iPS and ES Cells: Do Both Roads Lead to Rome?



Valerie Y.Ng, Andre B.H.Choo*
Stem Cell Group, Bioprocessing Technology Institute, 20 Biopolis Way #06-01 Centros 138668, Singapore.


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
0
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 144
Abstract HTML Views: 94
PDF Downloads: 66
Total Views/Downloads: 304
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 90
Abstract HTML Views: 77
PDF Downloads: 55
Total Views/Downloads: 222



© B.H.Choo et al.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Stem Cell Group, Bioprocessing Technology Institute, 20 Biopolis Way #06-01 Centros 138668, Singapore. andre_choo@bti.a-star.edu.sg


Abstract

The seminal report from Takahashi and Yamanka in 2006 describing the reprogramming of somatic cells to induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells [1] marked the beginning of a new field of research, resulting in hundreds of publications in a short 3 years. Among other things, the promise of iPS cells in cell therapy circumvents many of the ethical concerns associated with embryonic stem (ES) cell research, and autologous patient-specific cells can be generated. Nonetheless, the jury is still out on the extent to which iPS cells and ES cells are functionally equivalent. This review focuses on the genetic and functional comparisons between these two cells types.

Keywords:: Embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, antibodies, differentiation, insulin, cardiomyocyte, motorneurons, dopaminergic neurons, hepatocytes, hematopoeitic cells, retinal pigmented epithelium cells.