Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Rethinking somatic stem cell plasticity

Nature Biotechnology volume 20, page 425 (2002)Cite this article

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

The word very much on the minds of the stem cell community during the past several years has been “plasticity.” Several publications have appeared with provocative “alchemical” titles such as “Turning [your favorite tissue] into [some other tissue].” Many of these reports claim that somatic stem cells previously thought to be restricted to producing mature cells specific to their tissue of origin may in fact be capable of a much wider spectrum of differentiation. Collectively, these reports have led many investigators to rethink traditional somatic stem cell dogmas, and a minority to claim that these dogmas are outdated and should be revised. In addition to biological interest, reports of stem cell plasticity also raise numerous new and exciting therapeutic possibilities. For example, it has been suggested that the bone marrow may be a source of transplantable muscle, liver, and even neuronal tissues. Traditionally, it has been considered to be a source of stem cells restricted to the production of blood cells or hematopoietic populations. In the extreme, some have begun to consider the bone marrow as a source of stem cells that resemble embryonic stem (ES) cells in their developmental capacities. Such arguments are being employed by groups opposed to human embryonic stem cell research.

So what is the real situation regarding somatic stem cell plasticity? In my opinion, while the numerous studies are intriguing and certainly interesting, it is not yet time to abandon traditional notions established (at least in the most extensively analyzed hematopoietic system) by four decades of research. In fact, it may be argued that setting up an oppositional situation—“Is it or is it not plastic?”—is overly narrow and not constructive. The main reason I argue these points stems from the definition of the word “plastic,” which implies the ability of one entity to change into another. In the case of somatic stem cells, this could be, for example, the ability of a hematopoietic stem cell to change its fate to become capable of producing liver cells. The lesson to be learned from the field of hematopoiesis is the value of clonal analysis. It was just such an emphasis on clonal analysis that led to the establishment of the basic properties of stem cells in the mid-1960s1. That is, it was clearly shown that a single stem cell can both self-renew and give rise to robust populations of different blood cell types. Thus, to establish plasticity, it must be clearly and directly demonstrated that a single somatic stem cell can give rise to both its “expected” tissue and to an “unexpected” tissue.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Wu, A.M., Till, J.E., Siminovitch, L. & McCulloch, E.A. J. Cell Physiol. 69, 177–184 (1967).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lagasse, E. et al. Nat. Med. 6, 1229–1234 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Orlic, D. et al. Nature 410, 701–705 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Krause, D.S. et al. Cell 105, 369–377 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. McKinney-Freeman, S.L. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 1341–1346 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Morshead, C.M., Benveniste, P., Iscove, N.N. & van Der Kooy, D. Nat. Med. 8, 268–273 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ying, Q.-L., Nichols, J., Evans, E.P., & Smith, A.G. Nature 416, 545—548 (2002)

  8. Terado, N. et al. Nature 416, 542—545 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. associate professor in the department of molecular biology, Princeton University, Princeton, 08544, NJ

    Ihor Lemischka

Authors
  1. Ihor Lemischka
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lemischka, I. Rethinking somatic stem cell plasticity. Nat Biotechnol 20, 425 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0502-425

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0502-425

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing