Skip to main content

How many cofactors for inducing expression of every cell type?

Another revolution in iPSC technology announced:

"Also known as iPS cells, these cells can become virtually any cell type in the human body -- just like embryonic stem cells. Then last year, Gladstone Senior Investigator Sheng Ding, PhD, announced that he had used a combination of small molecules and genetic factors to transform skin cells directly into neural stem cells. Today, Dr. Huang takes a new tack by using one genetic factor -- Sox2 -- to directly reprogram one cell type into another without reverting to the pluripotent state."

-- So the method invented by Yamanaka is now refined to rely only 1 cofactor and b) directly generate the target cell type from the source cell type (skin to neuron) without the stem like intermediate stage. 

It also mentions that oncogenic triggering was eliminated in their testing. Now comparative methods can be used to discover other types...the question is..is Sox2 critical for all types? It may be that skin to neuron relies on Sox2 modulation but say skin to lung or heart to kidney cell might require different numbers or combinations of factors.

It's true that parsimony is on our side (I posit that "overloading" is the default state for evolutionary selective innovation over "overriding" as a form of selective polymorphism) so there may be a few modulation channels so to speak that Sox2 uniquely controls...but there are so many known cell types that there must be crossing with other key controls.  I hypothesize, that with over 200 cell types...the minimal number of cofactors required to uniquely express all types directly should be such that variation per co factor is low multiplied by number of cofactors accounts for at least a minimum of 200 (or the number of unique cell types across the life stages of a human being). So , (3)^5 or (2)^8 or (4)^4.

Conservation of energy would be the overriding constrain that determined how one combination of factors gave rise to the evolution of new cell types by modulation of the cofactors but the question of which pattern of cofactor polymorphism was most effective. Did the cofactors get "overloaded" with functionality (exponent) more than they were "overridden" (mantissa) ?? The vagaries of selective processes in the early life forms from which the original variation in cell types I fell would hold the key.

In correlation with this theory is the fact that the cofactors thus far being used to induce pluripotency have been based on 6 gene families (myc,klf,cox,lin28,nanog,oct3/4), which could cover all cell types with only 3 exponent hops...assuming those are indeed the base variations. The fact that various combinations induced cancer formation seems to indicate that not all of them may be or that they must be modulated in complex temporal ways in order to avoid cancer formation.

Whatever the correct minimal number of cofactors involved, I suspect they go way back to the Cambrian age and thus the associated pathways are highly conserved. It will be interesting to see what the actual algorithm of pluripotency turns out to be, my bet is on overriding being more important than overloading so of the three I bias for combinations that have larger exponents as they are more likely to generate new cell lines during cross modulation with minimal effort (time/energy) during a natural selection process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Highly targeted Cpg vaccine immunotherapy for a range of cancer

Significance?


This will surely go down as a seminal advance in cancer therapy. It reads like magic:

So this new approach looks for the specific proteins that are associated with a given tumors resistance to attack by the body's T cells, it then adjusts those T cells to be hyper sensitive to the specific oncogenic proteins targeted. These cells become essentially The Terminator​ T cells in the specific tumor AND have the multiplied effect of traveling along the immune pathway of spreading that the cancer many have metastasized. This is huge squared because it means you can essentially use targeting one tumor to identify and eliminate distal tumors that you many not even realize exist.

This allows the therapy for treating cancer to, for the first time; end the "wack a mole" problem that has frustrated traditional shot gun methods of treatment involving radiation and chemotherapy ...which by their nature unfortunately damage parts of the body that are not cancer laden but …

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

AgilEntity Architecture: Action Oriented Workflow

Permissions, fine grained versus management headache
The usual method for determining which users can perform a given function on a given object in a managed system, employs providing those Users with specific access rights via the use of permissions. Often these permissions are also able to be granted to collections called Groups, to which Users are added. The combination of Permissions and Groups provides the ability to provide as atomic a dissemination of rights across the User space as possible. However, this granularity comes at the price of reduced efficiency for managing the created permissions and more importantly the Groups that collect Users designated to perform sets of actions. Essentially the Groups serve as access control lists in many systems, which for the variable and often changing environment of business applications means a need to constantly update the ACL’s (groups) in order to add or remove individuals based on their ability to perform certain actions. Also, the…