Clinical Potential of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

  • Peter KaragiannisEmail author
Part of the Current Human Cell Research and Applications book series (CHCRA)


The ability to reprogram cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) has given a new perspective on cellular identity and cellular development. Since the original report of iPSCs, the range of methods and species in which iPSCs have been achieved demonstrates a universality of the pluripotency network and its maintenance. From a clinical perspective, iPSCs provide a new human cell model to study disease and innovate therapies. The reprogramming of patient cells provides a unique human cell model to investigate pathogenesis. iPSCs have especially strong appeal for the study of rare diseases or diseases that are normally diagnosed at late stage. Experimental therapies and drugs based on iPSC research are now at clinical stage. Additionally, drug repositioning using iPSC models has attracted heavy investment from industry. Despite their potential, iPSCs have inconsistent epigenetics with embryonic cells, which has retarded research on some cell lineages and related diseases. Regardless, there is anticipation that a large number of diseases will be treatable using iPSC-based products in the next decade.


Induced pluripotent stem cells Disease models Cell therapy Drug discovery Drug repositioning 



I thank Masaya Todani, Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA), Kyoto University (Japan), for the figure illustration.


  1. 1.
    Gurdon JB. The developmental capacity of nuclei taken from intestinal epithelium cells of feeding tadpoles. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1962;10:622–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Takahashi K, et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell. 2007;131:861–72. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006;126:663–76. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yu J, et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science. 2007;318:1917–20. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Silva M, et al. Generating iPSCs: translating cell reprogramming science into scalable and robust biomanufacturing strategies. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;16:13–7. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ogorevc J, Orehek S, Dovc P. Cellular reprogramming in farm animals: an overview of iPSC generation in the mammalian farm animal species. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2016;7:10. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Polo JM, et al. Cell type of origin influences the molecular and functional properties of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28:848–55. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dimos JT, et al. Induced pluripotent stem cells generated from patients with ALS can be differentiated into motor neurons. Science. 2008;321:1218–21. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ebert AD, et al. Induced pluripotent stem cells from a spinal muscular atrophy patient. Nature. 2009;457:277–80. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee G, et al. Modelling pathogenesis and treatment of familial dysautonomia using patient-specific iPSCs. Nature. 2009;461:402–6. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li HL, Gee P, Ishida K, Hotta A. Efficient genomic correction methods in human iPS cells using CRISPR-Cas9 system. Methods. 2016;101:27–35. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griesi-Oliveira K, et al. Modeling non-syndromic autism and the impact of TRPC6 disruption in human neurons. Mol Psychiatry. 2015;20:1350–65. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marchetto MC, et al. Altered proliferation and networks in neural cells derived from idiopathic autistic individuals. Mol Psychiatry. 2017;22:820–35. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haidet-Phillips AM, et al. Astrocytes from familial and sporadic ALS patients are toxic to motor neurons. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29:824–8. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quadrato G, Brown J, Arlotta P. The promises and challenges of human brain organoids as models of neuropsychiatric disease. Nat Med. 2016;22:1220–8. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Trounson A, DeWitt ND. Pluripotent stem cells progressing to the clinic. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016;17:194–200. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mandai M, et al. Autologous induced stem-cell-derived retinal cells for macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1038–46. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garcia JM, et al. Stem cell therapy for retinal diseases. World J Stem Cells. 2015;7:160–4. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Daley G, Polar Q. Extremes in the clinical use of stem cells. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1075–7. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karagiannis P, Eto K. Ten years of induced pluripotency: from basic mechanisms to therapeutic applications. Development. 2016;143:2039–43. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morizane A, et al. MHC matching improves engraftment of iPSC-derived neurons in non-human primates. Nat Commun. 2017;8:385. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shiba Y, et al. Allogeneic transplantation of iPS cell-derived cardiomyocytes regenerates primate hearts. Nature. 2016;538:388–91. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhao T, et al. Humanized mice reveal differential immunogenicity of cells derived from autologous induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;17:353–9. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gourraud PA, Gilson L, Girard M, Peschanski M. The role of human leukocyte antigen matching in the development of multiethnic “haplobank” of induced pluripotent stem cell lines. Stem Cells. 2012;30:180–6. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saito MK, Matsunaga A, Takasu N, Yamanaka S. In: Ilic D, editor. Stem cell banking. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Azuma K, Yamanaka S. Recent policies that support clinical application of induced pluripotent stem cell-based regenerative therapies. Regen Ther. 2016;4:36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nishimura T, et al. Generation of rejuvenated antigen-specific T cells by reprogramming to pluripotency and redifferentiation. Cell Stem Cell. 2013;12:114–26. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vizcardo R, et al. Regeneration of human tumor antigen-specific T cells from iPSCs derived from mature CD8(+) T cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2013;12:31–6. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maude SL, et al. The effect of pembrolizumab in combination with CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:103. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kitayama S, et al. Cellular adjuvant properties, direct cytotoxicity of re-differentiated Valpha24 invariant NKT-like cells from human induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Reports. 2016;6:213–27. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sugimoto N, Eto K. Platelet production from induced pluripotent stem cells. J Thromb Haemost. 2017;15:1717–27. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nakamura S, et al. Expandable megakaryocyte cell lines enable clinically applicable generation of platelets from human induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2014;14:535–48. Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thon JN, Dykstra BJ, Beaulieu LM. Platelet bioreactor: accelerated evolution of design and manufacture. Platelets. 2017;28:472–7. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bezard E, et al. Relationship between the appearance of symptoms and the level of nigrostriatal degeneration in a progressive 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine-lesioned macaque model of Parkinson's disease. J Neurosci. 2001;21:6853–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Avior Y, Sagi I, Benvenisty N. Pluripotent stem cells in disease modelling and drug discovery. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016;17:170–82. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nosengo N. New tricks for old drugs. Nature. 2016;534:314–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McNeish J, Gardner JP, Wainger BJ, Woolf CJ, Eggan K. From dish to bedside: lessons learned while translating findings from a stem cell model of disease to a clinical trial. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;17:8–10. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Imamura K, et al. The Src/c-Abl pathway is a potential therapeutic target in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9:eaaf3962. Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hino K, et al. Activin-A enhances mTOR signaling to promote aberrant chondrogenesis in fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. J Clin Invest. 2017;127(9):3339–52. Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yamashita A, et al. Statin treatment rescues FGFR3 skeletal dysplasia phenotypes. Nature. 2014;513:507–11. Scholar
  41. 41.
    Moffat JG, Vincent F, Lee JA, Eder J, Prunotto M. Opportunities and challenges in phenotypic drug discovery: an industry perspective. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017;16:531–43. Scholar
  42. 42.
    Karagiannis P, Onodera A, Yamanaka S. New models for therapeutic innovation from Japan. EBioMedicine. 2017;18:3–4. Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nozaki Y, et al. CSAHi study: validation of multi-electrode array systems (MEA60/2100) for prediction of drug-induced proarrhythmia using human iPS cell-derived cardiomyocytes-assessment of inter-facility and cells lot-to-lot-variability. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;77:75–86. Scholar
  44. 44.
    Barbuti A, Benzoni P, Campostrini G, Dell’Era P. Human derived cardiomyocytes: a decade of knowledge after the discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells. Dev Dyn. 2016;245:1145–58. Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kawatou M, et al. Modelling Torsade de Pointes arrhythmias in vitro in 3D human iPS cell-engineered heart tissue. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1078. Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yoshihara M, Hayashizaki Y, Murakawa Y. Genomic instability of iPSCs: challenges towards their clinical applications. Stem Cell Rev. 2017;13:7–16. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Su RJ, et al. Few single nucleotide variations in exomes of human cord blood induced pluripotent stem cells. PLoS One. 2013;8:e59908. Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kang E, et al. Age-related accumulation of somatic mitochondrial DNA mutations in adult-derived human iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell. 2016;18:625–36. Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rouhani F, et al. Genetic background drives transcriptional variation in human induced pluripotent stem cells. PLoS Genet. 2014;10:e1004432. Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zheng YL. Some ethical concerns about human induced pluripotent stem cells. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22:1277–84. Scholar
  51. 51.
    Takashima Y, et al. Resetting transcription factor control circuitry toward ground-state pluripotency in human. Cell. 2014;158:1254–69. Scholar
  52. 52.
    Theunissen TW, et al. Systematic identification of culture conditions for induction and maintenance of naive human pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell. 2014;15:471–87. Scholar
  53. 53.
    Collier AJ, et al. Comprehensive cell surface protein profiling identifies specific markers of human naive and primed pluripotent states. Cell Stem Cell. 2017;20(6):874–890.e7. Scholar
  54. 54.
    Choi J, et al. Prolonged Mek1/2 suppression impairs the developmental potential of embryonic stem cells. Nature. 2017;548:219–23. Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yagi M, et al. Derivation of ground-state female ES cells maintaining gamete-derived DNA methylation. Nature. 2017;548:224–7. Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kajiwara M, et al. Donor-dependent variations in hepatic differentiation from human-induced pluripotent stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:12538–43. Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kim K, et al. Donor cell type can influence the epigenome and differentiation potential of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29:1117–9. Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature. 1997;385:810–3. Scholar
  59. 59.
    Evans MJ, Kaufman MH. Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos. Nature. 1981;292:154–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Thomson JA, et al. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science. 1998;282:1145–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA)Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations