We use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse this site, you accept our cookie policy.×
Skip main navigation
Open Drawer MenuClose Drawer Menu
Aging Health
Bioelectronics in Medicine
Biomarkers in Medicine
Breast Cancer Management
CNS Oncology
Colorectal Cancer
Concussion
Epigenomics
Future Cardiology
Future Medicine AI
Future Microbiology
Future Neurology
Future Oncology
Future Rare Diseases
Future Virology
Hepatic Oncology
HIV Therapy
Immunotherapy
International Journal of Endocrine Oncology
International Journal of Hematologic Oncology
Journal of 3D Printing in Medicine
Lung Cancer Management
Melanoma Management
Nanomedicine
Neurodegenerative Disease Management
Pain Management
Pediatric Health
Personalized Medicine
Pharmacogenomics
Regenerative Medicine
Special Report

Regulatory considerations for the development of autologous induced pluripotent stem cell therapies

    Melissa K Carpenter

    † Author for correspondence

    Carpenter Group Consulting, Inc., CA, USA.

    Search for more papers by this author

    Email the corresponding author at m_carpenter@mac.com

    &
    Larry A Couture

    Center for Applied Technology Development, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA

    Search for more papers by this author

    Published Online:15 Jul 2010https://doi.org/10.2217/rme.10.55

    Abstract

    Induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells offer tremendous opportunity for the creation of autologous cellular therapies, in which gene correction or the avoidance of immune response issues are desirable. In addition, iPS cells avoid the ethical concerns raised by the sourcing of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) from embryos. iPS cells share many characteristics with hESCs and it is anticipated that existing experience with hESCs will translate to rapid progress in moving iPS cell-derived products toward clinical trials. While the potential clinical value for these products is considerable, the nature of current manufacturing paradigms for autologous iPS cell products raises considerable regulatory concerns. Here, the regulatory challenges posed by autologous iPS cell-derived products are examined. We conclude that there will be considerable regulatory concerns primarily relating to reproducibility of the manufacturing process and safety testing within clinically limited time constraints. Demonstrating safety of the final cell product in an autologous setting will be the single greatest obstacle to progressing autologous iPS cell-based therapies into the clinic.

    Bibliography

    • 1  Yu J, Thomson JA: Pluripotent stem cell lines. Genes Dev.22(15),1987–1997 (2008).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 2  Thomson JA, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro SS et al.: Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science282(5391),1145–1147 (1998).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 3  Murry CE, Keller G: Differentiation of embryonic stem cells to clinically relevant populations: lessons from embryonic development. Cell132(4),661–680 (2008).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 4  Crook J, Peura T, Kravets L et al.: The generation of six clinical-grade human embryonic stem cell lines. Cell Stem Cell1(5),490–494 (2007).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 5  Zarzeczny A, Caulfield T: Emerging ethical, legal and social issues associated with stem cell research and the current role of the moral status of the embryo. Stem Cell Rev.5(2),96–101 (2009).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6  Rao M, Condic ML: Alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells: scientific solutions to an ethical dilemma. Stem Cells Dev.17(1),1–10 (2008).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 7  Hanna J, Wernig M, Markoulaki S et al.: Treatment of sickle cell anemia mouse model with iPS cells generated from autologous skin. Science318(5858),1920–1923 (2007).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 8  Kazuki Y, Hiratsuka M, Takiguchi M et al.: Complete genetic correction of iPS cells from duchenne muscular dystrophy. Mol. Ther.18(2),386–393 (2009).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 9  Condic ML, Rao M: Regulatory issues for personalized pluripotent cells. Stem Cells26(11),2753–2758 (2008).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 10  Carpenter MK, Frey-Vasconcells J, Rao MS: Developing safe therapies from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol.27(7),606–613 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 11  Hentze H, Graichen R, Colman A: Cell therapy and the safety of embryonic stem cell-derived grafts. Trends Biotechnol.25(1),24–32 (2007).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 12  Preti RA: Bringing safe and effective cell therapies to the bedside. Nat. Biotechnol.23(7),801–804 (2005).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 13  Yu J, Vodyanik MA, Smuga-Otto K et al.: Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science318(5858),1917–1920 (2007).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 14  Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M et al.: Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell131(5),861–872 (2007).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 15  Aasen T, Raya A, Barrero MJ et al.: Efficient and rapid generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from human keratinocytes. Nat. Biotechnol.26(11),1276–1284 (2008).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 16  Loh YH, Agarwal S, Park IH et al.: Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from human blood. Blood113(22),5476–5479 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 17  Lee TH, Song SH, Kim KL et al.: Functional recapitulation of smooth muscle cells via induced pluripotent stem cells from human aortic smooth muscle cells. Circ. Res.106(1),120–128 (2010).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 18  Sun N, Panetta NJ, Gupta DM et al.: Feeder-free derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells from adult human adipose stem cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA106(37),15720–15725 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 19  Giorgetti A, Montserrat N, Aasen T et al.: Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from human cord blood using OCT4 and SOX2. Cell Stem Cell5(4),353–357 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 20  Aoi T, Yae K, Nakagawa M et al.: Generation of pluripotent stem cells from adult mouse liver and stomach cells. Science321(5889),699–702 (2008).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 21  Eminli S, Foudi A, Stadtfeld M et al.: Differentiation stage determines potential of hematopoietic cells for reprogramming into induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Genet.41(9),968–976 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 22  Kim JB, Zaehres H, Wu G et al.: Pluripotent stem cells induced from adult neural stem cells by reprogramming with two factors. Nature454(7204),646–650 (2008).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 23  Lin T, Ambasudhan R, Yuan X et al.: A chemical platform for improved induction of human iPSCs. Nat. Methods6(11),805–808 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 24  Chin MH, Mason MJ, Xie W et al.: Induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells are distinguished by gene expression signatures. Cell Stem Cell5(1),111–123 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 25  Maherali N, Hochedlinger K: Guidelines and techniques for the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell3(6),595–605 (2008).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 26  Jaenisch R, Young R: Stem cells, the molecular circuitry of pluripotency and nuclear reprogramming. Cell132(4),567–582 (2008).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 27  Takahashi K, Yamanaka S: Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell126(4),663–676 (2006).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 28  Hacein-Bey-Abina S, Garrigue A, Wang GP et al.: Insertional oncogenesis in 4 patients after retrovirus-mediated gene therapy of SCID-X1. J. Clin. Invest.118(9),3132–3142 (2008).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 29  Okita K, Ichisaka T, Yamanaka S: Generation of germline-competent induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature448(7151),313–317 (2007).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 30  Kaji K, Norrby K, Paca A, Mileikovsky M, Mohseni P, Woltjen K: Virus-free induction of pluripotency and subsequent excision of reprogramming factors. Nature458(7239),771–775 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 31  Okita K, Nakagawa M, Hyenjong H, Ichisaka T, Yamanaka S: Generation of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells without viral vectors. Science322(5903),949–953 (2008).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 32  Yu J, Hu K, Smuga-Otto K et al.: Human induced pluripotent stem cells free of vector and transgene sequences. Science324(5928),797–801 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 33  Woltjen K, Michael IP, Mohseni P et al.: piggyBac transposition reprograms fibroblasts to induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature458(7239),766–770 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 34  Soldner F, Hockemeyer D, Beard C et al.: Parkinson’s disease patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells free of viral reprogramming factors. Cell136(5),964–977 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 35  Zhou H, Wu S, Joo JY et al.: Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells using recombinant proteins. Cell Stem Cell4(5),381–384 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 36  Kim D, Kim CH, Moon JI et al.: Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cells by direct delivery of reprogramming proteins. Cell Stem Cell4(6),472–476 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 37  Brimble SN, Zeng X, Weiler DA et al.: Karyotypic stability, genotyping, differentiation, feeder-free maintenance, and gene expression sampling in three human embryonic stem cell lines derived prior to August 9, 2001. Stem Cells Dev.13(6),585–597 (2004).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 38  Draper JS, Smith K, Gokhale P et al.: Recurrent gain of chromosomes 17q and 12 in cultures human embryonic stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol.22(1),53–54 (2004).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 39  Rosler ES, Fisk GJ, Ares X et al.: Long-term culture of human embryonic stem cells in feeder-free conditions. Dev. Dyn.229(2),259–274 (2004).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 40  Blum B, Benvenisty N: The tumorigenicity of diploid and aneuploid human pluripotent stem cells. Cell Cycle8(23),3822–3830 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 41  Doi A, Park IH, Wen B et al. Differential methylation of tissue- and cancer-specific CpG island shores distinguishes human induced pluripotent stem cells, embryonic stem cells and fibroblasts. Nat. Genet.41(12),1350–1353 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 42  Muller FJ, Laurent LC, Kostka D et al.: Regulatory networks define phenotypic classes of human stem cell lines. Nature455(7211),401–405 (2008).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 43  Hentze H, Soong PL, Wang ST, Phillips BW, Putti TC, Dunn NR: Teratoma formation by human embryonic stem cells: evaluation of essential parameters for future safety studies. Stem Cell Res. (2009) (Epub ahead of print).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 44  Rao M: Tumorigenesis and embryonic stem cell-derived therapy. Stem Cells Dev.16(6),903–904 (2007).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 45  Cooke MJ, Stojkovic M, Przyborski SA: Growth of teratomas derived from human pluripotent stem cells is influenced by the graft site. Stem Cells Dev.15(2),254–259 (2006).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 46  Shih CC, Forman SJ, Chu P, Slovak M: Human embryonic stem cells are prone to generate primitive, undifferentiated tumors in engrafted human fetal tissues in severe combined immunodeficient mice. Stem Cells Dev.16(6),893–902 (2007).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 47  Lee AS, Tang C, Cao F et al.: Effects of cell number on teratoma formation by human embryonic stem cells. Cell Cycle8(16),2608–2612 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 48  Miura K, Okada Y, Aoi T et al.: Variation in the safety of induced pluripotent stem cell lines. Nat. Biotechnol.27(8),743–745 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 49  Osafune K, Caron L, Borowiak M et al.: Marked differences in differentiation propensity among human embryonic stem cell lines. Nat. Biotechnol.26(3),313–315 (2008).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 50  Howe SJ, Mansour MR, Schwarzwaelder K et al.: Insertional mutagenesis combined with acquired somatic mutations caused leukemogenesis following gene therapy in SCID-X1 patients. J. Clin. Invest.118(9),3143–3150 (2008).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 101  WiCell Research Institute www.wicell.org
      Google Scholar