CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 218Pluripotent Stem Cells ResearchHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationImmune cells in cancer

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Macrophages Share Ontogeny with MYB-Independent Tissue-Resident Macrophages

Open access
Buchrieser, Julian, James, William, Moore, Michael D.·2017·Stem Cell Reports
DOI 10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.12.020PMC PMC5312255
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Tissue-resident macrophages, such as microglia, Kupffer cells, and Langerhans cells, derive from Myb-independent yolk sac (YS) progenitors generated before the emergence of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). Myb-independent YS-derived resident macrophages self-renew locally, independently of circulating monocytes and HSCs. In contrast, adult blood monocytes, as well as infiltrating, gut, and dermal macrophages, derive from Myb-dependent HSCs. These findings are derived from the mouse, using gene knockouts and lineage tracing, but their applicability to human development has not been formally demonstrated. Here, we use human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) as a tool to model human hematopoietic development. By using a CRISPR-Cas9 knockout strategy, we show that human iPSC-derived monocytes/macrophages develop in an MYB-independent, RUNX1-, and SPI1 (PU.1)-dependent fashion. This result makes human iPSC-derived macrophages developmentally related to and a good model for MYB-independent tissue-resident macrophages, such as alveolar and kidney macrophages, microglia, Kupffer cells, and Langerhans cells.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.12.020

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Monocyte/Macrophage Production Capacity of WT, MYB−/+, MYB−/−, RUNX−/−, and SPI1−/− iPSCs (A) Total number of CD14+ cells produced per well containing eight EBs over a period of 30 days, plotted with mean and SD, three independent experiments, number of total wells: WT n = 22 (from three independent clones), MYB−/− n = 27 (from three clones), MYB−/+ n = 9 (from one clone), SPI1−/− n = 9 (from one clone), and RUNX1−/− n = 9 (from one clone). Cell counts have been normalized to the CD14+ percentage of each replica (over 90% of the cells produced were CD14+ for each well independently of genetic modifications). Statistical comparisons were performed using a nonparametric Mann-Whitney test, ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001. (B) Noncumulative production of monocytes per well over a period of 30 days of the three independent experiments shown in (A). Each time point represents the mean number of CD14+ cells harvested per well of MYB−/− (n = 9), WT (n = 6), and MYB−/+ (n = 3) iPSCs. Error bars denote SD. Statistical comparisons were done using a two-way ANOVA, ns, nonsignificant, ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001. (C) Representative image of WT, MYB−/−, MYB−/+, RUNX1−/−, and SPI1−/− EBs after 1 day of differentiation. (D) Mean diameter with SD of WT, MYB−/−, RUNX1−/−, and SPI1−/− EBs; each data point represents the mean diameter of one independent experiment (n = 16). Diameter was calculated using ImageJ, and statistical comparisons were performed using a nonparametric one-way ANOVA comparing the mean of each column with the mean of the WT control column.
Figure 1 Monocyte/Macrophage Production Capacity of WT, MYB−/+, MYB−/−, RUNX−/−, and SPI1−/− iPSCs (A) Total number of CD14+ cells produced per well containing eight EBs over a period of 30 days, plotted with mean and SD, three independent experiments, number of total wells: WT n = 22 (from three independent clones), MYB−/− n = 27 (from three clones), MYB−/+ n = 9 (from one clone), SPI1−/− n = 9 (from one clone), and RUNX1−/− n = 9 (from one clone). Cell counts have been normalized to the CD14+ percentage of each replica (over 90% of the cells produced were CD14+ for each well independently of genetic modifications). Statistical comparisons were performed using a nonparametric Mann-Whitney test, ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001. (B) Noncumulative production of monocytes per well over a period of 30 days of the three independent experiments shown in (A). Each time point represents the mean number of CD14+ cells harvested per well of MYB−/− (n = 9), WT (n = 6), and MYB−/+ (n = 3) iPSCs. Error bars denote SD. Statistical comparisons were done using a two-way ANOVA, ns, nonsignificant, ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001. (C) Representative image of WT, MYB−/−, MYB−/+, RUNX1−/−, and SPI1−/− EBs after 1 day of differentiation. (D) Mean diameter with SD of WT, MYB−/−, RUNX1−/−, and SPI1−/− EBs; each data point represents the mean diameter of one independent experiment (n = 16). Diameter was calculated using ImageJ, and statistical comparisons were performed using a nonparametric one-way ANOVA comparing the mean of each column with the mean of the WT control column.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 MYB−/− Monocytes/Macrophages Display No Phenotypic or Functional Differences Compared with WT Control (A) Representative images of eosin and methylene blue stain of cytospined WT, MYB−/+, and MYB−/− monocytes/macrophages on the day of harvest. (B) Flow cytometry staining of monocytes/macrophages for common myeloid cell surface makers, showing live cell gate on the left and histogram plots on the right, antibody staining (blue) and isotype (red). (C) Representative images of eosin and methylene blue stain of WT, MYB−/+, and MYB−/− monocytes/macrophages differentiated for 7 days in M-CSF. (D) Phagocytosis assay measuring the fluorescently labeled zymosan uptake by 1 week differentiated WT and MYB−/− macrophages. Cells were analyzed by flow cytometry and the percentage of AlexaFluor-488-zymosan+ macrophages was plotted. The experiment was run in triplicate, and statistical comparisons were done using an unpaired t test. Error bars denote SD between replicats. (E) Representative histograms of WT and MYB−/− iPSC-derived monocyte/macrophages of AlexaFluor-488-zymosan uptake, untreated (blue) and cytochalasin D-treated negative control (red). (F) First harvest monocytes/macrophages pulsed with EdU and CD14+EdU+ cells that had undergone DNA replication were detected by flow cytometry after Click-iT staining. Five independent experiments are shown with mean and SD (symbols represent paired experiments), where MYB−/− represents the pooled results obtained for three different MYB−/− iPSC clones and WT the pooled result obtained from technical triplicates from a single clone. Statistical comparisons were done using a paired t test. (G) Monocytes/macrophages from WT and MYB−/− iPSCs were treated with luminol reagent in the presence or absence of PMA stimulation. Individual wells were monitored for light released at 1 s intervals for 300 s in triplicate using a PHERAstar FS (BMG Labtech). The mean of three wells was normalized to the average of the 5 s before luminol addition and are plotted with smoothing for clarity (average of six neighboring data points). (H) ELISA measuring the TNF-α released by 1 week differentiated macrophages after 24 hr LPS stimulation compared with untreated controls. Results are plotted with mean and SD. No significant difference was observed using one-way ANOVA between WT and MYB−/− cells.
Figure 2 MYB−/− Monocytes/Macrophages Display No Phenotypic or Functional Differences Compared with WT Control (A) Representative images of eosin and methylene blue stain of cytospined WT, MYB−/+, and MYB−/− monocytes/macrophages on the day of harvest. (B) Flow cytometry staining of monocytes/macrophages for common myeloid cell surface makers, showing live cell gate on the left and histogram plots on the right, antibody staining (blue) and isotype (red). (C) Representative images of eosin and methylene blue stain of WT, MYB−/+, and MYB−/− monocytes/macrophages differentiated for 7 days in M-CSF. (D) Phagocytosis assay measuring the fluorescently labeled zymosan uptake by 1 week differentiated WT and MYB−/− macrophages. Cells were analyzed by flow cytometry and the percentage of AlexaFluor-488-zymosan+ macrophages was plotted. The experiment was run in triplicate, and statistical comparisons were done using an unpaired t test. Error bars denote SD between replicats. (E) Representative histograms of WT and MYB−/− iPSC-derived monocyte/macrophages of AlexaFluor-488-zymosan uptake, untreated (blue) and cytochalasin D-treated negative control (red). (F) First harvest monocytes/macrophages pulsed with EdU and CD14+EdU+ cells that had undergone DNA replication were detected by flow cytometry after Click-iT staining. Five independent experiments are shown with mean and SD (symbols represent paired experiments), where MYB−/− represents the pooled results obtained for three different MYB−/− iPSC clones and WT the pooled result obtained from technical triplicates from a single clone. Statistical comparisons were done using a paired t test. (G) Monocytes/macrophages from WT and MYB−/− iPSCs were treated with luminol reagent in the presence or absence of PMA stimulation. Individual wells were monitored for light released at 1 s intervals for 300 s in triplicate using a PHERAstar FS (BMG Labtech). The mean of three wells was normalized to the average of the 5 s before luminol addition and are plotted with smoothing for clarity (average of six neighboring data points). (H) ELISA measuring the TNF-α released by 1 week differentiated macrophages after 24 hr LPS stimulation compared with untreated controls. Results are plotted with mean and SD. No significant difference was observed using one-way ANOVA between WT and MYB−/− cells.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 iPSC-Derived Monocytes/Macrophages Display a Similar mRNA Expression to Mouse MYB-Independent Macrophages Relative expression of (A) CSFR1, (B) MAF, (C) FLT3, (D) CCR2 mRNA in primary blood monocytes (3 donors, n = 3), WT iPSC-derived monocytes/macrophages (three independent differentiations, n = 3), and MYB−/− iPSC-derived monocytes/macrophages (two independent differentiations, three clones, n = 6). (A and B) Expression data were normalized to EF1α endogenous control, and relative mRNA expression to blood monocytes (2−ΔΔCT) is plotted. (C and D) CT values of CCR2 and FLT3 were undetectable in all iPSC samples; therefore, the relative quantity of mRNA normalized to EF1α endogenous control is plotted (2−ΔCT). The dotted line represents the limit of detection equal to the 2−ΔCT of the no-template control. Error bars denote SD. Statistical comparisons were done using a one-way ANOVA for each gene. ns, nonsignificant; ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001. ND, non-detected/equal to no-template control.
Figure 3 iPSC-Derived Monocytes/Macrophages Display a Similar mRNA Expression to Mouse MYB-Independent Macrophages Relative expression of (A) CSFR1, (B) MAF, (C) FLT3, (D) CCR2 mRNA in primary blood monocytes (3 donors, n = 3), WT iPSC-derived monocytes/macrophages (three independent differentiations, n = 3), and MYB−/− iPSC-derived monocytes/macrophages (two independent differentiations, three clones, n = 6). (A and B) Expression data were normalized to EF1α endogenous control, and relative mRNA expression to blood monocytes (2−ΔΔCT) is plotted. (C and D) CT values of CCR2 and FLT3 were undetectable in all iPSC samples; therefore, the relative quantity of mRNA normalized to EF1α endogenous control is plotted (2−ΔCT). The dotted line represents the limit of detection equal to the 2−ΔCT of the no-template control. Error bars denote SD. Statistical comparisons were done using a one-way ANOVA for each gene. ns, nonsignificant; ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001. ND, non-detected/equal to no-template control.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Study of the Progenitor Cells within the iPSC-Derived EBs (A) Representative plots of day 9, 11, and 14 EBs of WT and MYB−/− iPSCs, which were enzymatically dissociated, stained for expression of CD34 and CD45, and analyzed by flow cytometry. Hemogenic and nonhemogenic-endothelial cells are CD34+CD45−, HPCs are CD34+CD45+, and differentiated hematopoietic cells are CD34−CD45+. (B) Relative proportion of CD34+CD45+, CD34+CD45−, and CD34−CD45+ populations on day 9, 11, and 14 normalized to the total number of single- and double-positive cells. Mean and SD of four repeats are plotted. (C) Relative proportion of CD34+CD45+ populations on day 9, 11, and 14. Statistical comparisons were done using a paired t test. ns, nonsignificant; ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01. (D) Image of the different colony types. The images on the left show a bright-field image of representative CFU-E, CFU-M, and CFU-GM WT colonies in methylcellulose media at day 14, while the images on the right show the cytospined and eosin and methylene blue-stained cells present within the three different types of colony. (E) Dissociated day 14 EBs were plated into H4434 MethoCult; after 14 days, colonies were scored. The percentage of each type of colony is displayed as mean with SD (WT n = 5, MYB−/− n = 3 for each knockout clone). Presence of erythroid (CFU-E), granulocyte-macrophage (CFU-GM), and macrophage progenitors (CFU-M) can be detected in WT iPSC differentiation, whereas MYB−/− iPSCs display only CFU-M potential. RUNX1−/− and SPI1−/− iPSCs did not generate any hematopoietic colonies. See also Figure S5.
Figure 4 Study of the Progenitor Cells within the iPSC-Derived EBs (A) Representative plots of day 9, 11, and 14 EBs of WT and MYB−/− iPSCs, which were enzymatically dissociated, stained for expression of CD34 and CD45, and analyzed by flow cytometry. Hemogenic and nonhemogenic-endothelial cells are CD34+CD45−, HPCs are CD34+CD45+, and differentiated hematopoietic cells are CD34−CD45+. (B) Relative proportion of CD34+CD45+, CD34+CD45−, and CD34−CD45+ populations on day 9, 11, and 14 normalized to the total number of single- and double-positive cells. Mean and SD of four repeats are plotted. (C) Relative proportion of CD34+CD45+ populations on day 9, 11, and 14. Statistical comparisons were done using a paired t test. ns, nonsignificant; ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01. (D) Image of the different colony types. The images on the left show a bright-field image of representative CFU-E, CFU-M, and CFU-GM WT colonies in methylcellulose media at day 14, while the images on the right show the cytospined and eosin and methylene blue-stained cells present within the three different types of colony. (E) Dissociated day 14 EBs were plated into H4434 MethoCult; after 14 days, colonies were scored. The percentage of each type of colony is displayed as mean with SD (WT n = 5, MYB−/− n = 3 for each knockout clone). Presence of erythroid (CFU-E), granulocyte-macrophage (CFU-GM), and macrophage progenitors (CFU-M) can be detected in WT iPSC differentiation, whereas MYB−/− iPSCs display only CFU-M potential. RUNX1−/− and SPI1−/− iPSCs did not generate any hematopoietic colonies. See also Figure S5.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Schematic Representation of the Proposed Model of Lineage Commitment Occurring during Human iPSC Myelopoiesis In our protocol, when RUNX1 is knocked out, no hematopoietic cells are observed, including primitive erythrocytes. This suggests the absence of unilineage primitive erythrocytes in this specific differentiation protocol (red cross indicates lack of production in our system) and confirms the mouse observation that RUNX1 is required for all macrophage lineages. In contrast, MYB knockout only blocked erythroid and granulocyte colony-forming potential, which fits with the observation in the mouse that definitive erythrocytes and granulocytes require a functional MYB gene. MYB knockout does not block monocyte/macrophage differentiation, indicating that most iPSC-derived monocytes/macrophages generated in this study are MYB independent. The precursor of these monocytes/macrophages is still unknown, as macrophages could differentiate in a MYB-independent fashion from either unilineage primitive macrophage progenitors or EMPs. Furthermore, the fact that MYB is not required for myeloid differentiation in this EB differentiation protocol suggests the absence of definitive HSC commitment (red cross indicates lack of production in our system). Taken together, our results fit with the current observation in the mouse and suggest that MYB, RUNX1, and SPI1 play a very similar role in mouse and human myeloid development.
Figure 5 Schematic Representation of the Proposed Model of Lineage Commitment Occurring during Human iPSC Myelopoiesis In our protocol, when RUNX1 is knocked out, no hematopoietic cells are observed, including primitive erythrocytes. This suggests the absence of unilineage primitive erythrocytes in this specific differentiation protocol (red cross indicates lack of production in our system) and confirms the mouse observation that RUNX1 is required for all macrophage lineages. In contrast, MYB knockout only blocked erythroid and granulocyte colony-forming potential, which fits with the observation in the mouse that definitive erythrocytes and granulocytes require a functional MYB gene. MYB knockout does not block monocyte/macrophage differentiation, indicating that most iPSC-derived monocytes/macrophages generated in this study are MYB independent. The precursor of these monocytes/macrophages is still unknown, as macrophages could differentiate in a MYB-independent fashion from either unilineage primitive macrophage progenitors or EMPs. Furthermore, the fact that MYB is not required for myeloid differentiation in this EB differentiation protocol suggests the absence of definitive HSC commitment (red cross indicates lack of production in our system). Taken together, our results fit with the current observation in the mouse and suggest that MYB, RUNX1, and SPI1 play a very similar role in mouse and human myeloid development.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 218

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Buchrieser, J., James, W., & Moore, M. D.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Buchrieser, Julian
ORCID
Venue
Stem Cell Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
334-345
ISSN
2213-6711 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.12.020
PMC
PMC5312255
OpenAlex
W2575042032
Cited by
215
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 9
FWCI
8.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Stem Cell Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Parkinson&apos;s UK (2581970, SC037554)
  • Research Councils UK
  • Wellcome Trust (WTISSF121302)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (090532/Z/09/Z.)
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Pluripotent Stem Cells Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immune cells in cancer
Keywords
tissue-resident macrophages, iPSC-derived macrophages, macrophage ontogeny, hematopoietic development, RUNX1, yolk sac macrophages, microglia, Kupffer cells, Langerhans cells, alveolar macrophages, kidney macrophages, monocytes, CRISPR/Cas9 knockout
MeSH terms
Proto-Oncogene Protein Spi-1, Cell Differentiation, Cell Line, Erythrocytes, Granulocytes, Hematopoietic Stem Cells, Humans, Macrophages, Monocytes, Organ Specificity, Phenotype, Proto-Oncogene Proteins, Biomarkers, Trans-Activators, Gene Expression, Gene Expression Regulation, Developmental, Genes, myb, Core Binding Factor Alpha 2 Subunit, Gene Knockout Techniques, Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells, Embryoid Bodies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review