From: Understanding the molecular basis of autism in a dish using hiPSCs-derived neurons from ASD patients
 | Delivery system | Pros | Cons | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Integrating method | Retrovirus | High reprogramming efficiency (~0.01–0.1 %) | Possibility of oncogenesis; silencing of functional genes | Takahashi and Yamanaka. 2006 [32] |
Lentivirus | High reprogramming efficiency (~0.01–0.1 %) | Possibility of oncogenesis; silencing of functional genes | Yu et al. 2007 [51] | |
Non-integrating method | Sendai virus | No risk of altering the host genome; high reprogramming efficiency(~1Â %); easy to select iPSCs | Stringent steps to remove the reprogrammed cells of replicating virus; sensitivity of the viral RNA replicase | Fusaki et al. 2009 [55] |
Adenovirus | Transient, high-level expression | Low reprogramming efficiency (0.0001-0.001Â %); possibility of small pieces insertion of adenoviral DNA; 3 out of 13(or approximately 23Â %) were tetraploid | Stadtfeld et al. 2008 [56] | |
OriP/EBNA-based episomal vector | Unnecessary for viral packaging; gradual loss of cellular EV without drug selection; relatively high reprogramming efficiency of IRES2-mediated expression(~0.1Â %); further addition of c-Myc and Klf4 improve the reprogramming efficiency to over 1Â % | Unstable transfection efficiency | Yu et al. 2009 [168] | |
Piggy BAC transposons | Technical simplification (use of effortless plasmid DNA preparation and commercial transfection products); no limited range of somatic cell types for reprogramming; allow the option of xeno-free hiPSC production; accurate transgene removal through transposase expression | Labor intensive removal of multiple transposons; more CNVs in early passage than in intermediate passage; | ||
Cre-inducible/excisable lentivirus | Minimize the risk of chromosomal translocations; improve the developmental potential and differentiation capacity | Inefficient delivery of Cre; difficult to detect successful Cre-recombeniation; result in mosaic colonies; leaves 200Â bp of exogenous DNA | Sommer et al. 2010 [58]; Soldner et al. 2009 [169]; Papapetrou et al. 2011 [170] | |
Minicircle DNA | Free of foreign or chemical elements; requiring only a single vector without the need for subsequent drug selection, vector excision, or the inclusion of oncogenes; FAD approved | Low reprogramming efficiency (~0.005Â %) | ||
Poly-arginine-tagged polypeptide | No risk of altering the host genome; simpler and faster approach than the genetic method | Low reprogramming efficiency (~0.006Â %); requires either chemical treatment or greater than four rounds of treatment; expertise in protein chemistry and handling | ||
RNA-modified synthetic mRNA | Avoid the endogenous antiviral cell defense; high efficiency of over 2Â %; resultant iPSC colonies emerge as early as 17Â days | Labor intensive repeated transfection | Warren et al. 2010 [61] | |
 | Non-immunogenic; cost-effective; easily handled; | Relatively low and inconsistent efficiency | Hou et al. 2013 [80] |