[1] Yamanaka S, Takahashi K. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse fibroblast cultures. Tanpakushitsu Kakusan Koso. 2006;51(15):2346-2351.[2] Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. A decade of transcription factor-mediated reprogramming to pluripotency. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016;17(3):183-193.[3] Theunissen TW, Jaenisch R. Molecular control of induced pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell. 2014;14(6):720-734.[4] Lin J, Li MR, Ti DD, et al. Microenvironment-evoked cell lineage conversion: Shifting the focus from internal reprogramming to external forcing. Ageing Res Rev. 2013; 12(1):29-38.[5] Dingal PC, Discher DE. Combining insoluble and soluble factors to steer stem cell fate. Nat Mater. 2014;13(6):532-537.[6] Crowder SW, Leonardo V, Whittaker T, et al. Material Cues as Potent Regulators of Epigenetics and Stem Cell Function. Cell Stem Cell. 2016;18(1):39-52.[7] Mashinchian O, Turner LA, Dalby MJ, et al. Regulation of stem cell fate by nanomaterial substrates. Nanomedicine (Lond). 2015;10(5):829-847.[8] Bettinger CJ, Langer R, Borenstein JT. Engineering substrate topography at the micro-and nanoscale to control cell function. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2009;48(30):5406-5415.[9] Jeon K, Oh HJ, Lim H, et al. Self-renewal of embryonic stem cells through culture on nanopattern polydimethylsiloxane substrate. Biomaterials. 2012;33(21):5206-5220.[10] Chen W, Villa-Diaz LG, Sun Y, et al. Nanotopography influences adhesion, spreading, and self-renewal of human embryonic stem cells. ACS Nano. 2012;6(5):4094-4103.[11] Kong YP, Tu CH, Donovan PJ, et al. Expression of Oct4 in human embryonic stem cells is dependent on nanotopographical configuration. Acta Biomater. 2013; 9(5):6369-6380.[12] Bae D, Moon SH, Park BG, et al. Nanotopographical control for maintaining undifferentiated human embryonic stem cell colonies in feeder free conditions. Biomaterials. 2014;35(3): 916-928.[13] Nur-E-Kamal A, Ahmed I, Kamal J, et al. Three-dimensional nanofibrillar surfaces promote self-renewal in mouse embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells. 2006;24(2):426-433.[14] Carlson AL, Florek CA, Kim JJ, et al. Microfibrous substrate geometry as a critical trigger for organization, self-renewal, and differentiation of human embryonic stem cells within synthetic 3-dimensional microenvironments. FASEB J. 2012;26(8):3240-3251.[15] Lyu Z, Wang H, Wang Y, et al. Maintaining the pluripotency of mouse embryonic stem cells on gold nanoparticle layers with nanoscale but not microscale surface roughness. Nanoscale. 2014;6(12):6959-6969.[16] Jaggy M, Zhang P, Greiner AM, et al. Hierarchical Micro-Nano Surface Topography Promotes Long-Term Maintenance of Undifferentiated Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells. Nano Lett. 2015;15(10):7146-7154.[17] Downing TL, Soto J, Morez C, et al. Biophysical regulation of epigenetic state and cell reprogramming. Nat Mater. 2013; 12(12): 1154-1162.[18] Sakurai K, Talukdar I, Patil VS, et al. Kinome-wide functional analysis highlights the role of cytoskeletal remodeling in somatic cell reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell. 2014;14(4):523-534.[19] Li Y, Chu JS, Kurpinski K, et al. Biophysical regulation of histone acetylation in mesenchymal stem cells. Biophys J. 2011;100(8): 1902-1909.[20] Pasque V, Jullien J, Miyamoto K, et al. Epigenetic factors influencing resistance to nuclear reprogramming. Trends Genet. 2011;27(12):516-525.[21] Kulangara K, Adler AF, Wang H, et al. The effect of substrate topography on direct reprogramming of fibroblasts to induced neurons. Biomaterials. 2014;35(20):5327-5336.[22] Yoo J, Noh M, Kim H, et al. Nanogrooved substrate promotes direct lineage reprogramming of fibroblasts to functional induced dopaminergic neurons. Biomaterials. 2015;45:36-45.[23] Morez C, Noseda M, Paiva MA, et al. Enhanced efficiency of genetic programming toward cardiomyocyte creation through topographical cues. Biomaterials. 2015;70:94-104.[24] Chowdhury F, Li Y, Poh YC, et al. Soft substrates promote homogeneous self-renewal of embryonic stem cells via downregulating cell-matrix tractions. PLoS One. 2010;5(12): e15655.[25] Ranga A, Gobaa S, Okawa Y, et al. 3D niche microarrays for systems-level analyses of cell fate. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4324.[26] Keung AJ, Asuri P, Kumar S, et al. Soft microenvironments promote the early neurogenic differentiation but not self-renewal of human pluripotent stem cells. Integr Biol (Camb). 2012;4(9): 1049-1058.[27] Musah S, Morin SA, Wrighton PJ, et al. Glycosaminoglycan- binding hydrogels enable mechanical control of human pluripotent stem cell self-renewal. ACS Nano. 2012;6(11): 10168-10177.[28] Higuchi A, Kao SH, Ling QD, et al. Long-term xeno-free culture of human pluripotent stem cells on hydrogels with optimal elasticity. Sci Rep. 2015;5:18136.[29] Koestenbauer S, Zech NH, Juch H, et al. Embryonic stem cells: similarities and differences between human and murine embryonic stem cells. Am J Reprod Immunol 2006;55(3): 169-180.[30] Weinberger L, Ayyash M, Novershtern N, et al. Dynamic stem cell states: naive to primed pluripotency in rodents and humans. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016;17(3):155-169.[31] Higuchi S, Watanabe TM, Kawauchi K, et al. Culturing of mouse and human cells on soft substrates promote the expression of stem cell markers. J Biosci Bioeng. 2014; 117(6):749-755.[32] Guo J, Wang Y, Sachs F, et al. Actin stress in cell reprogramming. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(49): E5252-5261.[33] Choi B, Park KS, Kim JH, et al. Stiffness of Hydrogels Regulates Cellular Reprogramming Efficiency Through Mesenchymal-to-Epithelial Transition and Stemness Markers. Macromol Biosci. 2016;16(2):199-206.[34] Zonca MR Jr, Yune PS, Heldt CL, et al. High-throughput screening of substrate chemistry for embryonic stem cell attachment, expansion, and maintaining pluripotency. Macromol Biosci. 2013;13(2):177-190.[35] Anderson DG, Levenberg S, Langer R. Nanoliter-scale synthesis of arrayed biomaterials and application to human embryonic stem cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;22(7):863-866.[36] Mei Y, Saha K, Bogatyrev SR, et al. Combinatorial development of biomaterials for clonal growth of human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Mater. 2010;9(9):768-778.[37] Brafman DA, Shah KD, Fellner T, et al. Defining long-term maintenance conditions of human embryonic stem cells with arrayed cellular microenvironment technology. Stem Cells Dev. 2009;18(8):1141-1154.[38] Joddar B, Ito Y. Artificial niche substrates for embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cell cultures. J Biotechnol. 2013; 168(2):218-228.[39] Villa-Diaz LG, Kim JK, Lahann J, et al. Derivation and long-term culture of transgene-free human induced pluripotent stem cells on synthetic substrates. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2014;3(12):1410-1417.[40] Zhou P, Wu F, Zhou T, et al. Simple and versatile synthetic polydopamine-based surface supports reprogramming of human somatic cells and long-term self-renewal of human pluripotent stem cells under defined conditions. Biomaterials. 2016;87:1-17.[41] Chen G, Gulbranson DR, Hou Z, et al. Chemically defined conditions for human iPSC derivation and culture. Nat Methods. 2011;8(5):424-429.[42] Kim HT, Lee KI, Kim DW, et al. An ECM-based culture system for the generation and maintenance of xeno-free human iPS cells. Biomaterials. 2013;34(4):1041-1050.[43] Nakagawa M, Taniguchi Y, Senda S, et al. A novel efficient feeder-free culture system for the derivation of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Sci Rep. 2014;4:3594.[44] Lu HF, Chai C, Lim TC, et al. A defined xeno-free and feeder-free culture system for the derivation, expansion and direct differentiation of transgene-free patient-specific induced pluripotent stem cells. Biomaterials. 2014;35(9):2816-2826.[45] Yamasaki S, Taguchi Y, Shimamoto A, et al. Generation of human induced pluripotent stem (Ips) cells in serum- and feeder-free defined culture and TGF-Β1 regulation of pluripotency. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e87151.[46] Yoo J, Kim J, Baek S, et al. Cell reprogramming into the pluripotent state using graphene based substrates. Biomaterials. 2014;35(29):8321-8329.[47] Chang BS, Choi YJ, Kim JH. Collagen complexes increase the efficiency of iPS cells generated using fibroblasts from adult mice. J Reprod Dev. 2015;61(2):145-153.[48] Smith AW, Hoyne JD, Nguyen PK, et al. Direct reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts to cardiomyocyte-like cells using Yamanaka factors on engineered poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) hydrogels. Biomaterials. 2013;34(28):6559-6571.[49] Phadnis SM, Loewke NO, Dimov IK, et al. Dynamic and social behaviors of human pluripotent stem cells. Sci Rep. 2015;5: 14209.[50] Lecuit T, Lenne PF. Cell surface mechanics and the control of cell shape, tissue patterns and morphogenesis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007;8(8):633-644.[51] Watanabe K, Ueno M, Kamiya D, et al. A ROCK inhibitor permits survival of dissociated human embryonic stem cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(6):681-686.[52] Chen G, Hou Z, Gulbranson DR, et al. Actin-myosin contractility is responsible for the reduced viability of dissociated human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2010;7(2):240-248.[53] Li L, Wang BH, Wang S, et al. Individual cell movement, asymmetric colony expansion, rho-associated kinase, and E-cadherin impact the clonogenicity of human embryonic stem cells. Biophys J. 2010;98(11):2442-2451.[54] Rodin S, Antonsson L, Niaudet C, et al. Clonal culturing of human embryonic stem cells on laminin-521/E-cadherin matrix in defined and xeno-free environment. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3195.[55] Pieters T, van Roy F. Role of cell-cell adhesion complexes in embryonic stem cell biology. J Cell Sci. 2014;127(Pt 12): 2603-2613.[56] Samavarchi-Tehrani P, Golipour A, David L, et al. Functional genomics reveals a BMP-driven mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition in the initiation of somatic cell reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell. 2010;7(1):64-77.[57] Li R, Liang J, Ni S, et al. A mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition initiates and is required for the nuclear reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts. Cell Stem Cell. 2010;7(1):51-63.[58] Hu X, Zhang L, Mao SQ, et al. Tet and TDG mediate DNA demethylation essential for mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition in somatic cell reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell. 2014;14(4):512-522.[59] Shu X, Pei D. The function and regulation of mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition in somatic cell reprogramming. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2014;28:32-37.[60] Megyola CM, Gao Y, Teixeira AM, et al. Dynamic migration and cell-cell interactions of early reprogramming revealed by high-resolution time-lapse imaging. Stem Cells. 2013;31(5): 895-905.[61] Chen T, Yuan D, Wei B, et al. E-cadherin-mediated cell-cell contact is critical for induced pluripotent stem cell generation. Stem Cells. 2010;28(8):1315-1325.[62] Redmer T, Diecke S, Grigoryan T, et al. E-cadherin is crucial for embryonic stem cell pluripotency and can replace OCT4 during somatic cell reprogramming. EMBO Rep. 2011;12(7): 720-726.[63] Bedzhov I, Alotaibi H, Basilicata MF, et al. Adhesion, but not a specific cadherin code, is indispensable for ES cell and induced pluripotency. Stem Cell Res. 2013;11(3):1250-1263.[64] Su G, Zhao Y, Wei J, et al. The effect of forced growth of cells into 3D spheres using low attachment surfaces on the acquisition of stemness properties. Biomaterials. 2013;34(13): 3215-3222.[65] Liu Y, Mukhopadhyay P, Pisano MM, et al. Repression of Zeb1 and hypoxia cause sequential mesenchymal-to- epithelial transition and induction of aid, Oct4, and Dnmt1, leading to immortalization and multipotential reprogramming of fibroblasts in spheres. Stem Cells. 2013;31(7):1350-1362.[66] Su G, Zhao Y, Wei J, et al. Direct conversion of fibroblasts into neural progenitor-like cells by forced growth into 3D spheres on low attachment surfaces. Biomaterials. 2013;34(24): 5897-5906.[67] Mirakhori F, Zeynali B, Rassouli H, et al. Induction of Neural Progenitor-Like Cells from Human Fibroblasts via a Genetic Material-Free Approach. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0135479.[68] Ni A, Wu MJ, Chavala SH. Sphere formation permits Oct4 reprogramming of ciliary body epithelial cells into induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cells Dev. 2014;23(24): 3065-3071.[69] Ezashi T, Das P, Roberts RM. Low O2 tensions and the prevention of differentiation of hES cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(13):4783-4788.[70] Hammoud AA, Kirstein N, Mournetas V, et al. Murine Embryonic Stem Cell Plasticity Is Regulated through Klf5 and Maintained by Metalloproteinase MMP1 and Hypoxia. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0146281.[71] Hawkins KE, Sharp TV, McKay TR. The role of hypoxia in stem cell potency and differentiation. Regen Med. 2013; 8(6): 771-782.[72] Yoshida Y, Takahashi K, Okita K, et al. Hypoxia enhances the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2009;5(3):237-241.[73] Mathieu J, Zhang Z, Nelson A, et al. Hypoxia induces re-entry of committed cells into pluripotency. Stem Cells. 2013;31(9): 1737-1748.[74] Cheng L, Hu W, Qiu B, et al. Generation of neural progenitor cells by chemical cocktails and hypoxia. Cell Res. 2014;24(6): 665-679.[75] Wang Y, Shi S, Liu H, et al. Hypoxia Enhances Direct Reprogramming of Mouse Fibroblasts to Cardiomyocyte-Like Cells. Cell Reprogram. 2016;18(1):1-7.[76] Sia J, Sun R, Chu J, et al. Dynamic culture improves cell reprogramming efficiency. Biomaterials. 2016;92:36-45.[77] Luni C, Giulitti S, Serena E, et al. High-efficiency cellular reprogramming with microfluidics. Nat Methods. 2016;13(5): 446-452.[78] Baek S, Quan X, Kim S, et al. Electromagnetic fields mediate efficient cell reprogramming into a pluripotent state. ACS Nano. 2014;8(10):10125-10138.[79] Jin Y, Seo J, Lee JS, et al. Triboelectric Nanogenerator Accelerates Highly Efficient Nonviral Direct Conversion and In Vivo Reprogramming of Fibroblasts to Functional Neuronal Cells. Adv Mater. 2016;28(34):7365-7374.[80] Tajik A, Zhang Y, Wei F, et al. Transcription upregulation via force-induced direct stretching of chromatin. Nat Mater. 2016; 15(12):1287-1296. |