Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

EPS and iPS Cells in Disease Research

EPS and iPS Cells in Disease Research

Embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells are excellent models for disease research because of their ability to self-renew and differentiate into most cell types. Somatic cells from a patient are isolated and reprogrammed into induced pluripotent stem cells or iPSCs. These iPSCs are later differentiated into the desired cell type, which mirrors the diseased cell of the patient. In this way, disease models have been created for investigating diseases such as Down syndrome, type I diabetes,...

iPS Cell Differentiation

iPS Cell Differentiation

The ability of induced pluripotent stem cells or iPSCs to differentiate into most body cell types has stimulated repair and regenerative medicine research over the past few decades. iPSC-derived blood cells, hepatocytes, beta islet cells, cardiomyocytes, neurons, and other cell types can repair injuries or regenerate damaged tissue in diseases such as diabetes and neurodegenerative disorders.

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that divide and produce different cell types. Ordinarily, cells that have differentiated into a specific cell type are terminally differentiated; however, scientists have found a way to reprogram these mature cells so that they dedifferentiate and return to an unspecialized, proliferative state. These cells are pluripotent like embryonic stem cells—able to produce all cell types—and are called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs).
Somatic cells are...

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that divide and produce different types of cells. Ordinarily, cells that have differentiated into a specific cell type are post-mitotic—that is, they no longer divide. However, scientists have found a way to reprogram these mature cells so that they “de-differentiate” and return to an unspecialized, proliferative state. These cells are also pluripotent like embryonic stem cells—able to produce all cell types—and are therefore called induced pluripotent stem...

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that divide and produce different types of cells. Ordinarily, cells that have differentiated into a specific cell type are post-mitotic—that is, they no longer divide. However, scientists have found a way to reprogram these mature cells so that they “de-differentiate” and return to an unspecialized, proliferative state. These cells are also pluripotent like embryonic stem cells—able to produce all cell types—and are therefore called induced pluripotent stem...

Somatic to iPS Cell Reprogramming

Somatic to iPS Cell Reprogramming

Reprogramming alters the gene expression in somatic cells, transforming them into induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells over several generations. Scientists can reprogram cells by introducing genes for four transcription factors—Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc (OSKM) by viral or non-viral methods. These factors are also known as Yamanaka factors after Shinya Yamanaka, who first generated iPS cells using mouse skin cells. Yamanaka was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2012 for this...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Potential Factors Influencing Repeated SARS Outbreaks in China.

International journal of environmental research and public health·2020

Same author

Enhancing life cycle chemical exposure assessment through ontology modeling.

The Science of the total environment·2020

Same author

A meta-analysis of selected near-road air pollutants based on concentration decay rates.

Heliyon·2019

Same author

Evaluation of Traffic Density Parameters as an Indicator of Vehicle Emission-Related Near-Road Air Pollution: A Case Study with NEXUS Measurement Data on Black Carbon.

International journal of environmental research and public health·2017

Same author

Biodiversity management of organic farming enhances agricultural sustainability.

Scientific reports·2016

Same author

Analysis of NHANES measured blood PCBs in the general US population and application of SHEDS model to identify key exposure factors.

Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology·2014

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 5, 2026

Efficient Generation and Editing of Feeder-free IPSCs from Human Pancreatic Cells Using the CRISPR-Cas9 System

Efficient Generation and Editing of Feeder-free IPSCs from Human Pancreatic Cells Using the CRISPR-Cas9 System

Published on: November 8, 2017

iPS cells: a more critical review.

¹Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine, Apex, NC 27502, USA. SVL@logibio.com

Stem Cells and Development

|April 23, 2008

Summary

This review questions the validity of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell claims, suggesting they may not be a safe alternative to embryonic stem (ES) cells for regenerative therapy.

Area of Science:

Stem cell biology
Regenerative medicine
Cellular reprogramming

Background:

Reports on induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, derived from nonembryonic tissue, have gained significant attention.
The potential of iPS cells as an alternative to embryonic stem (ES) cells is debated, particularly concerning regenerative therapy.
The ongoing controversy surrounding ES cell use amplifies the importance and scrutiny of iPS cell research.

Purpose of the Study:

To critically evaluate the evidence supporting claims of iPS cell generation and characteristics.
To explore alternative explanations for observed phenomena in iPS cell studies.
To question the safety and therapeutic viability of iPS cells as a substitute for ES cells.

Main Methods:

Literature review and critical analysis of published iPS cell studies.

More Related Videos

Measuring the Confluence of iPSCs Using an Automated Imaging System

Measuring the Confluence of iPSCs Using an Automated Imaging System

Published on: June 10, 2020

Generation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells from Frozen Buffy Coats using Non-integrating Episomal Plasmids

Generation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells from Frozen Buffy Coats using Non-integrating Episomal Plasmids

Published on: June 5, 2015

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 5, 2026

Efficient Generation and Editing of Feeder-free IPSCs from Human Pancreatic Cells Using the CRISPR-Cas9 System

Efficient Generation and Editing of Feeder-free IPSCs from Human Pancreatic Cells Using the CRISPR-Cas9 System

Published on: November 8, 2017

Measuring the Confluence of iPSCs Using an Automated Imaging System

Measuring the Confluence of iPSCs Using an Automated Imaging System

Published on: June 10, 2020

Generation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells from Frozen Buffy Coats using Non-integrating Episomal Plasmids

Generation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells from Frozen Buffy Coats using Non-integrating Episomal Plasmids

Published on: June 5, 2015

Examination of the evidence for cellular reprogramming and pluripotency in iPS cells.

Comparative assessment of iPS cells versus embryonic stem cells and somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).

Main Results:

The review raises concerns about the robustness and interpretation of data presented in many iPS cell reports.
Alternative explanations for observed iPS cell characteristics, beyond true reprogramming, are considered.
The safety and efficacy of iPS cells for regenerative therapy remain questionable due to insufficient evidence.

Conclusions:

The validity of many iPS cell claims requires further rigorous investigation.
The premature acceptance of iPS cells as a safe alternative to ES cells for therapy is cautioned against.
Alternative perspectives and critical reflection are encouraged for advancing iPS cell research and application.