BioInformant

Your Global Leader in Stem Cell Market Research

  • Home
  • Blog
    • Stem Cells
      • HSCs
      • iPS Cells
      • MSCs
      • Neural Stem Cells
      • Adipose SCs
    • Exosomes
    • Cell Therapy
      • CAR-T
    • Cord Blood
    • News
    • Interviews
  • Advertise
  • Shop
  • Company
    • Story
    • Testimonials
    • Submit PR
    • Job Posts
    • Privacy Policy
    • Guarantee
    • Contact
Home » The Rise of Direct Cell Reprogramming
Direct Cell Reprogramming

The Rise of Direct Cell Reprogramming

July 18, 2018 By Cade Hildreth (CEO)

There has been tremendous activity over the last decade in the development of stem cells therapeutics, which have relied on stem cell differentiation protocols, as well as techniques for direct cell reprogramming. Today, there are over 4,700 stem cell trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and publications have increased dramatically in recent years, demonstrating the rapidly growing interest of the scientific community.

The Gold Standard for T Cell Cryopreservation - CryoStor, cGMP Cell Freeze Media

However, for all its promise, stem cells are yet to deliver on this therapeutic potential, and this failure appears due to various technical challenges that still need to be overcome.

In this article:

  • Stem Cells as Therapeutics
  • Totipotent, Pluripotent, and Multipotent
  • iPS Cells: Therapeutic Potential Limited
  • Direct Reprogramming of Autologous Multipotent Stem Cells
  • Direct Cell Reprogramming | In vitro better than in vivo
  • Autologous Reprogrammed Cells Better than Allogeneic Cells
  • Direct Reprogramming Definition
  • Fortuna Fix | Direct Reprogramming Company

Stem Cells as Therapeutics: Will Direct Reprogramming Make it Possible?

To explain direct reprogramming, we need to go back to the beginning.

The cell is the basic building block of all living organisms and the human body is composed of trillions of cells. They provide structure for the body, take in nutrients from food, convert those nutrients into energy, and carry out specialized functions. These functionalities are determined by the genes that are expressed in that particular cell.

All cells in the body contain the same genes (~22,000), but only certain ones are “expressed” in each particular cell, making the proteins that determine the functions of that cell.

A group of different cells working together to fulfill a function constitutes a tissue (e.g., neurons-astrocytes-oligodendrocytes working synergistically constitute neuronal tissue). A group of tissues working together to fulfill a bodily function constitutes an organ (e.g., the brain or the spinal cord). Finally, a concerted group of organs are re-grouped in a system (e.g. the brain and spinal cord constitute the Central Nervous System).

If cells make tissues, organs and systems, then what makes cells?

Stages of Development: Totipotent, Pluripotent, and Multipotent cells

At the beginning of human life when the sperm fertilizes the egg, totipotent cells are born of the zygote. They possess the ability to become anything (placenta and embryo) and are present in such form up to the 16-cell stage (i.e., within the first couple of cell divisions after fertilization, up to 4 days post fertilisation).  Following this stage of totipotency, as the number of cells increases, pluripotent cells emerge.

Pluripotent cells retain the ability to make any cell of the embryo (embryonic stem cells are pluripotent), but lose the ability to become placenta.

After 3 weeks post fertilisation, pluripotent cells begin to organize themselves into 3 germ layers (Ectoderm, Mesoderm, and Endoderm) and progressively differentiate towards a more defined state. Pluripotent stem cells have attracted significant attention since Yamanaka was able to reprogram “mature” fibroblasts (skin cells) to pluripotent stem cells (induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells).[1] This pioneering work led Yamanaka to receive the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2012.

However, iPS cells were abandoned by most scientific investigators as therapeutic candidates themselves, given their poor safety profile. (They go back to a pluripotent state, and in addition to the desired tissue, also form unwanted teratomas, which are rapidly growing tumors containing cells of all three germ layers). In fact, significant efforts have gone into attempting to differentiate these iPS cells into multipotent stem cells that are safe and potent therapeutic cell candidates.

Multipotent stem cells are specialized stem cells differentiated from one of the three germ layers, but restricted within a specific lineage. Each type of multipotent stem cell makes the specialized somatic cells of its lineage: for example, a neural stem cell is a multipotent stem cell that originates in the ectodermal germ layer and is the only multipotent stem cell that has the ability to make neurons, astrocytes and oligodendrocytes (and thus, neuronal tissue), and does not have the ability to form any other tissue.

Totipotent Pluripotent Multipotent

iPS Cells: Therapeutic Potential Limited by Safety, Potency, and Cost Issues

iPS cells promised to be a boon for regenerative medicine. Researchers could take a person’s skin, blood, or other cells, reprogram them into iPS cells, and then use those to grow liver cells, neurons, or whatever was needed to treat a disease. This personalized therapy would get around the risk of immune rejection, and sidestep the ethical concerns of using cells derived from embryos and fetuses.

Unfortunately, the reality has been very different. Producing autologous iPS cell derived multipotent stem cells at a scale that can be used for clinical purposes has proved to be very difficult, time consuming, and costly. The only clinical trial using autologous iPS cell multipotent stem cells was halted in 2015 after only one person had received a treatment. As the lab prepared to treat the second trial participant, Yamanaka’s team identified two small genetic changes in both the patient’s iPS cells and the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells derived from them.

There was no evidence that either mutation was associated with tumor formation, yet “to be on the safe side,” the trial was put on hold. In June 2016, the trial resumed, but was switched to allogeneic, rather than autologous cells, presumably for purposes of cost and time efficiency, as well as safety.  Thus, 10 years on from the discovery of iPS cells, iPS cells are no longer viewed as the key source of therapeutic cell candidates. They have become an important tool for modelling and investigating human diseases, as well as for screening drugs.

iPS cells have become a lab workhorse — providing an unlimited supply of once-inaccessible human tissues with specific genetic mutations for research. 

Direct Reprogramming of Autologous Multipotent Stem Cells

Today, autologous multipotent stem cell therapy is regarded by many as the “Holy Grail” for regenerating and replacing damaged, lost, or aged cells in organs. Bone marrow and fat (adipose) stem cells are effective therapeutic multipotent stem cells for replacing bone, cartilage and fat cells. However, they do not have the ability to replace cells in other organs, where cells are derived from other lineages.

Direct cell reprogramming is uniquely designed to allow a patient’s cell to “jump” directly to the specialized multipotent stem cell of choice, thus tailor-making autologous multipotent stem cells needed to repair a damaged or diseased organ.

Instead of making pluripotent stem cells from a patient’s cells and differentiating them to multipotent stem cells over an extended period of time, direct cell reprogramming produces directly the specialized multipotent stem cell of choice, solving the safety, high cost, and time constraints associated with iPS cells.

Direct Cell Reprogramming Diagram

Direct Cell Reprogramming | In vitro better than in vivo

The main approach for direct cell reprogramming is based on in vitro reprogramming of harvested somatic cells from an accessible source (blood, skin, or bone marrow) to the specialized multipotent stem cell type of choice, according to the indication or disease (i.e. a neural stem cell for CNS conditions, a cardiac stem cell for heart disease, etc.). This approach relies on using transcription factors and chromatin remodeling agents to permanently alter the expression patterns of the cells, locking them into their new multipotent stem cell state of choice.

The key to ultimate clinical success with this approach involves selecting the most relevant cell subtype(s) for reprogramming, refraining from using genetic manipulation or viral vectors for changing the gene expression pattern, and achieving stable reprogramming.

A second approach being investigated (chemically induced direct reprogramming) relies on using small molecules in vivo (drugs directly in patients) to induce cell-lineage reprogramming. Such a strategy could be cost-effective and might sound attractive. However, specific targeting of systemically administered small molecule drugs to specific cells/tissues (without affecting other cells or parts of the body) is still many years away.

Even after decades of research by pharmaceutical firms, targeted drug delivery remains a key problem for the industry. Hence, in vivo this approach would raise significant safety concerns, because the drugs could result in widespread effects (e.g. turning many or most of the cells within the body into neurons).

Directly reprogrammed multipotent stem cells are destined to be lineage-restricted stem cells that regenerate and grow defined tissues of their specific lineage.

Definition direct cell reprogramming

They provide “new seeds” that can actually re-grow the targeted damaged tissue or organ. (This unique feature is sometimes confused with the pluripotent stem cells that do not possess this feature, but instead can differentiate into some unwanted cell types too). This restricted ability also means that the right type of stem cell can and should be used in the particular tissue or organ to be treated. For example, hematopoietic or mesenchymal stem cells have limited regenerative and no cell replacement abilities if implanted into the CNS, whereas neural stem cells are the cells that have been evolved for this specific purpose.

General lack of awareness surrounding this feature has resulted in confusion, whereby for example, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been implanted into numerous unrelated tissues (e.g. the brain), and this has resulted in, as expected, limited beneficial effects. This approach can also be harmful, as one patient that received these MSCs injected into her eye actually started growing bone inside her eye.

Autologous, Young Reprogrammed Cells Better than Allogeneic Cells

For any stem cell to correctly, efficiently, and permanently replace cells in a patient’s tissue, the stem cell has to be of the correct lineage and autologous (the patient’s own cell in the right organ or tissue), and adequately “young” to be able to do the job. So far, this has not happened within the stem cell field. The only exception to this is hematopoietic stem cell grafts (bone marrow transplants) that have been performed since the 1960s to support the cure of blood diseases, such as leukemia, a rare example of where allogeneic stem cells can be used.

The procedure is more akin to a full organ transplant than to cell therapy, as the entire hematopoietic system is replaced after irradiation (killing off) of the patient’s old hematopoietic system. In the process, the white cells that would normally reject an allogeneic graft are killed off too.

Of course, this irradiation of the “native” tissue cannot be done for tissue such as the brain. It is important to note that even with closely matched hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) transplants, the success rate of these procedures is often less than 20%, even after more than 50 years of clinical refinement. As a comparison, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants (from cord blood) have had no graft failures. Still, this partial exception of hematopoietic stem cell transplants has unfortunately caused confusion about the abilities of other donor stem cells to avoid rejection.

For example, there is a perception that other types of donor stem cells will adequately graft into a patient if the patient is on immunosuppressants or if the particular type of somatic stem cells has a very low immune signature (as is, for example, the case with mesenchymal stem cells). The reality is that although these strategies allow donor stem cells to survive in the patient’s body for a period of time without being fully detected by the patient’s immune system, they are still ultimately killed off. In addition, any immunosuppressive regimen can cause serious side effects in patients.

As more is understood about the mechanisms of direct cell reprogramming, their specialized manufacturing, and the importance of autologous lineage-restricted stem cells, these unique multipotent stem cells have the potential to drive regenerative medicine into the clinic around the world and compliment small molecule drugs, proteins, oligonucleotides and medical devices, in tomorrow’s medical portfolio. This is good news for patients afflicted with some of the most challenging diseases and injuries, as well as for society at large, which is crumbling under the cost of chronic care management.

Direct Reprogramming Definition

Direct cell reprogramming is defined as in vitro (laboratory) reprogramming of somatic cells into other cell types without the need for an intermediate pluripotent state.

Transdifferentiation (Definition): Direct reprogramming can also be called transdifferentiation, which is the direct conversion of one differentiated cell type into another. The process does not require an intermediate pluripotent state or progenitor cell to be created.

Fortuna Fix | Direct Reprogramming Company

Fortuna Fix is perhaps the best example of a company specializing in direct reprogramming technologies. It is a private, clinical-stage company that “aims to be the first to bring to the clinic a patient’s own neural stem cells produced by direct reprogramming (“drNPCs”) to replace lost neuronal tissue in neurodegeneration and neurotrauma.”

In 2017, Amgen Ventures entered the regenerative medicine market for the first time, joining a USD $25 million Series B financing round raised by Fortuna Fix. Fortuna is using these funds to conduct Phase I/IIa clinical trials in Parkinson’s Disease and Spinal Cord Injury.

Learn More About Direct Reprogramming

If you found this blog valuable, subscribe to BioInformant’s stem cell industry updates.

Do you have questions about direct reprogramming? Ask them in the comments below.

Up Next: The Future of Stem Cell Therapeutics – Balancing Safety and Efficacy

|1. Cell. 2006 Aug 25;126(4):663-76. Epub 2006 Aug 10. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S.

5 / 5 ( 18 votes )

Filed Under: Stem Cells Tagged With: cell therapy, direct cell reprogramming, iPSC, multipotent, pluripotent, totipotent

Related

About Cade Hildreth (CEO)

Cade Hildreth is the Founder of BioInformant.com, the world's largest publisher of stem cell industry news. Cade is a media expert on stem cells, recently interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Business Journal, Xconomy, and Vogue Magazine. 

Comments

  1. Alan J. Bauman, M.D. says

    December 16, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Cade, Great post! You said “Today, autologous multipotent stem cell therapy is regarded by many as the “Holy Grail” for regenerating and replacing damaged, lost, or aged cells in organs. Bone marrow and fat (adipose) stem cells are effective therapeutic multipotent stem cells for replacing bone, cartilage and fat cells. However, they do not have the ability to replace cells in other organs, where cells are derived from other lineages…” But, isn’t it true that researchers are telling us that these MSCs primarily *orchestrate* the regeneration of tissue, but do not incorporate into the tissue or organ as their primary mode of action–or am I wrong? I seem to remember some research presented at WSCS this year that only 5% of the MSCs in some autologous stem cell studies incorporated into the regenerated tissue. Thoughts? Sincerely, Dr. Bauman

    • Cade Hildreth (CEO) says

      December 19, 2016 at 2:12 pm

      Many thanks, Dr. Bauman. To regenerate damaged or diseased tissue, the therapeutic stem cells have to be of the same lineage as the tissue they aim to regenerate/repair. Mesenchymal stem cells will provide fertiliser (growth factors etc.) that will help repair tissue of a different lineage, but they will not provide the seeds (new cells) to regenerate tissue. In some cases, that may be enough. But for optimal regeneration, you need autologous multipotent stem cells or progenitor cells of the right lineage/tissue type.

  2. CLIFFORD THORNTON says

    December 21, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    Cade – This is a very insightful, informative, and thought-provoking article. It’s great that you crossected the related science with patient implications and market forces. In speaking with physicians, I am seeing that there is not strong consensus with regards to the best approach to do stem cell therapies. But, you pointing to the autologous approach as the “Gold Standard” or “Holy Grail” is consistent with what these physicians have communicated to me. I’ve worked in many fields, including telecommunications, healthcare diagnostics, and the U.S. military. With every field there are standards or “best practices” for each procedure, operation, or manufacturing process. Given this, it seems to me that a universally accepted standard for stem cell treatments is needed. Perhaps there is a need for a world conference on this matter for the medical/scientific community to come together and define, document, and certify the best approaches, techniques, and procedures for stem cell treatments. Perhaps this is in the works or has happened in some form, but clearly there is a need for further discussion, collaboration, and standard setting. Thanks for this valuable update!

  3. Mike W. Byrom says

    December 26, 2016 at 11:15 am

    Cade – Thank you for this article. It is well researched and well written. You mentioned that “autologous multipotent stem cell therapy is the Holy Grail…” and I completely agree with this statement. The research is showing amazing success results in patients using autologous multipotent Mesenchymal stem cells. You also mentioned bone marrow and adipose tissue as sources for these cells however you missed one very important source which is teeth. The reason this is important to your article is that the functional ability of MSC’s derived from different places in the body are not identical and the cells derived from children’s deciduous teeth have been proven superior to the cells obtained from other sources. The success of regenerative medicine relies primarily on the functionality and health of the starting material so better starting material is very important. It is also important to note that every single person loses their baby teeth naturally thereby providing an accessible supply without an invasive harvest procedure.

    You also said; “Bone marrow and fat (adipose) stem cells are effective therapeutic multipotent stem cells for replacing bone, cartilage and fat cells. However, they do not have the ability to replace cells in other organs, where cells are derived from other lineages.” It is well established that MSC’s are able to direct the repair of non-related tissue and also to be able to differentiate into some tissues of non-mesenchymal lineage. Two examples of this are their ability to form different types of nerve cells and to form insulin secreting cells, both of which have been used in human patients.

    There is a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done before clinicians know the best methods of utilizing this material to improve patient health. However, there are some amazing success stories out there already proving that MSC’s can be safely used in human patients and that they just may be that “Holy Grail” of medicine we are searching for.

    • Cade Hildreth (CEO) says

      January 8, 2017 at 7:34 pm

      Great comment, Dr. Byrom. Dental pulp is definitely a valuable source of MSCs, in addition to bone marrow and adipose tissue. Thank you for highlighting the advantages of MSCs from deciduous teeth. There are some publications showing that MSCs (and some other cells) can transdifferentiate into insulin-secreting cells and into potential neurons. However, they do not possess all the characteristics of beta cells and neurons, are generally maintained by forced expression of factors in the media that they are grown in, and will revert back to MSCs (or their bone, cartilage and/or adipose cells) when they are placed back into MSC media (or media for bone, cartilage and/or adipose cells). The cells are, thus, not true beta cells or neurons. Their efficacy and ability to maintain their state long-term has also not been shown in well-controlled human trials. Remember also that bone marrow contains, for example, a small number of neural crest cells and other cells types that were confused with MSCs in early publications.

      Of course, it is possible to turn MSCs (and other cell types) into beta cells or neural stem cells and neurons via the new technology of direct reprogramming, which is the subject matter of some recent publications that are very interesting.

      There are many interesting opportunities for stem cell therapeutics, positioning us at an exciting point in history.

  4. Mike Garber says

    December 30, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    Dr. Bauman, you are right, if well “Bone marrow and fat (adipose) stem cells are effective therapeutic multipotent stem cells for replacing bone, cartilage and fat cells. However, they do not have the ability to replace functional cells in other organs, but stem cell can replace the organ not functional (mechenquymal) tissue where cells are derived from other lineages”, the success effect is for mesenchymal stem cells paracrine function and cell to cell contact.

Let’s Get Social

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn

Nanocellect

Aspire

Marathon Products

Cellevate

Perinatal Stem cell Society

Menu
  • Blog
  • News
  • Press Releases
  • Stem Cells
    • HSCs
    • iPS Cells
    • MSCs
    • Neural Stem Cells
    • Adipose SCs
  • Exosomes
  • Cell Therapy
    • CAR-T
  • Cord Blood
  • Interviews

Cart

Featured Posts

Adaptimmune RMAT

Adaptimmune Receives RMAT Designation for ADP-A2M4 for Synovial Sarcoma

Feature | CAR-T Cell Therapy | What You Need To Know

What is CAR-T Cell Therapy? | CAR-T Definition

CAR T Cell Therapy

CAR-T Cell Therapy Attracts Vast Sums of Money

My Tweets

BioInformant's World-Class Clients

  • Submit Press Release
  • Advertise
  • Disclaimer

Copyright © 2019 · BIOINFORMANT, Your Global Leader in Stem Cell Market Research

| Email: [email protected] | Phone: 703-859-7617 |

800 Corporate Drive, Suite 301, Stafford, VA 22554, United States

Disclaimer: All statements made on this website are NOT expressed as medical claims or advice. They are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease or condition. If you have a health condition or concern, consult your physician or health care provider.