- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Dynamical systems theory of cellular reprogramming

Yuuki Matsushita, Tetsuhiro S. Hatakeyama, and Kunihiko Kaneko*

  • Department of Basic Science, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan

  • *kaneko@complex.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 4, L022008 – Published 12 April, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L022008

Abstract

In cellular reprogramming, almost all epigenetic memories of differentiated cells are erased by the overexpression of a few genes, resulting in regaining pluripotency, the potential for differentiation. Considering the interplay between oscillatory gene expression and slower epigenetic modifications, such reprogramming is perceived as an unintuitive, global attraction to the unstable manifold of a saddle, which represents pluripotency. The universality of this scheme is confirmed by the repressilator model and by gene regulatory networks that are randomly generated and extracted from embryonic stem cells.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (73)

  1. C. Waddington, The Strategy of the Genes (George Allen & Unwin, London, 1957).
  2. A. Bird, Perceptions of epigenetics, Nature (London) 447, 396 (2007).
  3. A. D. Goldberg, C. D. Allis, and E. Bernstein, Epigenetics: A landscape takes shape, Cell 128, 635 (2007).
  4. R. Cortini, M. Barbi, B. R. Caré, C. Lavelle, A. Lesne, J. Mozziconacci, and J.-M. Victor, The physics of epigenetics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 025002 (2016).
  5. M. A. Surani, K. Hayashi, and P. Hajkova, Genetic and epigenetic regulators of pluripotency, Cell 128, 747 (2007).
  6. E. Meshorer, D. Yellajoshula, E. George, P. J. Scambler, D. T. Brown, and T. Misteli, Hyperdynamic plasticity of chromatin proteins in pluripotent embryonic stem cells, Dev. Cell 10, 105 (2006).
  7. Y. Atlasi and H. G. Stunnenberg, The interplay of epigenetic marks during stem cell dierentiation and development, Nat. Rev. Genet. 18, 643 (2017).
  8. T. S. Mikkelsen, M. Ku, D. B. Jaffe, B. Issac, E. Lieberman, G. Giannoukos, P. Alvarez, W. Brockman, T.-K. Kim, R. P. Koche et al., Genome-wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage-committed cells, Nature (London) 448, 553 (2007).
  9. K. Tripathi and G. I. Menon, Chromatin Compaction, Auxeticity, and the Epigenetic Landscape of Stem Cells, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041020 (2019).
  10. S. Levenberg, J. S. Golub, M. Amit, J. Itskovitz-Eldor, and R. Langer, Endothelial cells derived from human embryonic stem cells, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 4391 (2002).
  11. K. Takahashi and S. Yamanaka, Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors, Cell 126, 663 (2006).
  12. K. Takahashi and S. Yamanaka, A decade of transcription factor-mediated reprogramming to pluripotency, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 17, 183 (2016).
  13. K. Hochedlinger and K. Plath, Epigenetic reprogramming and induced pluripotency, Development 136, 509 (2009).
  14. S. Velychko, K. Adachi, K.-P. Kim, Y. Hou, C. M. MacCarthy, G. Wu, and H. R. Schöler, Excluding Oct4 from Yamanaka Cocktail unleashes the developmental potential of iPSCs, Cell Stem Cell 25, 737 (2019).
  15. S. A. Kauffman, Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets, J. Theor. Biol. 22, 437 (1969).
  16. J. Wang, L. Xu, E. Wang, and S. Huang, The potential landscape of genetic circuits imposes the arrow of time in stem cell dierentiation, Biophys. J. 99, 29 (2010).
  17. G. Forgacs and S. A. Newman, Biological Physics of the Developing Embryo (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005).
  18. I. Palmeirim, D. Henrique, D. Ish-Horowicz, and O. Pourquié, Avian hairy gene expression identifies a molecular clock linked to vertebrate segmentation and somitogenesis, Cell 91, 639 (1997).
  19. T. Kobayashi, H. Mizuno, I. Imayoshi, C. Furusawa, K. Shirahige, and R. Kageyama, The cyclic gene Hes1 contributes to diverse differentiation responses of embryonic stem cells, Genes Dev. 23, 1870 (2009).
  20. M. A. Canham, A. A. Sharov, M. S. Ko, and J. M. Brickman, Functional heterogeneity of embryonic stem cells revealed through translational amplification of an early endodermal transcript, PLoS Biol. 8, e1000379 (2010).
  21. A. M. Arias and J. M. Brickman, Gene expression heterogeneities in embryonic stem cell populations: Origin and function, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 23, 650 (2011).
  22. K. B. Halpern, S. Tanami, S. Landen, M. Chapal, L. Szlak, A. Hutzler, A. Nizhberg, and S. Itzkovitz, Bursty gene expression in the intact mammalian liver, Mol. Cell 58, 147 (2015).
  23. J. Zhang, Q. Nie, and T. Zhou, Revealing dynamic mechanisms of cell fate decisions from single-cell transcriptomic data, Front. Genet. 10, 1280 (2019).
  24. E. Marinopoulou, V. Biga, N. Sabherwal, A. Miller, J. Desai, A. D. Adamson, and N. Papalopulu, Hes1 protein oscillations are necessary for neural stem cells to exit from quiescence, iScience 24, 103198 (2021).
  25. Y. Zhang, I. Lahmann, K. Baum, H. Shimojo, P. Mourikis, J. Wolf, R. Kageyama, and C. Birchmeier, Oscillations of delta-like1 regulate the balance between dierentiation and maintenance of muscle stem cells, Nat. Commun. 12, 1318 (2021).
  26. C. Furusawa and K. Kaneko, A dynamical-systems view of stem cell biology, Science 338, 215 (2012).
  27. E. Ullner, A. Koseska, J. Kurths, E. Volkov, H. Kantz, and J. García-Ojalvo, Multistability of synthetic genetic networks with repressive cell-to-cell communication, Phys. Rev. E 78, 031904 (2008).
  28. A. Koseska, E. Ullner, E. Volkov, J. Kurths, and J. García-Ojalvo, Cooperative differentiation through clustering in multicellular populations, J. Theor. Biol. 263, 189 (2010).
  29. N. Suzuki, C. Furusawa, and K. Kaneko, Oscillatory protein expression dynamics endows stem cells with robust differentiation potential, PLoS ONE 6, e27232 (2011).
  30. A. Koseska, E. Volkov, and J. Kurths, Transition from Amplitude to Oscillation Death Via Turing Bifurcation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 024103 (2013).
  31. Y. Goto and K. Kaneko, Minimal model for stem-cell differentiation, Phys. Rev. E 88, 032718 (2013).
  32. T. Miyamoto, C. Furusawa, and K. Kaneko, Pluripotency, differentiation, and reprogramming: A gene expression dynamics model with epigenetic feedback regulation, PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004476 (2015).
  33. S. Pauklin and L. Vallier, The cell-cycle state of stem cells determines cell fate propensity, Cell 155, 135 (2013).
  34. A. Soufi and S. Dalton, Cycling through developmental decisions: how cell cycle dynamics control pluripotency, dierentiation and reprogramming, Development 143, 4301 (2016).
  35. S. Rulands, H. J. Lee, S. J. Clark, C. Angermueller, S. A. Smallwood, F. Krueger, H. Mohammed, W. Dean, J. Nichols, P. Rugg-Gunn et al., Genome-scale oscillations in dna methylation during exit from pluripotency, Cell Syst. 7, 63 (2018).
  36. S. Kangaspeska, B. Stride, R. Métivier, M. Polycarpou-Schwarz, D. Ibberson, R. P. Carmouche, V. Benes, F. Gannon, and G. Reid, Transient cyclical methylation of promoter DNA, Nature (London) 452, 112 (2008).
  37. E. Mjolsness, D. H. Sharp, and J. Reinitz, A connectionist model of development, J. Theor. Biol. 152, 429 (1991).
  38. I. Salazar-Ciudad, J. Garcia-Fernández, and R. V. Solé, Gene networks capable of pattern formation: From induction to reaction–diffusion, J. Theor. Biol. 205, 587 (2000).
  39. I. Salazar-Ciudad, S. Newman, and R. Solé, Phenotypic and dynamical transitions in model genetic networks I. Emergence of patterns and genotype-phenotype relationships, Evol. Dev. 3, 84 (2001).
  40. S. Huang, G. Eichler, YaneerBar-Yam, and D. E. Ingber, Cell Fates as High-Dimensional Attractor States of a Complex Gene Regulatory Network, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 128701 (2005).
  41. K. Kaneko, Evolution of robustness to noise and mutation in gene expression dynamics, PLoS ONE 2, e434 (2007).
  42. R. S. Illingworth, J. J. Hölzenspies, F. V. Roske, W. A. Bickmore, and J. M. Brickman, Polycomb enables primitive endoderm lineage priming in embryonic stem cells, eLife 5, e14926 (2016).
  43. M. I. Kuroda, H. Kang, S. De, and J. A. Kassis, Dynamic competition of polycomb and trithorax in transcriptional programming, Annu. Rev. Biochem. 89, 235 (2020).
  44. G. J. Hickey, C. L. Wike, X. Nie, Y. Guo, M. Tan, P. J. Murphy, and B. R. Cairns, Establishment of developmental gene silencing by ordered polycomb complex recruitment in early zebrafish embryos, eLife 11, e67738 (2022).
  45. Although we adopted a symmetric function, the result to be discussed would not have changed if asymmetric functions, including the Hill function, were introduced.
  46. S. Hihara, C.-G. Pack, K. Kaizu, T. Tani, T. Hanafusa, T. Nozaki, S. Takemoto, T. Yoshimi, H. Yokota, N. Imamoto et al., Local nucleosome dynamics facilitate chromatin accessibility in living mammalian cells, Cell Rep. 2, 1645 (2012).
  47. M. Grunstein, Yeast heterochromatin: Regulation of its assembly and inheritance by histones, Cell 93, 325 (1998).
  48. S. L. Schreiber and B. E. Bernstein, Signaling network model of chromatin, Cell 111, 771 (2002).
  49. I. B. Dodd, M. A. Micheelsen, K. Sneppen, and G. Thon, Theoretical analysis of epigenetic cell memory by nucleosome modification, Cell 129, 813 (2007).
  50. K. Sneppen, M. A. Micheelsen, and I. B. Dodd, Ultrasensitive gene regulation by positive feedback loops in nucleosome modification, Mol. Syst. Biol. 4, 182 (2008).
  51. A. Angel, J. Song, C. Dean, and M. Howard, A polycomb-based switch underlying quantitative epigenetic memory, Nature (London) 476, 105 (2011).
  52. J. C. Spainhour, H. S. Lim, S. V. Yi, and P. Qiu, Correlation patterns between DNA methylation and gene expression in the cancer genome atlas, Cancer Inf. 18 (2019).
  53. C. Furusawa and K. Kaneko, Epigenetic feedback regulation accelerates adaptation and evolution, PLoS ONE 8, e61251 (2013).
  54. S. Gombar, T. MacCarthy, and A. Bergman, Epigenetics decouples mutational from environmental robustness. did it also facilitate multicellularity? PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003450 (2014).
  55. B. Huang, M. Lu, M. Galbraith, H. Levine, J. N. Onuchic, and D. Jia, Decoding the mechanisms underlying cell-fate decision-making during stem cell dierentiation by random circuit perturbation, J. R. Soc. Interface 17, 20200500 (2020).
  56. T. K. Barth and A. Imhof, Fast signals and slow marks: The dynamics of histone modifications, Trends Biochem. Sci. 35, 618 (2010).
  57. K. Maeshima, K. Kaizu, S. Tamura, T. Nozaki, T. Kokubo, and K. Takahashi, The physical size of transcription factors is key to transcriptional regulation in chromatin domains, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 27, 064116 (2015).
  58. M. Sasai, Y. Kawabata, K. Makishi, K. Itoh, and T. P. Terada, Time scales in epigenetic dynamics and phenotypic heterogeneity of embryonic stem cells, PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003380 (2013).
  59. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L022008 for derivations, detailed discussions, and figures.
  60. M. B. Elowitz and S. Leibler, A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators, Nature (London) 403, 335 (2000).
  61. Here, we can approximate the θi value of three fixed points to 1 or −1, as we use a sufficiently large value of β (=40).
  62. Considering positive/negative symmetry, six attractors exist in the whole space. In this Letter, we only considered the side ∑θi>0.
  63. Y. Matsushita and K. Kaneko, Homeorhesis in Waddington's landscape by epigenetic feedback regulation, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 023083 (2020).
  64. Thus, one may suspect that the reprogramming efficiency is rather low. However, this limitation could be due to technical problems in experiments for the efficient overexpression of genes. In fact, this efficiency has been increasing through advances in experimental techniques [72, 73].
  65. S.-J. Dunn, G. Martello, B. Yordanov, S. Emmott, and A. Smith, Defining an essential transcription factor program for naive pluripotency, Science 344, 1156 (2014).
  66. In the previous work [32], a specific five-gene model with a complicated epigenetic process and cell-cell interaction was numerically studied to indicate reprogramming is possible by the overexpression of Yamanaka factors. Thus, neither analysis nor elucidation for a general mechanism for reprogramming was available. However, the present Letter presents the mechanism for cellular reprogramming as a result of the global attraction toward the pluripotent state, based on the dynamical systems theory for fast gene expression dynamics and slower epigenetic modification.
  67. Sox2 is reduced into Nanog in the five-gene model.
  68. D. A. Rand, A. Raju, M. Sáez, F. Corson, and E. D. Siggia, Geometry of gene regulatory dynamics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2109729118(2021).
  69. H. Aoki and K. Kaneko, Slow Stochastic Switching by Collective Chaos of Fast Elements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 144102 (2013).
  70. C. Kuehn, Multiple Time Scale Dynamics, Applied Mathematical Sciences Vol. 191 (Springer, Cham, 2015).
  71. B. Roy, L. Yuan, Y. Lee, A. Bharti, A. Mitra, and G. Shivashankar, Fibroblast rejuvenation by mechanical reprogramming and redifferentiation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 10131 (2020).
  72. Y. Zhao, X. Yin, H. Qin, F. Zhu, H. Liu, W. Yang, Q. Zhang, C. Xiang, P. Hou, Z. Song et al., Two supporting factors greatly improve the efficiency of human ipsc generation, Cell Stem Cell 3, 475 (2008).
  73. A. Kunitomi, S. Yuasa, F. Sugiyama, Y. Saito, T. Seki, D. Kusumoto, S. Kashimura, M. Takei, S. Tohyama, H. Hashimoto et al., H1foo has a pivotal role in qualifying induced pluripotent stem cells, Stem Cell Rep. 6, 825 (2016).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 4, L022008– Published 12 April, 2022
  • Received 2 September 2021
  • Accepted 22 March 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation