Back

Digital Reprogramming Decodes Epigenetic Barriers of Cell Fate Changes

Janeva, A.; Penfold, C. A.; Llorente-Armijo, S.; Li, H.; Zikmund, T.; Stock, M.; Jullien, J.; Straub, T.; Forne, I.; Imhof, A.; Vaquerizas, J. M.; Gurdon, J. B.; Hoermanseder, E. B.

2025-01-24 genomics
10.1101/2025.01.22.634227 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The fates of differentiated cells in our body can be induced to change by nuclear reprogramming. In this way, cells valuable for therapeutic purposes and disease modeling can be produced. However, the efficiency of this process is low, partly due to properties of somatic donor nuclei which stabilize their differentiated fate but also act as barriers reprogramming-associated cell fate changes. The identity of these reprogramming barriers is not fully understood. Here, we developed an artificial intelligence-based approach to model nuclear reprogramming and used it to identify the chromatin modification H3K27ac as an epigenetic barrier to reprogramming-induced cell fate changes. Using reprogramming by nuclear transfer (NT) to eggs of Xenopus laevis as a model system, we profiled chromatin modifications in differentiated cell types alongside gene expression patterns before and after reprogramming. Our model integrated the data and by leveraging model predictions, we find that genes resisting inactivation during reprogramming display chromatin modification barcodes. This revealed H3K27ac as a novel candidate barrier to NT reprogramming. Reducing H3K27ac levels using p300/CBP inhibitors before reprogramming led to an improved downregulation of genes linked to H3K27ac-modified enhancers after reprogramming. Importantly, these effects were accompanied by improved embryonic development of the resulting nuclear transfer embryos. In summary, our study identified H3K27ac as a safeguarding mechanism of cellular identities and as a reprogramming barrier during NT. Hence, the here-developed Digital Reprogramming" approach is capable of modelling and improving current cell-fate reprogramming strategies.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.4%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.4%
3
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
9.4%
4
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 28%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 5%
6.5%
6
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 2%
5.0%
7
npj Systems Biology and Applications
99 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.7%
8
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
9
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
10
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.8%
11
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.8%
12
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 41%
1.7%
13
Stem Cell Reports
118 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
14
Bioinformatics Advances
184 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
15
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
16
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
17
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
18
Cell Reports Methods
141 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
19
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
20
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
21
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.8%
22
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 32%
0.8%
23
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
214 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
24
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
171 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
25
FEBS Letters
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
26
Genes
126 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%