Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2015 Dec;37:68-74. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2015.10.001. Epub 2015 Nov 11.

Crosstalk between stem cell and cell cycle machineries.

Author information

1
Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Stanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
2
Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Stanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Electronic address: julsage@stanford.edu.
3
Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Stanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Electronic address: wernig@stanford.edu.

Abstract

Pluripotent stem cells, defined by an unlimited self-renewal capacity and an undifferentiated state, are best typified by embryonic stem cells. These cells have a unique cell cycle compared to somatic cells as defined by a rapid progression through the cell cycle and a minimal time spent in G1. Recent reports indicate that pluripotency and cell cycle regulation are mechanistically linked. In this review, we discuss the reciprocal co-regulation of these processes, how this co-regulation may prevent differentiation, and how cellular reprogramming can re-establish the unique cell cycle regulation in induced pluripotent stem cells.

PMID:
26520682
PMCID:
PMC4852861
DOI:
10.1016/j.ceb.2015.10.001
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center