Table 1 Overview of pluripotent states and defining characteristics. Although naïve and primed states of pluripotency have been well characterized, there is no clear consensus of the expected characteristics of their intermediate pluripotent states. This table highlights a number of defining characteristics of naïve and primed pluripotent states, and stipulates on the characteristics that intermediate states might encompass. Although a spectrum of intermediate states may exist, here we hypothetically distinguish between two potential intermediate states, ‘Intermediate 1’, the epiblast immediately after implantation and ‘Intermediate 2’ the epiblast at the onset of gastrulation
From: The many faces of Pluripotency: in vitro adaptations of a continuum of in vivo states
Pluripotent state | Corresponding embryonic stage | Gene expression | Epigenetic profile | Functional potential |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Naïve - ESCs | E3.5–4.5 | Oct4, Sox2, Nanog, Klf4, Stella, Rex1, Gbx2, Tbx3, Pecam, SSEA-1, Alkaline phosphatase | X reactivation. DE-controlled Oct4 expression. | Pre-imp. Chimaeras. Poor PGCLC generation. |
Primed - EpiSCs | E7.25–8.0 | Oct4, Sox2, Nanog, SSEA-1, Fgf5, Oct6, Otx2, Brachyury, FoxA2, Sox17, Gata4, Gata6 | X inactivation. PE-controlled Oct4 expression. | Post-imp. Chimaeras. Poor PGCLC generation. |
Intermediate 1 | E5.0–6.25 | Oct4, Sox2, low Nanog, SSEA-1, Fgf5, Oct6, Otx2 (no PS or lineage markers) | X reactivation, Equal Oct4 regulation by DE and PE? | Pre and post-imp. Chimaeras. Efficient PGCLC generation. |
Intermediate 2 | E6.25–7.25 | Early PS/mesoderm markers e.g. Nanog, Brachyury. No endoderm markers. | X inactivation. | Post-imp. Chimaeras. Reduced PGCLC generation. |