BIOLOGY ESSAY QUESTIONS

Answer five of the seven essay questions (no extra credit for extra work)

 

Each essay question is worth 20 points. Response should be at least 150 words long. Sentences should be well developed, show logical and independent critical thinking, understanding of the concepts and their application to provided case studies/scenarios. Answers should be written in your own words.

 

1. While working at an excavation, an archeologist found several small skull bones. She examines the frontal, parietal, and occipital bones and concludes that the skull belonged to a child not even one year old. How can she tell the child’s age from examining the bones? Explain the importance of her finding in relationship to the infant’s postnatal development.

 

2. Michael is a thirty year old salesman who spends approximately 4 days each week traveling to visit with customers in his region. During his routine physical he casually mentions to his physician that he seems to be sweating more profusely than normal and most rooms that once were comfortable are now too “hot”. Michael also reports that he seems to be losing weight even though his appetite has increased. He also complains that he has a shortened attention span and that he always wants to be moving around. Despite the fact that he feels fatigued, Michael claims to have difficulty sleeping and seems to have more frequent bowel movements, occasionally accompanied by diarrhea. The physician checks Michael’s medical history and finds that indeed he has lost 15 pounds since his last physical.

 

Results of Michael’s physical examination and tests performed by endocrinologist concluded that Michael had Grave’s disease, a form of hyperthyroidism believed to be autoimmune in nature. Michael was presented with a number of possible treatment options. After considering all the options, especially the possible effects of radiation on gamete development, Michael chose surgical removal of the thyroid gland. Following successful surgery, Michael was prescribed synthetic thyroid hormone to ensure that his body was receiving adequate thyroid hormone and told to return within 2 months for a follow-up evaluation of circulating thyroid hormone concentrations. He was also cautioned to carefully monitor his calcium intake.

 

a. Thyroid hormones exert their effects on cells in a manner similar to steroid hormones; describe the mechanism of action of thyroid hormones.

 

b. Why would an imbalance in thyroid hormones have such widespread effects on the body?

 

3. Charlie is badly burned in a fireworks accident on the Fourth of July. When he reaches the emergency room, the examining physician determines the severity of the incident as a third-degree burn. What therapeutic measures is the physician likely to recommend? What are the major concerns with third-degree burns? Are third-degree burns more or less painful than the second-degree burns? Explain.

 

4. E.M.S. went to bed about 11 PM after a busy evening of entertaining friends and family. He was awakened at 2 AM with chest pain that radiated to his left shoulder, arm and fingers. His son took him to the emergency room, where he was immediately given oxygen by mask and nitroglycerin. His chest pain was relieved in about 39 minutes. An ECG revealed evidence of myocardial ischemia but no evidence of a myocardial infarction. He was admitted to the cardiac intensive unit for further evaluation.

 

a. What’s the most likely cause of the pain (what’s the name of the condition and what causes it)?

 

b. What kind of medication is nitroglycerin and why does it help to relieve the pain? What are other treatment options for this condition?

 

c. Define the underlined terms.

 

5. Until recently, 6-year-old Billie had no apparent health problems. About 1 week ago, she started to lose weight despite a healthy appetite. She urinated frequently and complained of being tired. Her mom noticed that she was very thirsty and was getting up in the middle of the night to urinate. On examination, her blood sugar was elevated. She was diagnosed with type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes mellitus.

 

a. Which homeostatic mechanism is not properly functioning?

 

b. Explain the physiology of this disease, what’s going wrong? Be specific.

 

c. What can happen if the diabetes is not controlled?

 

6. Keith is a college student. He is extremely busy studying and working part-time. Keith sleeps in late and therefore does not take time for breakfast. He rushes off to class. At lunch he has time for only French fries. When he gets home from school, he eats canned corn (only corn, nothing else) and washes it down with water. Then, he goes to work, only to start the same routine the next day.

 

When Keith is confronted about his poor diet, he responds, “The French fries are a good source of carbohydrates. Since they are fried in oil, I get my daily requirement of fat. At supper time, I eat corn and it has a lot of amino acids in it.” You, a medical student, suggest that Keith see a doctor. Keith complies and makes an appointment with a doctor. The doctor’s report looks like this: Keith is pale and underweight, his urine and blood pH are low, and the ketones in the urine and blood are high. The Na+ concentration in the blood is low. Keith seems to have possible nerve problems. The doctor explains that Keith is pale due to anemic conditions brought on by the poor diet. With a poor protein diet, Keith’s erythrocytes may not be making adequate hemoglobin. Because his diet is very low in carbohydrates, his body is metabolizing fat, which is causing the weight loss. By products of fat metabolism are ketones, which are acidic. This accounts for the increase in ketones in the urine and the blood and a drop in the pH. A drop in blood pH will inhibit the small intestine from putting Na+ into the bloodstream. Sodium ions are necessary for proper nerve function. In short, Keith needs to begin eating well-balanced meals.

 

a. Why is corn considered to be an incomplete protein?

 

b. How are ketones formed?

 

c. How are sodium ions involved in the nervous system?

 

d. How does this scenario relate to fad diets?

 

7. Analyze the need of climbers of Mt. Everest to set up camps at various levels and stay in those camps for a predetermined amount of time before proceeding with their climb to the top of the mountain.

 

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

2100 Anthropology Exam.

ATH2100L LAB 5: READING

 

DIRECTIONS: Please read the materials that follow and then complete the Lab 5 Quiz on PILOT.

 

By the time you finish reading these materials, you should be able to answer the following questions about primates:

1. What ancestral traits do primates share with other mammals?

2. What derived traits characterize primates compared to other mammals?

3. What is the value of studying primates to understand human evolution?

 

Primates are mammals (and therefore, so are you!)

Taxonomic classification organizes organisms based on shared characteristics due to common ancestry. The Linnean classification system is a nested hierarchy that becomes more exclusive with each taxonomic level (for example, a phylum contains more groups than a class and so on). Below is the taxonomic classification for modern humans.

 

Linnean Classification of Human

 

GENERAL KINGDOM Animalia (we’re ANIMALS)

(inclusive)

PHYLUM Chordata (we’re animals with SPINAL CORDS)

 

CLASS Mammalia (we’re a kind of spined animal MAMMALS)

 

ORDER Primates (we’re a type of mammal called a PRIMATE)

 

FAMILY Hominidae (includes us and apes, aka HOMINIDS)

 

GENUS Homo (this is us and closely related enchephalized bipeds)

SPECIFIC

(exclusive) SPECIES Homo sapiens (we’re a special group called HUMANS)

 

From this classification, we see that modern humans are grouped within the order Primates which falls within the class Mammalia. This means that humans are primates, a special type of mammal that shares a common ancestry with OTHER mammals. As a result of this ancestry, primates and mammals share many ANCESTRAL TRAITS.

 

Mammals are diverse. On the surface, it may seem hard to find similarities between humans and a dog or cat, etc. However, we all share traits found in our common mammalian ancestor that indicate a closer evolutionary relationship among all animals grouped within the Class Mammalia than other animals.

 

 

Mammalian characteristics

 

1. Homeothermy/endothermy: Mammals have the ability to regulate body temperature. This means mammals can adapt to different climates.

 

2. Heterodonty: Mammals have different types of teeth. Mammals have four kinds of teeth with different shapes and characteristics: incisorscaninespremolars, and molars. Other animals, such as crocodiles and sharks are homodonts (the teeth are all the same).

 

http://inside.ucumberlands.edu/academics/biology/faculty/kuss//courses/Digestive%20system/HomodontHeterodont.jpg

 

3. Viviparity: Mammals have internal gestation and give birth to live young (there are a few exceptions). Young are then dependent upon the mother for milk produced by mammary glands.

 

4. Pentadactyly: Mammals have five fingers and toes. The basic structure of the mammalian “hand” and “foot” is similar, but many groups have modified this condition (i.e. ungulates have hooves, felids have paws with claws). Primates retain the primitive structure of pentadactyly.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/Panda%27s%20Thumb.jpg

5. Brain: The mammalian brain tends to be larger for body size compared to other vertebrates. Mammals also have a unique area of the brain known as the neocortex. The neocortex is involved in higher level functions such as spatial reasoning and sensory perception. This area reaches its greatest expansion among primates.

 

 

What makes primates different from other mammals?

 

Primates are defined by a group of features, known as DERIVED TRAITS. Derived traits are modified from the ancestral (in this case, mammalian) condition. The tricky thing about ancestral and derived traits is that their status (or polarity) depends on the context. For example, if we are comparing mammals and primates, the features below are considered DERIVED. However, if we are comparing different groups of primates, those same features are considered ANCESTRAL because all primates share them.

 

In the next lab, you will explore more in-depth what distinguishes primates from other mammals. Here are a few key features of primates:

 

1. Vision: Vision is the most important sense for most primates. They have forward-facing eyes and stereoscopic vision. This means that a primate’s eyes are located in the front of the skull. This allows the fields of vision to overlap, and provides depth perception (very important if you primarily live in the trees). Furthermore, the primate eye socket features post-orbital closure or a post-orbital bar. You will explore this characteristic more in Lab 6.

 

2. Hands, feet, and limbs: Primates retain the ancestral condition of pentadactyly. They also have prehensile (gripping) fingers and toes, nails instead of claws (with some exceptions), tactile pads, and an opposable thumb. Primates also have very flexible and generalized limbs that allow us to locomote (move) in many different ways.

 

3. Brains and speed of growth: As mentioned above, primate brains are more complex than other mammals, and our brains tend to be larger than expected for body size (this is seen to the extreme among hominins). Primates also feature longer gestation periods and slower postnatal growth than most other mammals.

 

The utility of non-primates for understanding evolution

 

Non-human primates (NHP) are fascinating because they are so like us in both appearance and behavior (and many are very cute!) NHP studies help us to understand:

a) the relationship between dental and skeletal form and their behavioral functions (to reconstruct things like locomotion, group structure, and diet in fossil species),

b) the evolutionary underpinnings of some of our behaviors (tool use, group living, social politics, etc.)

c) evolutionary processes, adaptation, and speciation.

 

HOWEVER, we have to remember that extant NHP are not “living fossils,” and they were evolving and changing long before hominins (our ancestors) ever came on the scene. Therefore, we must be cautious in our use of NHP as analogies for hominin evolution.

 

image1.jpeg

image2.jpeg

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

The Epipelagic Is Divided Into Two Components: The Oceanic Waters And The

Question

1 of 25

The epipelagic is divided into two components: the oceanic waters and the

photic zone.

neritic zone.

pelagic realm.

upper photic zone.

subtidal zone.

Question

2 of 25

Most of the primary production carried out in the open ocean is performed by

seaweeds.

kelps.

phytoplankton.

seagrasses.

zooxanthellae.

Question

3 of 25

Net phytoplankton consist mostly of

copepods.

diatoms and dinoflagellates.

nanoplankton.

cyanobacteria (blue-green algae).

nanoplankton and diatoms.

Question

4 of 25

Typically the most abundant group in the zooplankton are the.

larvaceans.

krill.

fish larvae.

nanoplankton.

copepods.

Question

5 of 25

Which of these is least likely to be seen in the epipelagic?

Suspension feeders

Deposit feeders

Primary production

First-level carnivores

Second-level carnivores

Question

6 of 25

Which of these groups builds a mucus “house?”

Copepods

Arrow worms

Larvaceans

Planktonic snails such as pteropods

Snail larvae

Question

7 of 25

Which of the following accounts for about 50% of the primary production in epipelagic waters?

Diatoms

Cyanobacteria

Dinoflagellates

Coccolithophorids

Silicoflagellates

Question

8 of 25

The following are an adaptation to the planktonic way of life except

spines.

small size.

decrease in drag.

substitution of heavy ions by light ones.

gas-filled bladders.

Question

9 of 25

The storage of lipids within the body is an adaptation in plankton since lipids

make cells heavier.

increase body density.

contain air pockets so they help in buoyancy.

contain a larger amount of energy.

are less dense than water.

Question

10 of 25

The neuston consists of animals that

swim against currents.

sink to the bottom portion of the water column.

are top carnivores in the pelagic realm.

spend their entire lives in the plankton.

live at the surface, but remain underwater.

Question

11 of 25

Counter shading is a form of

shading with bioluminescence.

warning coloration.

structural coloration.

protective coloration.

cryptic coloration.

Question

12 of 25

The rete mirabile found in some fishes is involved in.

increasing speed.

decreasing buoyancy.

digesting food.

increasing buoyancy.

conserving body heat.

Question

13 of 25

Zooplankton that migrate vertically

hibernate at night and feed during the day.

feed at the surface during the day, and migrate below the photic zone at night.

feed in the photic zone during the day, and migrate to the surface at night.

stay below the photic zone during the day, and feed at the surface at night.

migrate up and down but always stay below the photic zone.

Question

14 of 25

Most animals in the epipelagic are omnivores. This means that they eat

producers and consumers.

part of the neuston.

zooplankton.

detritus.

phytoplankton.

Question

15 of 25

What is the relationship between dissolved organic matter (DOM) and bacteria in the epipelagic?

Bacteria feed on the DOM, making it available to other animals in the food chain that feed on bacteria.

Bacteria supply most of the DOM.

Bacteria feed on DOM and thus it is unavailable to other animals.

Bacteria cannot utilize DOM and thus feed on detritus, depleting it through most of the epipelagic.

Bacteria cannot utilize DOM, making it available to animals.

Question

16 of 25

The most common limiting nutrient in the ocean is

silicon.

oxygen.

nitrogen.

carbonate.

phosphorus.

Question

17 of 25

The fall bloom in temperate waters is caused when

primary production decreases as nutrients increase.

primary production decreases due to light limitation.

primary production decreases as nutrients decrease.

primary production increases as nutrients increase.

primary production increases as the number of zooplankton increases.

Question

18 of 25

Equatorial upwelling occurs as a result of

temperature changes at the Equator.

the divergence of equatorial surface currents.

the convergence of equatorial surface currents.

winds causing the Ekman transport of surface water offshore.

El Niño conditions north and south of the Equator.

Question

19 of 25

The Southern Oscillation can be best described as

relative changes between two pressure systems.

variation in wind speed over the Pacific Ocean.

relationship between sea-surface and high-altitude pressures.

tidal differences between the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

wind-speed differences along the Equator.

Question

20 of 25

The long spines and projections seen in many epipelagic plankton are used for

feeding.

reproduction.

increasing drag.

increasing buoyancy.

gathering nutrients.

Question

21 of 25

Most epipelagic fish have a tail that is

short and wide.

short and narrow.

short and thin.

high and wide.

high and narrow.

Question

22 of 25

Which of the following adaptations is least likely to be seen in epipelagic fish?

Stiff fins

A smooth, scaleless body

Increased white muscle

Grove in body for fins

Eyes flush with body

Question

23 of 25

The largest source of dissolved organic material (DOM) in the epipelagic is

viruses.

bacteria.

phytoplankton.

zooplankton.

nekton.

Question

24 of 25

The lateral line system in fishes functions in ________________.

sensing vibrations in the water

detecting magnetic lines of force in water

sensing light in aphotic zones

sweeping surrounding water for plankton

bioluminescence

Question

25 of 25

The remote sensing system found in dolphins and some other cetaceans is ___________.

communal mutualistic behavior

extrasensory perception

echolocation

underwater acoustic sensitivity

heightened smell

 

 

 

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Human Monkey Chimera

I will be attaching an article and another word file for questions to answer. please answer those questions with an expanded explanation. and this work is due tomorrow. thanks

  • Review: Chimeric contribution of human extended pluripotent stem cells to monkey embryos ex vivo by Tan et. Al. 2021

     

    1. Describe the basic process for making a chimera (graphical abstract). What are some additional changes the research could try? (limitations of the study).

    2. How long were the embryos monitored after chimera formation, which was at 6 days post fertilization (d.p.f.). What was the relative survival rate?

    3. Why are scientists doing this type of work / what is the purpose?

    4. Did the researchers follow proper guidelines, support your answer (go past the references to the additional material).

    5. In your opinion should this type of research be continued, why or why not.

     

     

    The following links discuss issues brought up by this research.

    https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-moral-status-of-human-monkey-chimeras

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01001-2

    https://www.livescience.com/human-monkey-chimeric-embryos.html

    Article

    Chimeric contribution of human extended pluripotent stem cells to monkey embryos ex vivo

    Graphical abstract

    Highlights

    d Generation of human-monkey chimeric embryos ex vivo with

    hEPSCs

    d hEPSCs differentiated into hypoblast and epiblast lineages

    d scRNA-seq analyses revealed developmental trajectories of

    human and monkey cells

    d The approach may allow for enhancing chimerism between

    evolutionarily distant species

    Tan et al., 2021, Cell 184, 2020–2032 April 15, 2021 ª 2021 Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.020

    Authors

    Tao Tan, Jun Wu, Chenyang Si, …,

    Weizhi Ji, Yuyu Niu,

    Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte

    Correspondence [email protected] (T.T.), [email protected] (J.W.), [email protected] (W.J.), [email protected] (Y.N.), [email protected] (J.C.I.B.)

    In brief

    Human cells, in the form of extended

    pluripotent stem cells, have the ability to

    contribute to both embryonic and extra-

    embryonic lineages in ex-vivo-cultured

    monkey embryos.

    ll

     

     

    ll

    Article

    Chimeric contribution of human extended pluripotent stem cells to monkey embryos ex vivo Tao Tan,1,4,* Jun Wu,2,4,5,* Chenyang Si,1,4 Shaoxing Dai,1,4 Youyue Zhang,1,4 Nianqin Sun,1 E Zhang,1 Honglian Shao,1

    Wei Si,1 Pengpeng Yang,1 Hong Wang,1 Zhenzhen Chen,1 Ran Zhu,1 Yu Kang,1 Reyna Hernandez-Benitez,2

    Llanos Martinez Martinez,3 Estrella Nuñez Delicado,3 W. Travis Berggren,2 May Schwarz,2 Zongyong Ai,1 Tianqing Li,1

    Concepcion Rodriguez Esteban,2 Weizhi Ji,1,* Yuyu Niu,1,* and Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte2,6,* 1State Key Laboratory of Primate Biomedical Research, Institute of Primate Translational Medicine, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, Yunnan 650500, China 2Gene Expression Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA 3Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia (UCAM), Campus de los Jerónimos, No 135 12, Guadalupe 30107, Spain 4These authors contributed equally 5Present address: Department of Molecular Biology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA 6Lead contact

    *Correspondence: [email protected] (T.T.), [email protected] (J.W.), [email protected] (W.J.), [email protected] (Y.N.), [email protected] (J. C.I.B.)

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.020

    SUMMARY

    Interspecies chimera formation with human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) represents a necessary alternative to evaluate hPSC pluripotency in vivo and might constitute a promising strategy for various regenerative medicine applications, including the generation of organs and tissues for transplantation. Studies using mouse and pig embryos suggest that hPSCs do not robustly contribute to chimera formation in species evolutionarily distant to humans. We studied the chimeric competency of human extended pluripotent stem cells (hEPSCs) in cynomolgus monkey (Macaca fascicularis) embryos cultured ex vivo. We demonstrate that hEPSCs survived, proliferated, and generated several peri- and early post-implantation cell lineages in- side monkey embryos. We also uncovered signaling events underlying interspecific crosstalk that may help shape the unique developmental trajectories of human and monkey cells within chimeric embryos. These re- sults may help to better understand early human development and primate evolution and develop strategies to improve human chimerism in evolutionarily distant species.

    INTRODUCTION

    Pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) are capable of indefinite self-

    renewal in culture and generating all adult cell types (De Los An-

    geles et al., 2015; Hackett and Surani, 2014; Rossant and Tam,

    2017; Wu and Izpisua Belmonte, 2016). PSCs have recently been

    harnessed for interspecies organogenesis via blastocyst

    complementation, a technique that holds potential to provide

    large quantities of in-vivo-generated human cells, tissues, and

    organs for regenerative medicine applications, including organ

    transplantation (Suchy and Nakauchi, 2018; Wu et al., 2016).

    One of the requirements for successful interspecies blastocyst

    complementation with human PSCs (hPSCs) is their ability to

    contribute to chimera formation. The chimeric competency of

    hPSCs has been systematically tested in several animal species

    (Wu et al., 2016), but despite sustained efforts from different lab-

    oratories, the general consensus is that hPSCs do not consis-

    tently and robustly contribute to chimera formation when the

    host animal has a high evolutionary distance from humans

    (e.g., mice and pigs; Wu et al., 2016, 2017). This is the case

    2020 Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021 ª 2021 Elsevier Inc.

    even when human cell apoptosis is inhibited (Das et al., 2020;

    Huang et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018). Xenogeneic barriers be-

    tween hPSCs and evolutionarily distant host animal species

    have been suggested to account for limited chimerism (Wu

    et al., 2016, 2017), though the use of hPSCs for chimera studies

    in host species evolutionarily close to humans remains unex-

    plored to date.

    Cultured PSCs reflect the continuum of pluripotency that is

    seen in vivo, and different cell culture formulations result in

    distinct pluripotency states in vitro (Morgani et al., 2017; Smith,

    2017; Weinberger et al., 2016). hPSCs in different pluripotency

    states exhibit distinct transcriptional, epigenetic, and metabolic

    features. They also differ in their chimeric potential when intro-

    duced into animal embryos (De Los Angeles, 2019; Harvey

    et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). Recently, we and others identi-

    fied human extended PSCs (hEPSCs) that demonstrated

    improved chimeric capability in mouse conceptuses (Gao

    et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2017b). To date, however, the chimeric

    competency of hEPSCs has not been determined in other

    species.

     

     

    ll Article

    Leveraging a recently developed culture system that enables

    cynomolgus monkey (monkey for short) embryos to develop

    up to 20 days ex vivo (Ma et al., 2019; Niu et al., 2019), we per-

    formed microinjection of hEPSCs into monkey blastocysts and

    examined their contribution to cultured monkey embryos at

    different time points (Figure 1A). We found that hEPSCs could

    integrate into the inner cell masses (ICMs) of late monkey blasto-

    cysts and contributed to both embryonic and extra-embryonic

    lineages in peri- and early post-implantation stages during pro-

    longed embryo culture. We also determined the differentiation

    trajectory of hEPSCs within cultured monkey embryos by sin-

    gle-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis.

    RESULTS

    Generation of human-monkey chimeric blastocysts in vitro

    To determine the chimera competency of hPSCs in a closely

    related non-human primate species, we used a well-character-

    ized hEPSC line generated by cellular reprogramming, iPS1-

    EPSCs, which demonstrated improved chimerism in embryonic

    day 10.5 (E10.5) mouse conceptuses over other reported hPSCs

    (Yang et al., 2017b). Consistent with the previous report, iPS1-

    EPSCs exhibited a dome-shaped colony morphology and ex-

    pressed the core pluripotency transcription factors OCT4,

    NANOG, and SOX2 (Figure S1A). To generate human-monkey

    chimeric embryos, early blastocysts from cynomolgus monkeys

    (6 days post-fertilization [d.p.f.6]) were injected with 25 iPS1-

    EPSCs labeled with tdTomato (TD). Injected embryos were first

    cultured to the late blastocyst stage (d.p.f.7) for analysis. The

    proliferation of hEPSCs within monkey blastocysts was evident

    (Video S1). In total, TD+ iPS1-EPSCs were detected in all

    d.p.f.7 monkey blastocysts (100%, n = 132) (Figure S1B).

    Chimeric contribution of hEPSCs to peri- and post- implantation monkey embryos We next took advantage of a recently established prolonged em-

    bryo culture system that supports ex vivo primate (human and

    monkey) embryogenesis to the gastrulation stage (Deglincerti

    et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2019; Niu et al., 2019; Shahbazi et al.,

    2016; Xiang et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2019). In this embryo culture

    system, the zona pellucida is removed and the denuded blasto-

    cysts are allowed to attach to the culture dish for further develop-

    ment. We used this system to trace the fate of hEPSCs in

    monkey embryos at peri- and post-implantation stages. Similar

    to noninjected controls (92.31%, n = 104) (Niu et al., 2019),

    most embryos injected with hEPSCs attached at approximately

    d.p.f.10 (92.79%, n = 111). After attachment, the injected em-

    bryos continued to grow, and an embryonic disc became visible

    at approximately d.p.f.11 as seen with controls (Figure 1B). TD+

    human cells were found in the embryonic disc of more than half

    of the injected embryos at d.p.f. 9, but this ratio progressively

    declined at approximately one-third by d.p.f.13 (Figure 1C). To

    determine whether introduced hEPSCs may affect embryo

    development, we evaluated and compared the developmental

    status of injected and control embryos (Niu et al., 2019). We

    found that the developmental ratios of injected embryos were

    slightly lower than that of controls (Figure 1D). Furthermore,

    similar to controls, the developmental ratios of injected embryos

    dropped sharply at approximately d.p.f.15, which may reflect the

    limitation of the 2D attachment embryo culture system

    (Figure 1D).

    To study the developmental potential of hEPSCs in monkey

    embryos, we performed immunofluorescence (IF) studies using

    antibodies specific for several embryonic and extra-embryonic

    lineages. Analyses were performed between d.p.f.9 and

    d.p.f.19. At the peri-implantation stage (d.p.f.9), on average,

    10.2 ± 7.2 (n = 9) iPS1-EPSCs were found incorporated into

    the ICM (the number of TD+OCT4+ cells found within or close

    to NANOG+ or OCT4+ monkey cells) (Figure 2A). Although these

    cells expressed OCT4, only a few of them expressed NANOG

    (Figure S1C). Supporting their epiblast (EPI)-like identity, we

    did not observe GATA6 (a hypoblast [HYP] marker) expression

    in these cells (Figure S1C). In addition, TD+GATA4+ HYP-like

    cells were also detected (Figure 2B). In contrast to the results re-

    ported in mice (Yang et al., 2017b), only a few iPS1-EPSCs were

    detected in the trophectoderm (TE) layer of monkey blastocysts

    and expressed TE (TE or trophoblast) marker genes (e.g.,

    TFAP2C and CK7) (Figure 2C).

    At d.p.f.11, TD+OCT4+cells were also detected in the EPI layer

    of monkey embryos, and these cells rarely expressed T+ (also

    known as Brachyury), a marker of gastrulation. By contrast, T+

    monkey cells were detected at the dorsal amnion of the embryos

    (Figure 2D). In addition, TD+ human cells expressing a HYP

    marker, platelet-derived growth factor receptor-alpha

    (PDGFRa), were found intermingled within monkey HYP cells

    (Figure 2E). OCT4+ human cells expressing COL6A1, a marker

    of extra-embryonic mesenchyme cells (EXMCs), were found

    outside of the EPI layer, suggesting ongoing differentiation of

    hEPSCs toward EXMCs (Figure S1D). At d.p.f.13, hEPSCs

    were detected beneath the EPI layer and expressed an endo-

    derm marker, SOX17, suggesting that they have initiated gastru-

    lation (Figure 2F). Interestingly, we found that from d.p.f.13

    onward human cells tended to group together and segregate

    from the monkey EPI layer. These human cells appeared to un-

    dergo differentiation into gastrulating cells as evidenced by the

    gained expression of OTX2 (Martyn et al., 2018; Vincent et al.,

    2003) while maintaining OCT4 expression (Figure S1E). Overall,

    we found that hEPSCs exhibited reasonable contribution to the

    EPI (with the highest contribution of 7.08% observed at

    d.p.f.15), relatively lower contribution to the HYP (with the high-

    est contribution of 4.96% observed at d.p.f.19), and limited

    contribution to the TE in peri- and post-implantation monkey em-

    bryos (Figure 2G).

    Transcriptional landscape of human-monkey chimeric embryos To further delineate the developmental trajectory of human-

    monkey chimeric embryos, scRNA-seq analysis was carried

    out to profile the transcriptomes of human and monkey cells at

    different developmental stages. Following embryo dissociation,

    single human (TD+) and monkey (TD�) cells were manually collected using fluorescence microscopy and subjected to

    scRNA-seq. In total, we sequenced 227 human and 302 monkey

    cells isolated from chimeric embryos at different time points dur-

    ing ex vivo culture (d.p.f.9–d.p.f.17; Table S2). TD expression and

    Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021 2021

     

     

    Figure 1. Generation and developmental capability of human-monkey ex-vivo chimeras

    (A) Schematic of the generation and analyses of chimeric embryos derived from blastocyst injection of hEPSCs (created with BioRender.com). hEPSCs, human

    extended pluripotent stem cells; EPI, epiblast; HYP, hypoblast; TE, trophectoderm; EXMC, extra-embryonic mesenchyme cell; GAS, gastrulating cell; IF,

    immunofluorescence.

    (B) Representative bright-field images of hEPSC-injected monkey embryos cultured in vitro until d.p.f.19 (n = 111 embryos for d.p.f.9; n = 91 embryos for d.p.f.11;

    n = 60 embryos for d.p.f.13; n = 38 embryos for d.p.f.15; n = 12 embryos for d.p.f.17 and n = 3 embryos for d.p.f.19). Scale bar, 100 mm. Yellow dotted lines indicate

    ICM (d.p.f.9) or embryonic disc (d.p.f.11 to d.p.f.19).

    (C) Histogram showing the percentages of host monkey embryos containing human cells within ICM or embryonic disc (yellow dotted lines in B).

    (D) Dynamics of developmental ratios of chimeric (n = 126, d.p.f.8) and non-chimeric monkey embryos (n = 104, data from Niu et al., 2019). Embryos without clear

    embryonic disc structure and/or appear dead were excluded from the analysis.

    See also Figure S1 and Video S1.

    ll

    2022 Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021

    Article

     

     

    Figure 2. hEPSCs contribute to chimera

    formation in peri- and post-implantation

    monkey embryos

    (A) Representative IF images showing integration

    of TD-positive hEPSCs into ICM of host monkey

    embryos at d.p.f.9 (n = 7). The embryos were

    stained for OCT4 (green) and NANOG (gray). Scale

    bar, 250 mm. Bottom, enlargements of the insert

    (white dotted line) in the top panel. Arrows indicate

    TD-positive hEPSCs expressing OCT4 and

    NANOG. Yellow dotted line indicates ICM. Scale

    bar, 50 mm.

    (B) Representative IF images showing hEPSCs

    differentiated into HYP-like cells within host

    monkey embryos at d.p.f.9. The embryos were

    stained for GATA4 (gray) and NANOG (green).

    Scale bar, 250 mm. Bottom, enlargements of the

    insert (white dotted line) in the top panel. Arrow

    indicates a TD-positive hEPSC expressing

    GATA4. Yellow dotted line indicates ICM. Scale

    bar, 100 mm.

    (C) Representative IF images showing integration

    of TD-positive hEPSCs into TE of host monkey

    embryos at d.p.f.9 (n = 3). The embryos were

    stained for TFAP2C (gray) and CK7 (green). Scale

    bar, 100 mm. Bottom, enlargements of the insert

    (white dotted line) in the top panel. Arrow indicates

    a TD-positive hEPSC expressing TFAP2C and

    CK7. Scale bar, 50 mm.

    (D) Representative IF images showing incorporation

    of hEPSCs into EPI of host monkey embryo at

    d.p.f.11 (n = 3). The embryos were stained for T

    (gray) and OCT4 (green). Scale bar, 250 mm. Bot-

    tom: enlargements of inserts (white dotted line) in

    the top panel. Notably, hEPSCs rarely express T

    (arrow), a marker of mesoderm, whereas the

    expression of T is detected in monkey cells

    (arrowhead). Yellow dotted line indicates EPI. Scale

    bar, 25 mm.

    (E) Expression of HYP marker, PDGFRa, in hEPSCs

    at d.p.f.11 (n = 2). The embryos were stained for

    PDGFRa (green). Scale bar, 50 mm. Bottom: en-

    largements of the insert (white dotted line) in the top

    panel. Arrow indicates a tdTomato-positive hEPSC

    expressing PDGFRa. Yellow dotted line indicates

    EPI. Scale bar, 10 mm.

    (F) IF images of sections of monkey embryos at

    d.p.f.13 (n = 5) staining for SOX17 (green).

    Arrows indicate tdTomato-positive hEPSCs expressing SOX17. Scale bar, 50 mm. Yellow dotted line indicates EPI.

    (G) Levels of chimerism of hEPSCs within EPI, HYP, and TE. EPI cells expressed only OCT4, and HYP cells expressed GATA6 and/or GATA4, whereas TE expressed

    CK7 (a total of 25 embryos and 17,938 cells were analyzed). EPI, epiblast; HYP, hypoblast; TE, trophectoderm; TD, tdTomato; DAPI, 40,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole. See also Figure S1.

    ll Article

    the ratio of reads mapped to the human or cynomolgus monkey

    genomes were used to further confirm each cell’s species of

    origin (Figures S2A and S2B). After stringent filtering, 200 human

    and 272 monkey cells were used for further analyses (Table S2).

    On average, 9,798 genes (transcripts per million [TPM] > 0) and

    27,936,953 reads were detected per cell. There was no statistical

    difference in the number of genes and reads detected between

    human and monkey cells (Figure S2C). For comparison, we

    also included published scRNA-seq datasets containing cells

    from monkey and human embryos in the analyses (Nakamura

    et al., 2016; Niu et al., 2019; Xiang et al., 2020; Zhou et al.,

    2019). To avoid batch-specific systematic variations of scRNA-

    seq caused by integration of different datasets, we used an ‘‘an-

    chors’’ method that is recommended for batch-effect removal

    (Stuart et al., 2019) (Figure S2C).

    We first performed t-distributed stochastic neighbor embed-

    ding (t-SNE) analysis on the scRNA-seq datasets. Based on

    the expression of known lineage markers, we identified four ma-

    jor cell clusters that were present in all samples (both chimeric

    and control embryos): EPI, HYP, TE, and EXMC (Figures 3A,

    3B, and S2D). These cells also expressed lineage-specific

    markers that showed conservation between humans and

    Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021 2023

     

     

    A

    C

    D

    B Figure 3. Transcriptional landscape of hu- man-monkey chimeric embryos

    (A) t-SNE plot of cells from chimeric and control

    non-chimeric embryos. Cells were identified as

    EPI, HYP, TE, and EXMC. Cells were colored by

    different species origins and datasets.

    (B) Expression of lineage-specific marker genes of

    EPI, HYP, and TE exhibited on t-SNE plots. A

    gradient of gray, yellow, and red indicates low to

    high expression.

    (C) The phylogenetic tree shows the cluster of EPI,

    HYP, and TE cells from chimeric embryos at

    different stages (d.p.f.9, 11, 13, 15, and 17). Cells

    are highlighted by species origins (human or

    monkey), different stages (d.p.f.9, 11, 13, 15, and

    17), and different cell types (EPI, HYP, and TE).

    (D) Bar plot showing the distribution of cells from

    different origins in the four lineages (EPI, EXMC,

    HYP, and TE). EPI, epiblast; HYP, hypoblast; TE,

    trophectoderm; EXMC, extra-embryonic mesen-

    chyme cell.

    See also Figure S2 and Table S2.

    ll Article

    monkeys identified in a previous study (Figure S2E) (Zhou et al.,

    2019). The presence of these cell types in chimeric embryos sug-

    gests that the development of host embryos was by and large

    unaffected by the injected hEPSCs (Ma et al., 2019; Niu et al.,

    2019), which is consistent with the morphological analysis

    (Figures 1B and 1D). Interestingly, phylogenetic tree analysis

    (based on gene expression levels) revealed that while most mon-

    key cells within chimeric embryos (chimeric monkey cells for

    short) segregated into distinct cell-type-specific clusters (EPI,

    HYP, and TE), chimeric human HYP- and TE-like cells clustered

    with EPI-like cells (Figure 3C). Thus, it seems that the chimeric

    monkey cells exhibited a more faithful lineage segregation than

    the introduced hEPSCs. In agreement with IF results, very few

    human TE-like cells were identified in the scRNA-seq data (Fig-

    ures 3A and 3D) and were therefore excluded from subsequent

    analyses. Together, these results demonstrate that hEPSCs

    can differentiate into several peri- and early post-implantation

    cell types after being introduced into monkey early blastocysts

    followed by ex vivo embryo culture.

    Transcriptome dynamics of hEPSCs during human- monkey chimera development We next investigated the transcriptional kinetics of chimeric hu-

    man and monkey cells. We first constructed a force-directed K-

    nearest neighbor graph (SPRING) (Weinreb et al., 2018) based on

    transcriptomic properties of all cells (see STAR Methods). All

    cells bifurcated into three branches: EPI, HYP, and TE (Fig-

    ure 4A). The correlations of gene expression patterns between

    chimeric and control (human and monkey) embryos were deter-

    2024 Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021

    mined (Figure 4B). Similar correlation co-

    efficients were obtained when chimeric

    human cells were compared to control

    human (0.460) or monkey (0.459) cells

    (Figure 4B, right panels). Intriguingly,

    when compared to control embryos,

    chimeric monkey cells exhibited higher

    correlation coefficients than chimeric human cells (Figure 4B,

    left panels). We next generated lineage-specific correlation

    matrices. We found that chimeric human EPI-like cells were

    similar to EPI cells in human embryos, whereas chimeric human

    HYP- and EXMC-like cells shared the highest correlation coeffi-

    cients with chimeric monkey HYP cells and EXMCs, respectively

    (Figure 4C). Of note, we also found that chimeric monkey EPI

    cells and EXMCs more resembled chimeric than control human

    cells. Interestingly, chimeric human EPI-like cells were found to

    gradually gravitate toward the chimeric monkey EPI cells, with

    R2 values increasing from 0.363 (pre-implantation EPI [Pre_EPI])

    to 0.464 (post-implantation late EPI [PostL_EPI]) and then to

    0.693 (gastrulating [Gast] cells) (Figure 4C). Taken together,

    these results demonstrate that the monkey embryonic microen-

    vironment exerts influence on the transcriptional states of human

    cells and vice versa.

    As monkey cells exhibited transcriptomic changes in the pres-

    ence of human cells, we next sought to delineate the develop-

    mental dynamics of monkey cells within chimeric embryos. We

    first identified differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between

    chimeric and control monkey embryos. Comparisons of EPI

    cells, HYP cells, and EXMCs revealed that 424, 7, and 241 genes

    were downregulated, whereas 5, 2, and 13 genes were upregu-

    lated, respectively, in cells from chimeric compared to control

    embryos, although the expression levels of lineage marker genes

    remained comparable (Figures 4D and S3A). Gene Ontology

    (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG)

    enrichment analyses identified a number of signaling pathways

    that were up- and downregulated in chimeric monkey EPI cells,

     

     

    A

    C

    D

    F G

    E

    B

    (legend on next page)

    ll

    Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021 2025

    Article

     

     

    ll Article

    HYP cells, and EXMCs. For example, the Hippo and transforming

    growth factor b (TGF-b) signaling pathways were downregulated

    in chimeric monkey EPI cells and EXMCs (Figure 4E),

    respectively.

    Having shown that the transcriptomic profiles of monkey EPI

    cells were altered in chimeric embryos, we next investigated

    whether the monkey EPI embryonic niche was also affected by

    human cells. To this end, CellPhoneDB (v2.0.1) (Vento-Tormo

    et al., 2018) was applied to identify potential cellular interactions

    between EPI and other lineages (HYP and EXMC) in both

    chimeric and control embryos (see STAR Methods). We sought

    to identify interactions that were specific to chimeric or control

    embryos. We found more ligand-receptor interactions in

    chimeric embryos when compared to control embryos (e.g.,

    117 [chimeric] versus 10 [control] specific ligand-receptor inter-

    actions were detected in monkey EPI cells) (Figures 4F and S3B;

    Table S3). KEGG analysis was performed to reveal specific

    signaling pathways that were enriched within chimeric and

    control embryos. We found several signaling pathways (e.g.,

    phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase [PI3K]-Akt and mitogen-activated

    protein kinase [MAPK] signaling pathways) that were strength-

    ened in chimeric embryos and new signaling pathways (e.g.,

    WNT signaling pathway) that were specifically enriched in

    chimeric embryos (Figure 4G). Using the same method, we

    also determined human and monkey cell-cell interactions within

    chimeric embryos and identified distinct ligand-receptor interac-

    tions in EPI cells, such as FGF5-FGFR4, NOTCH4-JAG2,

    WNT2B-FZD4, WISP3-SORL1, and PLXNB2-PTN (Figures S3C

    and S3D; Table S3). Taken together, our results suggest that

    cell-cell interactions are reinforced within the chimeric embryos

    and potentially lead to activation of additional signaling

    pathways.

    Chimeric human EPI-like cells display a distinct developmental trajectory EPI development is characterized by pluripotency transitions that

    may exhibit different dynamics between species. As proper EPI

    specification and differentiation are critical for chimera formation

    and development, we examined the lineage allocation of human

    EPI-like cells within the chimeric embryos and compared it with

    the datasets of in-vitro-cultured human and monkey embryos

    Figure 4. Developmental trajectory of human-monkey chimeric embry

    (A) The differentiation trajectory of chimeric cells and control non-chimeric cells

    colored by cell lineages.

    (B) Overall similarity under the four comparisons (chimera-monkey versus control

    versus control non-chimeric human [‘‘Chimera-Human vs. Control-Human’’], c

    Control-Monkey’’], and chimera-human versus control non-chimeric monkey [‘‘C

    (C) Heatmap of the correlation coefficients among different cell origins under cor

    (D) Histogram showing the numbers of DEGs for different lineages (EPI, HYP, and

    embryos. The red and blue colors represent up- and down-regulated genes, res

    (E) GO and KEGG enrichment analyses of the DEGs in (D). Red and blue represen

    respectively.

    (F) The Venn diagrams showing the overlap of the ligand-receptor interactions bet

    non-chimeric (Control-Monkey) monkey cells.

    (G) Comparison of KEGG pathways enriched by the specific interactions betwee

    cells in (F). EPI, epiblast; EXMC, extra-embryonic mesenchyme cell; HYP, hypobla

    gastrulating cell; DEG, differentially expressed gene.

    See also Figure S3 and Table S3.

    2026 Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021

    (Nakamura et al., 2016; Niu et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2019). Human

    EPI-like cells were identified at pre-implantation, post-implanta-

    tion, and gastrulating stages, and at each stage, they expressed

    distinct markers (Figures 5A and S4A–S4C). A Sankey diagram

    also showed the same developmental dynamics of human EPI-

    like cells (Figure S4D). We next determined the relationship be-

    tween hEPSCs (Yang et al., 2017b), chimeric human EPI-like

    cells, EPI cells from control human and monkey embryos (Niu

    et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2019), and human and monkey PSCs

    (primed and naive) (Chan et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2015; Gafni

    et al., 2013; Theunissen et al., 2014). We observed that hEPSCs

    were more similar to early post-implantation EPI (PostE_EPI)

    and PostL_EPI cells from human and monkey embryos, respec-

    tively, as well as human and monkey naive PSCs. Chimeric hu-

    man PostL_EPI-like cells showed higher correlation coefficients

    to primed PSCs than naive PSCs (Figure S4E). To further investi-

    gate the transcriptional kinetics of hEPSCs (Yang et al., 2017b),

    chimeric humanEPI-like cells, andhost monkeyEPI cells, we per-

    formed RNA velocity (La Manno et al., 2018) and Slingshot ana-

    lyses (Street et al., 2018) (Figure 5B). We observed two distinct

    patterns of RNA velocity vectors; chimeric human PostL_EPI-

    like cells bore long vectors, and gastrulating-like cells bore short

    vectors. In contrast, host monkey PostL_EPI cells lacked long

    vectors, and gastrulating cells bore long vectors (Figure 5B, left

    two panels). These results imply that development is delayed

    for chimeric human EPI-like cells. Slingshot analysis revealed

    that after injection into monkey blastocysts, hEPSCs followed

    the EPSC to PostL_EPI to gastrulation developmental trajectory

    (Figure 5B, right panel). To further delineate the developmental

    trajectory of chimeric human EPI-like cells, we mapped all EPI-

    related human and monkey reads to a consensus genome and

    aligned EPI development trajectories between species using a

    previously reported method (Kanton et al., 2019). In agreement

    with the RNA velocity analysis, we found that chimeric human

    EPI-like cells differentiated more slowly than EPI cells from host

    monkey, control monkey, and human embryos (Figure 5C). These

    results suggest that the specification and/or differentiation of

    hEPSCs toward the EPI lineages was less efficient than embry-

    onic cells.

    As mentioned above, global transcriptional profiles of chimeric

    human EPI-like cells more resembled monkey EPI cells within the

    os

    . The differentiation trajectory was reconstructed using SPRING. Cells were

    non-chimeric human [‘‘Chimera-Monkey vs. Control-Human’’], chimera-human

    himera-monkey versus control non-chimeric monkey [‘‘Chimera-Monkey vs.

    himera-Human vs. Control-Monkey’’]). Cells are colored by cell origins.

    responding lineages (EPI, EXMC, HYP, Pre_EPI, PostL_EPI, and Gast).

    EXMC) in the host monkey cells compared to cells from control non-chimeric

    pectively.

    t enrichment p values (�log10 transformed) for up- and downregulated DEGs,

    ween EPI-EPI, EPI-HYP, and EPI-EXMC in host (Chimera-Monkey) and control

    n host (Chimera-Monkey) and control non-chimeric (Control-Monkey) monkey

    st; Pre_EPI, pre-implantation EPI; PostL_EPI, post-implantation late EPI; Gast,

     

     

    A

    C

    D

    F

    E

    B

    Figure 5. Developmental trajectory of chimeric human EPI-like cells within monkey embryos

    (A) t-SNE plot of EPI cells at different sublineages. Cells are colored by cell origins and designated as ICM, Pre_EPI, PostE_EPI, PostL_EPI, and Gast. Cells of

    ‘‘Control-Human 1’’ derive from dataset ‘‘Human-1’’ (Zhou et al., 2019). Cells of ‘‘Control-Monkey 1’’ derive from dataset ‘‘Monkey-1’’ (Niu et al., 2019). Cells of

    ‘‘Control-Monkey 2’’ derive from dataset ‘‘Monkey-2’’ (Nakamura et al., 2016). Lower right: single cells are colored according to embryonic stages.

    (B) RNA velocity analysis of chimeric human (chimera-human) and host monkey (chimera-monkey) cells, respectively (left two panels). The amplitude and di-

    rection of the vector reflects a transcriptional trajectory. Slingshot analysis of chimeric human EPI-like cells and hEPSCs (third panel). The curves and arrows

    indicate the potential development trajectory. Cells are colored by cell lineages.

    (C) Pseudotime alignment between control and chimeric cells. Left and right panels show the pseudotime alignment of chimeric cells with control human and host

    monkey cells, respectively.

    (legend continued on next page)

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"