Research Article

*Author for correspondence:

Founder at IFASEMB & Ilera “I am Pluripotent”, Chandler, AZ 85286, USA

Currently employed at Covis Pharmaceuticals, Grafenauweg 12, 6300 Zug, Switzerland

J. Orin Edson Entrepreneurship + Innovation Institute, Venture Devils Program for startups, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA

‡Previous affiliation/work conducted at The Scripps Research Institute, Center for Regenerative Medicine, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA and the Graduate School of Public Health, Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Science San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Victoria Glenn Pratola

The Scripps Research Institute, Center for Regenerative Medicine, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA

Search for more papers by this author

Suzanne E Peterson

The Scripps Research Institute, Center for Regenerative Medicine, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA

Search for more papers by this author

Jeanne F Loring

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6226-9767

The Scripps Research Institute, Center for Regenerative Medicine, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA

Graduate School of Public Health, Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Science San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Hala Madanat

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2547-2202

Interim Vice President for Research and Innovation, Distinguished Professor, School of Public Health, Core Investigator, Institute for Behavioral and Community Health San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-4162

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:8 Mar 2022https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2021-0081

View article

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to determine knowledge and attitudes toward induced pluripotent stem cell technology and biobanking. Methods: A survey instrument was developed to determine individuals’ knowledge of and attitudes toward these technologies. Results: Results from 276 ethnically diverse participants who took the online survey demonstrated significant associations (p ≤ 0. 05) in knowledge by ethnicity and race regarding properties of stem cells, different types of stem cells and previous sample donation behavior. Significantly more Whites 39% (n = 53) compared with Blacks or African–Americans 19.2% (n = 14) had previous knowledge of induced pluripotent stem cells (χ² = 8.544; p = 0.003) Conclusion: Overall, White race was associated with greater knowledge about stem cells and biobanks and greater willingness to donate samples for future research.

Plain language summary

Stem cell biobanks have few samples from minorities for genomic studies. We conducted an online survey to understand knowledge and attitudes toward stem cell biobanks and technologies. Overall, we learned that White race was associated with the greatest knowledge about stem cell biobanks and willingness to contribute tissue samples for biobanks. More education is required so that minorities are willing to contribute tissue samples toward stem cell biobanks. This will help researchers study the genomic bases of disease and pursue translational research toward addressing health inequities.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest

References

1. Webb Hooper M, Nápoles AM, Pérez-Stable EJ. COVID-19 and racial/ethnic disparities. JAMA 323(24), 2466–2467 (2020).
Google Scholar
2. Fakunle ES, Loring JF. Ethnically diverse pluripotent stem cells for drug development. Trends Mol. Med. 18(12), 709–716 (2012). • Describes the potential use of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) to incorporate genetic variety into the drug development process to predict the propensity to toxicity better early in the drug development pipeline.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Fox IJ, Daley GQ, Goldman SA et al. Stem cell therapy. Use of differentiated pluripotent stem cells as replacement therapy for treating disease. Science 345(6199), 1247391 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Inoue H, Yamanaka S. The use of induced pluripotent stem cells in drug development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 89(5), 655–661 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 131(5), 861–872 (2007). • This is a landmark study describing the generation of iPSCs from skin biopsies.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
6. Moradi S, Mahdizadeh H, Šarić T et al. Research and therapy with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs): social, legal, and ethical considerations. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 10(1), 341 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Fakunle ES. iPSCs for personalized medicine: what will it take for Africa? Trends Mol. Med. 18(12), 695–699 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Laurent LC, Nievergelt CM, Lynch C et al. Restricted ethnic diversity in human embryonic stem cell lines. Nat. Methods 7(1), 6–7 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Aalto-Setälä K, Conklin BR, Lo B. Obtaining consent for future research with induced pluripotent cells: opportunities and challenges. PLoS Biol. 7(2), e42 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Evans MD, Kelley J. US attitudes toward human embryonic stem cell research. Nat Biotechnol 29(6), 484–488 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. Dasgupta I, Bollinger J, Mathews DJ et al. Patients’ attitudes toward the donation of biological materials for the derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 14(1), 9–12 (2014). • Using patient focus groups this study presents information about attitudes that could be used to develop tailored policies for consent and collection of biological materials for deriving iPSCs
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12. Halverson CM, Ross LF. Attitudes of African-American parents about biobank participation and return of results for themselves and their children. J. Med. Ethics 38(9), 561–566 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, Hudson KL. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 85(5), 643–654 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. McDonald JA, Vadaparampil S, Bowen D et al. Intentions to donate to a biobank in a national sample of African Americans. Public Health Genomics 17(3), 173–182 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Davis JL, Green BL, Katz RV. Influence of scary beliefs about the Tuskegee syphilis study on willingness to participate in research. Abnf j 23(3), 59–62 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. McCarthy M. NIH and family of Henrietta Lacks reach agreement on access to HeLa genome. BMJ 347, f5041 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Lessler JT, Forsyth BH. A coding system for appraising questionnaires. In: Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research. Jossey-Bass/Wiley, NJ, USA, 259–291 (1996).
Google Scholar
18. Fields M, Cai H, Gong J, Del Priore L. Potential of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) for treating age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Cells 5(4), (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Ilic D, Devito L, Miere C, Codognotto S. Human embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells in clinical trials. Br. Med. Bull. 116, 19–27 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Hogle LF, Das A. The social production of evidence: regenerative medicine and the 21st Century Cures Act. Regen Med 12(6), 581–586 (2017).
CASGoogle Scholar
21. Bloor AJC, Patel A, Griffin JE et al. Production, safety and efficacy of iPSC-derived mesenchymal stromal cells in acute steroid-resistant graft versus host disease: a phase I, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study. Nat Med 26(11), 1720–1725 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. National Library of Medicine (U.S.). The MEseNchymal coviD-19 Trial: MSCs in adults with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 or another underlying cause. Identifier NCT04537351 (2020). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04537351
Google Scholar
23. Zhang J, Chen M, Liao J et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell-derived mesenchymal stem cells hold lower heterogeneity and great promise in biological research and clinical applications. Front. Cell. Dev. Biol. 9, 716907 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Liu X, Robbins S, Wang X et al. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Stem Cell injections for symptomatic relief and strUctural improvement in people with Tibiofemoral knee OsteoaRthritis: protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial (the SCUlpTOR trial). BMJ Open 11(11), e056382 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Raab S, Klingenstein M, Liebau S, Linta L. A comparative view on human somatic cell sources for iPSC generation. Stem Cells Int. 2014, 768391 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Shtrichman R, Germanguz I, Itskovitz-Eldor J. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) derived from different cell sources and their potential for regenerative and personalized medicine. Curr Mol Med 13(5), 792–805 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Żuradzki T. Moral uncertainty in bioethical argumentation: a new understanding of the pro-life view on early human embryos. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 35(6), 441–457 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Mohler-Kuo M, Zellweger U, Duran A et al. Attitudes of couples towards the destination of surplus embryos: results among couples with cryopreserved embryos in Switzerland. Hum Reprod 24(8), 1930–1938 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Lanzendorf S, Ratts V, Keller S, Odem R. Disposition of cryopreserved embryos by infertility patients desiring to discontinue storage. Fertil. Steril. 93(2), 486–489 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Sharma H, Johnstone EB, Gates E et al. Asian immigrants to the United States are less likely to donate cryopreserved embryos for research use. Fertil. Steril. 95(5), 1672–1676 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Van Voorhis BJ, Grinstead DM, Sparks AE et al. Establishment of a successful donor embryo program: medical, ethical, and policy issues. Fertil. Steril. 71(4), 604–608 (1999).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Choudhary M, Haimes E, Herbert M et al. Demographic, medical and treatment characteristics associated with couples’ decisions to donate fresh spare embryos for research. Hum. Reprod. 19(9), 2091–2096 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Lyerly AD, Steinhauser K, Voils C et al. Fertility patients’ views about frozen embryo disposition: results of a multi-institutional U.S. survey. Fertil. Steril. 93(2), 499–509 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Samorinha C, Pereira M, Machado H et al. Factors associated with the donation and non-donation of embryos for research: a systematic review. Hum. Reprod. Update 20(5), 641–655 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Buseh AG, Stevens PE, Millon-Underwood S et al. Community leaders’ perspectives on engaging African Americans in biobanks and other human genetics initiatives. J. Commun. Genet. 4(4), 483–494 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Haga SB, O'Daniel JM, Tindall GM et al. Survey of US public attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing. Pharmacogenomics J. 12(3), 197–204 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37. Haga SB, O’Daniel JM, Tindall GM et al. Public attitudes toward ancillary information revealed by pharmacogenetic testing under limited information conditions. Genet. Med. 13(8), 723–728 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. O'Daniel J, Lucas J, Deverka P et al. Factors influencing uptake of pharmacogenetic testing in a diverse patient population. Public Health Genomics 13(1), 48–54 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Shriner D, Adeyemo A, Rotimi CN. Joint ancestry and association testing in admixed individuals. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7(12), e1002325 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40. Rotimi C, Shriner D, Adeyemo A. Genome science and health disparities: a growing success story? Genome Med. 5(7), 61 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
41. Rotimi C, Abayomi A, Abimiku A et al. Research capacity. Enabling the genomic revolution in Africa. Science 344(6190), 1346–1348 (2014). • The aim of the Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) is to empower African scientists to use genomic and epidemiological approaches to shed light on the determinants of chronic and infectious diseases.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
42. Zakharia F, Basu A, Absher D et al. Characterizing the admixed African ancestry of African Americans. Genome Biol. 10(12), R141 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43. Baker JL, Rotimi CN, Shriner D. Human ancestry correlates with language and reveals that race is not an objective genomic classifier. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 1572 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
44. Tishkoff SA, Reed FA, Friedlaender FR et al. The genetic structure and history of Africans and African Americans. Science 324(5930), 1035–1044 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Bentley AR, Callier SL, Rotimi CN. Evaluating the promise of inclusion of African ancestry populations in genomics. NPJ Genom. Med. 5, 5 (2020). • Greater participation of individuals of African ancestry is expected to yield new insights into human biology and advances in clinical treatment, among other benefits.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
46. Lemke AA, Halverson C, Ross LF. Biobank participation and returning research results: perspectives from a deliberative engagement in South Side Chicago. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 158A(5), 1029–1037 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
47. Ogbogu U, Burningham S, Ollenberger A et al. Policy recommendations for addressing privacy challenges associated with cell-based research and interventions. BMC Med. Ethics 15, 7 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
48. Feldman EA. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA): public policy and medical practice in the age of personalized medicine. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 27(6), 743–746 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
49. Bookman EB, Langehorne AA, Eckfeldt JH et al. Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 140(10), 1033–1040 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
50. Knoppers BM, Joly Y, Simard J, Durocher F. The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 14(11), 1170–1178 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
51. Clayton EW, Ross LF. Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research. JAMA 295(1), 37 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
52. Beskow LM. Considering the nature of individual research results. Am. J. Bioeth. 6(6), 38–40 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
53. Miller FA, Christensen R, Giacomini M, Robert JS. Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. J. Med. Ethics 34(3), 210–213 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
54. Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioeth. 6(6), 8–17 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
55. Craig DW, Goor RM, Wang Z et al. Assessing and managing risk when sharing aggregate genetic variant data. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12(10), 730–736 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
56. Panopoulos AD, D’Antonio M, Benaglio P et al. iPSCORE: a resource of 222 iPSC lines enabling functional characterization of genetic variation across a variety of cell types. Stem Cell Rep. 8(4), 1086–1100 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
57. Park S, Gianotti-Sommer A, Molina-Estevez FJ et al. A comprehensive, ethnically diverse library of sickle cell disease-specific induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Rep. 8(4), 1076–1085 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
58. Chang EA, Tomov ML, Suhr ST et al. Derivation of ethnically diverse human induced pluripotent stem cell lines. Sci. Rep. 5, 15234 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
59. Gao X, Yourick JJ, Sprando RL. Generation of nine induced pluripotent stem cell lines as an ethnic diversity panel. Stem Cell Res. 31, 193–196 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
60. Lee S, Huh JY, Turner DM et al. Repurposing the cord blood bank for haplobanking of HLA-homozygous iPSCs and their usefulness to multiple populations. Stem Cells 36(10), 1552–1566 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
61. Pashos EE, Park Y, Wang X et al. Large, diverse population cohorts of hiPSCs and derived hepatocyte-like cells reveal functional genetic variation at blood lipid-associated loci. Cell Stem Cell 20(4), 558–570.e510 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
62. Sarkar AK, Tung PY, Blischak JD et al. Discovery and characterization of variance QTLs in human induced pluripotent stem cells. PLoS Genet. 15(4), e1008045 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 17, No. 4

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 63 times

History

Received 13 June 2021

Accepted 28 January 2022

Published online 8 March 2022

Published in print April 2022

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/rme-2021-0081

Author contribution

The primary author, ES Fakunle, designed, conducted and analyzed the study and wrote the manuscript as part of her master of public health thesis from San Diego State University. H Madanat critically reviewed the study design, analysis, thesis and manuscript and served as the thesis chair. J Loring critically reviewed the survey content on stem cells and genomics, provided advice and served as the co-chair for the primary author's master's of public health thesis. V G Pratola participated in the development of the ethnically diverse biobank and survey questions. S Peterson participated in the development of the ethnically diverse biobank, survey questions and critical review of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank members of the master's of the public health thesis committee, Thomas Novotny and Adisa Alkebulan, for their critical review and suggestions of the thesis titled ‘Promoting Equity in Stem Cell Genomics Survey’ from which this article was adapted. The thesis was successfully defended by the primary author ES Fakunle in December 2015 in partial fulfillment of a master’s degree in public health in health promotion and behavioral science from the San Diego State University School of Public Health San Diego, CA, USA. The authors also thank all the staff, students and researchers in the Loring lab at The Scripps Research Institute and the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine interns who collaborated to develop the ethnically diverse iPSC biobank over many years, including Sara Abdulrahman, Nastran Afari, Cody Smith and John Paul Schell. In addition, the authors thank the public health student interns and volunteers Sana Naveed, Taeba Theweny, Monica Netherly and Danny Mulvihill.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors received a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Grand Challenges Explorations, grant #52558, ‘Generation of an ethnically diverse panel of pluripotent stem cells for drug screens’). Eyitayo S Fakunle is employed at Covis, Covis had no input into this research or publication. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download

The Promoting Equity in Stem Cell Genomics Survey

Abstract

Plain language summary

References