efficient reprogramming of somatic cells to induced pluripotent stem cells by retinoic acid receptor gamma and liver receptor homolog 1. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 18283–18288 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Zhang, Z., Xiang, D. & Wu, W. S. Sodium butyrate facilitates reprogramming by derepressing OCT4 transactivity at the promoter of embryonic stem cell-specific miR-302/367 cluster. Cell Reprogram 16, 130–139 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Hernandez, C. et al. Dppa2/4 facilitate epigenetic remodeling during reprogramming to pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 23, 396–411 e398 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Takahashi, K. et al. Induction of pluripotency in human somatic cells via a transient state resembling primitive streak-like mesendoderm. Nat. Commun. 5, 3678 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Esteban, M. A. et al. Vitamin C enhances the generation of mouse and human induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 6, 71–79 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Panopoulos, A. D. et al. Rapid and highly efficient generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from human umbilical vein endothelial cells. PloS ONE 6, e19743 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Yoshida, Y., Takahashi, K., Okita, K., Ichisaka, T. & Yamanaka, S. Hypoxia enhances the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 5, 237–241 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Kim, J. B. et al. Direct reprogramming of human neural stem cells by OCT4. Nature 461, 649–643 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Kim, J. B. et al. Oct4-induced pluripotency in adult neural stem cells. Cell 136, 411–419 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Li, Y. et al. Generation of iPSCs from mouse fibroblasts with a single gene, Oct4, and small molecules. Cell Res. 21, 196–204 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Yuan, X. et al. Brief report: combined chemical treatment enables Oct4-induced reprogramming from mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Stem Cells 29, 549–553 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Esch, D. et al. A unique Oct4 interface is crucial for reprogramming to pluripotency. Nat. Cell Biol. 15, 295–301 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Jin, W. et al. Critical POU domain residues confer Oct4 uniqueness in somatic cell reprogramming. Sci. Rep. 6, 20818 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Mai, T. et al. NKX3-1 is required for induced pluripotent stem cell reprogramming and can replace OCT4 in mouse and human iPSC induction. Nat. Cell Biol. 20, 900–908 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Montserrat, N. et al. Reprogramming of human fibroblasts to pluripotency with lineage specifiers. Cell Stem Cell 13, 341–350 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Velychko, S. et al. Excluding Oct4 from Yamanaka cocktail unleashes the developmental potential of iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell 25, 737–753 e734 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Zhao, Y. et al. A XEN-like state bridges somatic cells to pluripotency during chemical reprogramming. Cell 163, 1678–1691 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Barnea, E. & Bergman, Y. Synergy of SF1 and RAR in activation of Oct-3/4 promoter. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 6608–6619 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Gu, P. et al. Orphan nuclear receptor LRH-1 is required to maintain Oct4 expression at the epiblast stage of embryonic development. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 3492–3505 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Zhang, J. et al. Sall4 modulates embryonic stem cell pluripotency and early embryonic development by the transcriptional regulation of Pou5f1. Nat. cell Biol. 8, 1114–1123 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Epsztejn-Litman, S. et al. De novo DNA methylation promoted by G9a prevents reprogramming of embryonically silenced genes. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 15, 1176–1183 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Feldman, N. et al. G9a-mediated irreversible epigenetic inactivation of Oct-3/4 during early embryogenesis. Nat. Cell Biol. 8, 188–194 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Buganim, Y. et al. The developmental potential of iPSCs is greatly influenced by reprogramming factor selection. Cell Stem Cell 15, 295–309 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    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 

  137. 137.

    Chen, J. et al. Rational optimization of reprogramming culture conditions for the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells with ultra-high efficiency and fast kinetics. Cell Res. 21, 884–894 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Jauch, R. et al. Conversion of Sox17 into a pluripotency reprogramming factor by reengineering its association with Oct4 on DNA. Stem Cells 29, 940–951 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Tapia, N. et al. Dissecting the role of distinct OCT4-SOX2 heterodimer configurations in pluripotency. Sci. Rep. 5, 13533 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Urban, S. et al. A Brn2-Zic1 axis specifies the neuronal fate of retinoic-acid-treated embryonic stem cells. J. Cell Sci. 128, 2303–2318 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    Nishimoto, M. et al. Oct-3/4 maintains the proliferative embryonic stem cell state via specific binding to a variant octamer sequence in the regulatory region of the UTF1 locus. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 5084–5094 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Niwa, H., Masui, S., Chambers, I., Smith, A. G. & Miyazaki, J. Phenotypic complementation establishes requirements for specific POU domain and generic transactivation function of Oct-3/4 in embryonic stem cells. Mol. Cell. Biol. 22, 1526–1536 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Fang, R. et al. Generation of naive induced pluripotent stem cells from rhesus monkey fibroblasts. Cell Stem Cell 15, 488–497 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    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 

  145. 145.

    Wunderlich, S. et al. Primate iPS cells as tools for evolutionary analyses. Stem Cell Res 12, 622–629 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Chronis, C. et al. Cooperative binding of transcription factors orchestrates reprogramming. Cell 168, 442–459 e420 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Fu, K. et al. Comparison of reprogramming factor targets reveals both species-specific and conserved mechanisms in early iPSC reprogramming. BMC Genomics 19, 956 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Soufi, A., Donahue, G. & Zaret, K. S. Facilitators and impediments of the pluripotency reprogramming factors’ initial engagement with the genome. Cell 151, 994–1004 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Soufi, A. et al. Pioneer transcription factors target partial DNA motifs on nucleosomes to initiate reprogramming. Cell 161, 555–568 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Zaret, K. S. & Mango, S. E. Pioneer transcription factors, chromatin dynamics, and cell fate control. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 37, 76–81 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Takaku, M. et al. GATA3-dependent cellular reprogramming requires activation-domain dependent recruitment of a chromatin remodeler. Genome Biol. 17, 36 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Boller, S. et al. Pioneering activity of the C-terminal domain of EBF1 shapes the chromatin landscape for B cell programming. Immunity 44, 527–541 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Cirillo, L. A. et al. Opening of compacted chromatin by early developmental transcription factors HNF3 (FoxA) and GATA-4. Mol. Cell 9, 279–289 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was supported by grants from the Max Planck Society.


Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information



Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Johnny Kim or Hans R. Schöler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, KP., Han, D.W., Kim, J. et al. Biological importance of OCT transcription factors in reprogramming and development. Exp Mol Med 53, 1018–1028 (2021).

Download citation


Quick links