The role of histone deacetylase 1 and 2 (HDAC1 and HDAC2) in regulating cartilage-specific gene expression was explored in primary human chondrocytes. HDAC1 and HDAC2 protein levels were elevated in chondrocytes from osteoarthritic patients, consistent with a down-regulation of some cartilage marker genes. When expressed in these cells, HDAC1 and HDAC2 repressed aggrecan and collagen 2(alpha1) expression but differed in their repression of collagen 9(alpha1), collagen 11(alpha1), dermatopontin, and cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP). To identify the basis of these differences between HDAC1 and HDAC2, their carboxy-terminal domains (CTDs) were deleted, which led to proteins that retained enzymatic activity but were unable to repress cartilage gene expression. Further, exchange of the CTDs between HDAC1 and HDAC2 led to proteins that were enzymatically active but displayed altered target gene specificity, indicating that these CTDs can function independently of HDAC enzymatic activity, to target the HDACs to specific genes. The Snail transcription factor was identified as a mediator of HDAC1 and HDAC2 repression of the collagen 2(alpha1) gene, via its interaction with the HDAC1 and 2 CTDs. The data indicate that the CTD serves a novel function within HDAC1 and HDAC2, to mediate repression of cartilage-specific gene expression in human chondrocytes.

Pluripotent stem cells offer the potential for an unlimited source for cell therapy products. However, there is concern regarding the tumorigenicity of these products in humans, mainly due to the possible unintended contamination of undifferentiated cells or transformed cells. Because of the complex nature of these new therapies and the lack of a globally accepted consensus on the strategy for tumorigenicity evaluation, a case-by-case approach is recommended for the risk assessment of each cell therapy product. In general, therapeutic products need to be qualified using available technologies, which ideally should be fully validated. In such circumstances, the developers of cell therapy products may have conducted various tumorigenicity tests and consulted with regulators in respective countries. Here, we critically review currently available in vivo and in vitro testing methods for tumorigenicity evaluation against expectations in international regulatory guidelines. We discuss the value of those approaches, in particular the limitations of in vivo methods, and comment on challenges and future directions. In addition, we note the need for an internationally harmonized procedure for tumorigenicity assessment of cell therapy products from both regulatory and technological perspectives.

BackgroundSusceptibility to pepsin digestion of candidate transgene products is regarded an important parameter in the weight-of-evidence approach for allergenicity risk assessment of genetically modified crops. It has been argued that protocols used for this assessment should better reflect physiological conditions encountered in representative food consumption scenarios.AimTo evaluate whether inclusion of more physiological conditions, such as sub-optimal and lower pepsin concentrations, in combination with pancreatin digestion, improved the performance of digestibility protocols used in characterization of protein stability.MethodsFour pairs of established allergens and their related non/weakly-allergenic counterparts (seed albumins, muscle tropomyosins, plant lipid transfer proteins [LTP] and collagens) plus fish parvalbumin, were subjected to nine combinations of pH (1.2–2.5–4.0) and pepsin-to-protein ratio (PPR: 10–1–0.1 U/µg) for pepsin digestion, followed by pancreatin digestion in the presence of bile salts. Digestion was monitored by SDS-PAGE in conjunction with Coomassie staining and immunoblotting using rabbit antisera and human IgE.ResultsAt pH 4.0 and at PPR 0.1 most proteins, both allergen and non-allergen, were highly resistant to pepsin. Under conditions known to favor pepsin proteolysis, the established major allergens Ara h 2, Pru p 3 and Pen a 1 were highly resistant to proteolysis, while the allergen Cyp c 1 was not. However, this resistance to pepsin digestion only made Ara h 2 and to a lesser extent Pen a 1 and Pru p 3 stand out compared to their non-allergenic counterparts. Largely irrespective of preceding pepsin digestion conditions, pancreatin digestion was very effective for all tested proteins, allergens and non-allergens, except for Cyp c 1 and bovine collagen.ConclusionsSub-optimal pH, low pepsin-to protein ratio, and sequential pepsin and pancreatin digestion protocols do not improve the predictive value in distinguish allergens from non-allergens. Digestion conditions facilitating such distinction differ per protein pair.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13601-018-0216-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract