Review

Human embryonic stem cells as a model for embryotoxicity screening

Ana Krtolica

SLL Sciences, StemLifeLine, Inc., San Carlos, CA, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Dusko Ilic

SLL Sciences, StemLifeLine, Inc., San Carlos, CA, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Olga Genbacev

† Author for correspondence

Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Ave., San Francisco, CA, USA.

Search for more papers by this author

Email the corresponding author at genbacev@comcast.net

Richard K Miller

School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Rochester, NY, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:13 May 2009https://doi.org/10.2217/rme.09.13

View article

Abstract

Reproductive toxicity encompasses harmful effects of various agents on all aspects and stages of the reproductive cycle, including infertility and the induction of adverse effects in the embryo/fetus. In developing a model for reproductive toxicity screening, it is important to define the stage of the human reproductive cycle that this specific model is going to recreate in vitro and to identify molecular targets that are critical for this stage of development. In this review, we focus our discussion on modeling pre-implantation embryotoxicity. The rationale for this is that despite advances on both clinical and biological levels, many unresolved infertility cases may be due to our lack of knowledge regarding environmental influences on this short, but critical stage of development. Data from in vitro fertilization practice suggest that the early-dividing embryo is very sensitive to numerous factors present in its microenvironment. In vivo, as the embryo travels down the oviduct, physical or chemical insults can directly damage the embryo and/or prevent implantation, and cause infertility. Multiple lines of evidence point to the differences between mouse and human pre-implantation development and between mouse and human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). In light of these data we present the case that hESCs and their derivatives are better suited as in vitro models for human pre-implantation development than their mouse counterparts. We then describe some of the most promising hESC-based systems that are used today to model certain aspects of development in the human pre-implantation embryo and that have the potential to be used for embryo toxicity screening tests in the near future. Described systems model two major events during differentiation of the human pre-implantation embryo: differentiation of the trophectoderm and segregation of the inner cell mass into epiblast and hypoblast. The first event is replicated in vitro by triggering either direct or indirect (through embryoid body stage) differentiation into trophectoderm. The second event can be modeled using the recently described system of high-throughput generation of embryoid bodies that recapitulate segregation of inner cell mass. We conclude by discussing the potential of these existing models in toxicology studies and the possibilities for their improvement in the future.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: ▪ of interest ▪▪ of considerable interest

Bibliography

1 The Teratology Society: Teratology Primer. The Teratology Society, Reston, USA (2005).Google Scholar
2 Miller RK, Peters PW, Schaefer CE: General commentary on drug therapy and drug risks in pregnancy. In: Drugs During Pregnancy and Lactation (2nd Edition). Schaefer CE, Peters PW, Miller RK (Eds). Academic Press, New York, USA (2007).Google Scholar
3 Lutwak-Mann C: Drugs and the blastocyst. In: Fetal Pharmacology. Boreus L (Ed.). Plenum Press, New York, USA 569–605 (1973).Google Scholar
4 Fabro S: Passage of drugs and other chemicals into the uterine fluids and pre-implantation blastocyst. In: Fetal Pharmacology. Boreus L (Ed.). Plenum Press, New York, USA 443–459 (1973).Google Scholar
5 Miller RK, D Mattison, Filler R, Rice J: Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology. In: Drug Therapy During Pregnancy. Eskes TEAK, Finster M (Eds). Butterworth & Co, London, UK (1985).Google Scholar
6 Fille R, Lew KJ: Developmental onset of mixed-function oxidase activity in pre-implantation mouse embryos. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA78,6991–6995 (1981).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
7 Vogel R: In vitro approach to fertility research: genotoxicity tests on primordial germ cells and embryonic stem cells. Reprod. Toxicol.7(Suppl. 1),69–73 (1993).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
8 Scholz G, Pohl I, Genschow E, Klemm M, Spielmann H: Embryotoxicity screening using embryonic stem cells in vitro: correlation to in vivo teratogenicity. Cells Tissues Organs165,203–211 (1999).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
9 Spielmann H, Bochkov NP, Costa L et al. : 13th Meeting of the Scientific Group on Methodologies for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals (SGOMSEC): alternative testing methodologies for organ toxicity. Environ. Health Perspect.106(Suppl. 2),427–439 (1998).Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
10 Mummery CL, Slager HG, van Inzen W, Freund E, van den Eijnden-Van Raaij AJ: Regulation of growth and differentiation in early development: of mice and models. Reprod. Toxicol.7(Suppl. 1),145–154 (1993).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
11 Rohwedel J, Guan K, Hegert C, Wobus AM: Embryonic stem cells as an in vitro model for mutagenicity, cytotoxicity and embryotoxicity studies: present state and future prospects. Toxicol. In vitro15,741–753 (2001).▪▪ Comprehensive overview of current and potential uses of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) in toxicological studies.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
12 Gorba T, Allsopp TE: Pharmacological potential of embryonic stem cells. Pharmacol. Res.47,269–278 (2003).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
13 Pellizzer C, Adler S, Corvi R, Hartung T, Bremer S: Monitoring of teratogenic effects in vitro by analysing a selected gene expression pattern. Toxicol. In Vitro18,325–335 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
14 Genschow E, Spielmann H, Scholz G et al. : Validation of the embryonic stem cell test in the international ECVAM validation study on three in vitro embryotoxicity tests. Altern. Lab. Anim.32,209–244 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
15 Seiler A, Visan A, Buesen R, Genschow E, Spielmann H: Improvement of an in vitro stem cell assay for developmental toxicity: the use of molecular endpoints in the embryonic stem cell test. Reprod. Toxicol.18,231–240 (2004).▪▪ Introduces molecular end points into embryotoxicity testing.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
16 Genschow E, Scholz G, Brown N et al. : Development of prediction models for three in vitro embryotoxicity tests in an ECVAM validation study. In Vitro Mol. Toxicol.13,51–66 (2000).Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
17 zur Nieden NI, Kempka G, Ahr HJ: Molecular multiple endpoint embryonic stem cell test – a possible approach to test for the teratogenic potential of compounds. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.194,257–269 (2004).▪▪ Provides a comprehensive discussion on the need for molecular end points in embryotoxicity testing.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
18 Chung Y, Klimanskaya I, Becker S et al. : Human embryonic stem cell lines generated without embryo destruction. Cell Stem Cell2(2),113–117 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
19 Ilic D, Giritharan G, Zdravkovic T et al. : Derivation of human embryonic stem cell lines from biopsied blastomeres on human feeders with a minimal exposure to xenomaterials. Stem Cells Dev. (2009) (Epub ahead of print).Medline, Google Scholar
20 Jaenisch R, Bird A: Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals. Nat. Genet.33(Suppl.),245–254 (2003).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
21 Wolffe AP, Matzke MA: Epigenetics: regulation through repression. Science286,481–286 (1999).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
22 Wachsman JT: DNA methylation and the association between genetic and epigenetic changes: relation to carcinogenesis. Mutat. Res.375(1),1–8 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
23 Dean W, Lucifero D, Santos F: DNA methylation in mammalian development and disease. Birth Defects Res. C Embryo Today75,98–111 (2005).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
24 Haaf T: Methylation dynamics in the early mammalian embryo: implications of genome reprogramming defects for development. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol.310,13–22 (2006).▪▪ Excellent review regarding the role of DNA methylation in development.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
25 Reik W, Dean W, Walter J: Epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Science293,1089–1093 (2001).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
26 Mayer W, Niveleau A, Walter J, Fundele R, Haaf T: Demethylation of the zygotic paternal genome. Nature403,501–502 (2000).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
27 Oswald J, Engemann S, Lane N et al.: Active demethylation of the paternal genome in the mouse zygote. Curr. Biol.10,475–478 (2000).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
28 Fulka H, Mrazek M, Tepla O, Fulka Jr J: DNA methylation pattern in human zygotes and developing embryos. Reproduction128,703–708 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
29 Dean W, Santos F, Stojkovic M et al. : Conservation of methylation reprogramming in mammalian development: aberrant reprogramming in cloned embryos. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA98,13734–13738 (2001).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
30 Sinkkonen L, Hugenschmidt T, Berninger P et al. : MicroRNAs control de novo DNA methylation through regulation of transcriptional repressors in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.15,259–267 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
31 Cui XS, Shen XH, Kim NH: Dicer1 expression in pre-implantation mouse embryos: involvement of Oct3/4 transcription at the blastocyst stage. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.352,231–356 (2007).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
32 Tang F, Hajkova P, Barton SC et al. : 220-plex microRNA expression profile of a single cell. Nat. Protoc.1,1154–1159 (2006).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
33 Jaroudi S, SenGupta S: DNA repair in mammalian embryos. Mutat. Res.635,53–77 (2007).▪▪ Excellent review regarding the role of DNA repair in early embryogenesis.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
34 Gjorret JO, Knijn HM, Dieleman SJ, Avery B, Larsson LI, Maddox-Hyttel P: Chronology of apoptosis in bovine embryos produced in vivo and in vitro. Biol. Reprod.69,1193–1200 (2003).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
35 Kawamura K, Sato N, Fukuda J et al. : Survivin acts as an antiapoptotic factor during the development of mouse pre-implantation embryos. Dev. Biol.256,331–341 (2003).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
36 Brison DR: Apoptosis in mammalian pre-implantation embryos: regulation by survival factors. Hum. Fertil. (Camb.)3,36–47 (2000).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
37 Aladjem MI, Spike BT, Rodewald LW et al. : ES cells do not activate p53-dependent stress responses and undergo p53-independent apoptosis in response to DNA damage. Curr. Biol.8,145–155 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
38 Hardy K: Apoptosis in the human embryo. Rev. Reprod.4,125–134 (1999).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
39 Zheng P, Schramm RD, Latham KE: Developmental regulation and in vitro culture effects on expression of DNA repair and cell cycle checkpoint control genes in rhesus monkey oocytes and embryos. Biol. Reprod.72,1359–1369 (2005).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
40 Jurisicova A, Latham KE, Casper RF, Varmuza SL: Expression and regulation of genes associated with cell death during murine pre-implantation embryo development. Mol. Reprod. Dev.51,243–253 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
41 Larsen E, Gran C, Saether BE, Seeberg E, Klungland A: Proliferation failure and gamma radiation sensitivity of Fen1 null mutant mice at the blastocyst stage. Mol. Cell Biol.23,5346–5353 (2003).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
42 Brown EJ, Baltimore D: ATR disruption leads to chromosomal fragmentation and early embryonic lethality. Genes Dev.14,397–402 (2000).Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
43 Sharan SK, Morimatsu M, Albrecht U et al. : Embryonic lethality and radiation hypersensitivity mediated by Rad51 in mice lacking Brca2. Nature386,804–810 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
44 Suzuki A, de la Pompa JL, Hakem R et al. : Brca2 is required for embryonic cellular proliferation in the mouse. Genes Dev.11,1242–1252 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
45 Connor F, Bertwistle D, Mee PJ et al. : Tumorigenesis and a DNA repair defect in mice with a truncating Brca2 mutation. Nat. Genet.17,423–430 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
46 Patel KJ, Yu VP, Lee H et al.: Involvement of Brca2 in DNA repair. Mol. Cell1,347–357 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
47 Barlow C, Hirotsune S, Paylor R et al. : Atm-deficient mice: a paradigm of ataxia telangiectasia. Cell86,159–171 (1996).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
48 Xu Y, Ashley T, Brainerd EE, Bronson RT, Meyn MS, Baltimore D: Targeted disruption of ATM leads to growth retardation, chromosomal fragmentation during meiosis, immune defects, and thymic lymphoma. Genes Dev.10,2411–2422 (1996).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
49 Xu Y, Baltimore D: Dual roles of ATM in the cellular response to radiation and in cell growth control. Genes Dev.10,2401–2410 (1996).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
50 Wells D, Bermudez MG, Steuerwald N et al. : Expression of genes regulating chromosome segregation, the cell cycle and apoptosis during human pre-implantation development. Hum. Reprod.20,1339–1348 (2005).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
51 Kopecny V, Flechon JE, Camous S, Fulka Jr J: Nucleologenesis and the onset of transcription in the eight-cell bovine embryo: fine-structural autoradiographic study. Mol. Reprod. Dev.1,79–90 (1989).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
52 Tesarik J, Kopecny V, Plachot M, Mandelbaum J: Early morphological signs of embryonic genome expression in human pre-implantation development as revealed by quantitative electron microscopy. Dev. Biol.128,15–20 (1988).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
53 Schultz RM: Regulation of zygotic gene activation in the mouse. Bioessays15,531–538 (1993).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
54 Schultz RM: The molecular foundations of the maternal to zygotic transition in the pre-implantation embryo. Hum. Reprod. Update8,323–331 (2002).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
55 Miller MS, Juchau MR, Guengerich FP, Nebert DW, Raucy JL: Drug metabolic enzymes in developmental toxicology. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol.34,165–175 (1996).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
56 Choudhary D, Jansson I, Schenkman JB, Sarfarazi M, Stoilov I: Comparative expression profiling of 40 mouse cytochrome P450 genes in embryonic and adult tissues. Arch. Biochem. Biophys.414,91–100 (2003).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
57 Choudhary D, Jansson I, Stoilov I, Sarfarazi M, Schenkman JB: Expression patterns of mouse and human CYP orthologs (families 1–4) during development and in different adult tissues. Arch. Biochem. Biophys.436,50–61 (2005).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
58 Martignoni M, Groothuis GM, de Kanter R: Species differences between mouse, rat, dog, monkey and human CYP-mediated drug metabolism, inhibition and induction. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol.2,875–894 (2006).▪▪ Addresses, in a comprehensive way, the variability in CYP-mediated metabolism: induction, inhibition and polymorphisms.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
59 McCarroll SA, Murphy CT, Zou S et al.: Comparing genomic expression patterns across species identifies shared transcriptional profile in aging. Nat. Genet.36(2),197–204 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
60 Stuart JM, Segal E, Koller D, Kim SK: A gene-coexpression network for global discovery of conserved genetic modules. Science302(5643),249–255 (2003).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
61 Sun Y, Li H, Liu Y et al. : Cross-species transcriptional profiles establish a functional portrait of embryonic stem cells. Genomics89(1),22–35 (2007).▪▪ Discusses expression-pattern analysis of key regulatory networks in ESCs.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
62 Rao M: Conserved and divergent paths that regulate self-renewal in mouse and human embryonic stem cells. Dev. Biol.275,269–286 (2004).▪▪ Discusses expression-pattern analysis of key regulatory networks in ESCs.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
63 Ginis I, Luo Y, Miura T et al. : Differences between human and mouse embryonic stem cells. Dev. Biol.269,360–380 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
64 Brandenberger R, Wei H, Zhang S et al. : Transcriptome characterization elucidates signaling networks that control human ES cell growth and differentiation. Nat. Biotechnol.22,707–716 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
65 Wang Y, Keys DN, Au-Young JK, Chen C: MicroRNAs in embryonic stem cells. J. Cell Physiol.218,251–255 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
66 Chen C, Ridzon D, Lee CT, Blake J, Sun Y, Strauss WM: Defining embryonic stem cell identity using differentiation-related microRNAs and their potential targets. Mamm. Genome18,316–327 (2007).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
67 Houbaviy HB, Murray MF, Sharp PA: Embryonic stem cell-specific microRNAs. Dev. Cell5,351–358 (2003).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
68 Suh MR, Lee Y, Kim JY et al. : Human embryonic stem cells express a unique set of microRNAs. Dev. Biol.270,488–498 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
69 Mineno J, Okamoto S, Ando T et al. : The expression profile of microRNAs in mouse embryos. Nucleic Acids Res.34,1765–1771 (2006).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
70 Landgraf P, Rusu M, Sheridan R et al. : A mammalian microRNA expression atlas based on small RNA library sequencing. Cell129,1401–1414 (2007).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
71 Laurent LC, Chen J, Ulitsky I et al. : Comprehensive microRNA profiling reveals a unique human embryonic stem cell signature dominated by a single seed sequence. Stem Cells26,1506–1516 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
72 Morin RD, O’Connor MD, Griffith M et al. : Application of massively parallel sequencing to microRNA profiling and discovery in human embryonic stem cells. Genome Res.18,610–621 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
73 Genbacev O, Bass KE, Joslin RJ, Fisher SJ: Maternal smoking inhibits early human cytotrophoblast differentiation. Reprod. Toxicol.9(3),245–255 (1995).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
74 Genbacev O, Joslin R, Damsky CH, Polliotti BM, Fisher SJ: Hypoxia alters early gestation human cytotrophoblast differentiation/invasion in vitro and models the placental defects that occur in preeclampsia. J. Clin. Invest.97(2),540–550 (1996).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
75 Genbacev O, Zhou Y, Ludlow JW, Fisher SJ: Regulation of human placental development by oxygen tension. Science277(5332),1669–1672 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
76 Genbacev O, Krtolica A, Kaelin W, Fisher SJ: Human cytotrophoblast expression of the von Hippel–Lindau protein is downregulated during uterine invasion in situ and upregulated by hypoxia in vitro. Dev. Biol.233(2),526–536 (2001).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
77 Shiverick KT, Slikker W Jr, Rogerson SJ, Miller RK: Drugs and the placenta – a workshop report. Placenta24(Suppl. A),S55–S59 (2003).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
78 Myllynen P, Pasanen M, Pelkonen O: Human placenta: a human organ for developmental toxicology research and biomonitoring. Placenta26(5),361–371 (2005).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
79 Zdravkovic T, Genbacev O, McMaster MT, Fisher SJ: The adverse effects of maternal smoking on the human placenta: a review. Placenta26(Suppl. A),S81–S86 (2005).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
80 Tanaka S, Kunath T, Hadjantonakis AK, Nagy A, Rossant J: Promotion of trophoblast stem cell proliferation by FGF4. Science282(5396),2072–2075 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
81 Henderson JK, Draper JS, Baillie HS et al. : Pre-implantation human embryos and embryonic stem cells show comparable expression of stage-specific embryonic antigens. Stem Cells20(4),329–337 (2002).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
82 Hay DC, Sutherland L, Clark J, Burdon T: Oct-4 knockdown induces similar patterns of endoderm and trophoblast differentiation markers in human and mouse embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells22,225–235 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
83 Matin MM, Walsh JR, Gokhale PJ et al. : Specific knockdown of Oct4 and β2-microglobulin expression by RNA interference in human embryonic stem cells and embryonic carcinoma cells. Stem Cells22,659–668 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
84 Hyslop L, Stojkovic M, Armstrong L et al. : Downregulation of NANOG induces differentiation of human embryonic stem cells to extraembryonic lineages. Stem Cells23,1035–1043 (2005).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
85 Xu RH, Chen X, Li DS et al. : BMP4 initiates human embryonic stem cell differentiation to trophoblast. Nat. Biotechnol.20,1261–1264 (2002).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
86 Schulz LC, Ezashi T, Das P, Westfall SD, Livingston KA, Roberts RM: Human embryonic stem cells as models for trophoblast differentiation. Placenta29(Suppl. A),S10–S16 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
87 Wu Z, Zhang W, Chen G et al. : Combinatorial signals of activin/nodal and bone morphogenic protein regulate the early lineage segregation of human embryonic stem cells. J. Biol. Chem.283,24991–25002 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
88 Gerami-Naini B, Dovzhenko OV, Durning M, Wegner FH, Thomson JA, Golos TG: Trophoblast differentiation in embryoid bodies derived from human embryonic stem cells. Endocrinology145,1517–1524 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
89 Harun R, Ruban L, Matin M et al. : Cytotrophoblast stem cell lines derived from human embryonic stem cells and their capacity to mimic invasive implantation events. Hum. Reprod.21,1349–1358 (2006).▪ First successful differentiation of hESCs into trophectoderm line.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
90 Ungrin MD, Joshi C, Nica A, Bauwens C, Zandstra PW: Reproducible, ultra high-throughput formation of multicellular organization from single cell suspension-derived human embryonic stem cell aggregates. PLoS ONE3,e1565 (2008).▪▪ Description of a high-throughput method for generation of a homogeneous population of embryoid bodies from hESCs.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
91 Niebruegge S, Nehring A, Bar H, Schroeder M, Zweigerdt R, Lehmann J: Cardiomyocyte production in mass suspension culture: embryonic stem cells as a source for great amounts of functional cardiomyocytes. Tissue Eng. Part A14,1591–1601 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
92 Yirme G, Amit M, Laevsky I, Osenberg S, Itskovitz-Eldor J: Establishing a dynamic process for the formation, propagation, and differentiation of human embryoid bodies. Stem Cells Dev.17,1227–1241 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
101 miRBase. http://microrna.sanger.ac.ukGoogle Scholar

Vol. 4, No. 3

Metrics

Downloaded 400 times

History

Published online 13 May 2009

Published in print May 2009

Information

Keywords

Financial & competing interests disclosure

A Krtolica is CSO and CEO of StemLifeLine, Inc., D Ilic is Director of Research and Development of StemLifeLine and O Genbacev is an officer and on the Board of Directors of StemLifeLine, a company involved in the generation and use of human embryonic stem cells. 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.

The authors are grateful to R Beaconsfield for the critical reading of the original manuscript and editing. No other writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download