Comparative analysis of mouse strains for in vivo induction of reprogramming factors

https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(25)00650-3

Gpt5

Here’s a structured analysis of the Cell Reports article “Comparative analysis of mouse strains for in vivo induction of reprogramming factors” (Picó et al., 2025):


Summary

  • Background: Forced expression of Yamanaka factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, c-Myc, or OSKM) in vivo can reverse age-associated phenotypes. However, continuous induction often causes toxicity (loss of cell identity, organ dysfunction, premature death). Partial/cyclic protocols mitigate this but fail to achieve full rejuvenation in wild-type mice.
  • Methods:
    • Compared four existing whole-body OSKM-inducible mouse strains with OSKM cassettes at different genomic loci.
    • Conducted transcriptomic (RNA-seq) and phenotypic analysis across multiple tissues.
    • Tested effects of copy number, transactivators, and doxycycline dose.
    • Developed next-generation mouse strains to restrict OSKM to certain tissues or cell populations (e.g., avoiding liver/intestine, targeting non-dividing cells).
  • Findings:
    • OSKM expression patterns differ by strain and cassette locus.
    • Expression alters transcriptomes across tissues, often suppressing mature cell identity signatures and activating inflammatory pathways.
    • High expression levels remain toxic even outside liver/intestine.
    • Cassette copy number affects OSKM levels and survival.
    • New “chimeric” strains (Ki67 Cre, CAG Cre) reduced toxicity, preserved body weight, and extended survival relative to whole-body reprogrammable strains.
    • These strains showed reduced OSKM in liver/intestine but maintained expression in other tissues like kidney, enabling safer reprogramming.

Novelty

  1. Systematic cross-strain comparison of OSKM induction in vivo — clarifies how genomic insertion site, cassette order, and copy number affect expression and outcomes.
  2. Transcriptome-wide atlas of in vivo reprogramming across multiple tissues — highlights conserved responses (loss of cell-type identity, immune activation).
  3. Identification of liver/intestine as critical toxicity bottlenecks — confirms prior findings and extends them by testing different promoters and copy numbers.
  4. Generation of “next-generation” mouse models (Ki67 Cre, CAG Cre) that avoid ubiquitous OSKM expression — achieving longer survival with reduced organ dysfunction.
  5. Provides a toolbox of reprogrammable strains for the community, aiming at safer organismal rejuvenation strategies.

Critique

Strengths

  • Comprehensive, side-by-side comparison of multiple reprogrammable strains.
  • Integrates survival, physiology, and transcriptomics — giving mechanistic insights.
  • Pragmatic: instead of only reporting toxicity, the authors engineer improved models.
  • Valuable resource: cryopreserved mouse lines and RNA-seq data are made publicly available.

Limitations

  • Age of mice: all experiments conducted in 2-month-old animals (young adults); unclear if results generalize to aged cohorts where rejuvenation would matter most.
  • Short follow-up: focus is on survival and acute transcriptomic effects; long-term rejuvenation or healthspan outcomes are not demonstrated.
  • Epigenetics underexplored: authors acknowledge lack of analysis of methylation/epigenetic clocks, which are critical for aging studies.
  • Expression variability: while liver/intestine toxicity is addressed, other tissues/organs that might limit safety were not fully mapped.
  • Therapeutic relevance: human translation is still remote; results are tool-building rather than demonstration of organismal rejuvenation.

Overall Evaluation

This study is a methodological advance rather than a rejuvenation breakthrough. It provides a comparative atlas and improved mouse models that reduce toxicity from whole-body OSKM induction, which is a significant step for the field. The novelty lies in systematically dissecting strain differences and engineering safer reprogrammable lines. However, the work stops short of proving actual rejuvenation or lifespan extension — future studies in aged cohorts and with epigenetic markers are needed.

1 Like

" in vivo induction of reprogramming factors" sounds like such a bad idea to me which appears to be the real conclusion here from the Chat GPT summary. I’m not sure I agree that “future studies are needed”. John do you have a different take on this? OSKM takes a cell to pluripotency, what’s needed in a rejuvenation setting is a tissue specific partial reversal of differentiation and a niche for those cells to occupy, neither of which seems likely with this approach.

1 Like

I think the mechanistic hypothesis behind this is wrong. I don’t think there is a “backup copy” of gene expression. I think gene expression is driven from a development and aging perspective by the power/efficiency level of the cell through acetylation. The differentiation identity of the cell is driven substantially by the cellular environment (see Michael Levin’s research).

Hence i think OSKM or OSK is a dead end of research from a longevity perspective.

The reason it appears to work in limited circumstances is because the S which is SOX2 stimulates autophagy.

1 Like

These are often mentioned as having high cell turnover rate / high regenerative capacity organs to be affected negatively with OSK. What about other systems with high cell turnover rate, like skin, blood, part of the immune cells?

I am quoting someone else’s paper. I think the underlying hypothesis is wrong.

For reprogramming you still need to set up an intended voltage for at least some cells to develop via the membrane ion channels, which will then drive the others. It seems simple, but some japanese researchers are already regenerating teeth in humans with similar “bumping particles” hypothesis.
I think that it doesn’t matter which hypothesis is “right” or “wrong”, but what matters is which one does work as intended and more efficiently.

Which in the end is the proof of which hypothesis is right (and that the others are wrong)