1 Takahashi, K. & Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126, 663–676 (2006).

2 Davis, R. L., Weintraub, H. & Lassar, A. B. Expression of a single transfected cDNA converts fibroblasts to myoblasts. Cell 51, 987–1000 (1987).

3 Su, A. I. et al. Large-scale analysis of the human and mouse transcriptomes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 4465–4470 (2002).

4 Graf, T. & Enver, T. Forcing cells to change lineages. Nature 462, 587–594 (2009).

5 Kondoh, H. & Kamachi, Y. SOX-partner code for cell specification: regulatory target selection and underlying molecular mechanisms. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 42, 391–399 (2010).

6 Masui, S. et al. Pluripotency governed by Sox2 via regulation of Oct3/4 expression in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat. Cell Biol. 9, 625–635 (2007).

7 Miyagi, S. et al. Consequence of the loss of Sox2 in the developing brain of the mouse. FEBS Lett. 582, 2811–2815 (2008).

8 Sarkar, A. & Hochedlinger, K. The Sox family of transcription factors: versatile regulators of stem and progenitor cell fate. Cell Stem Cell 12, 15–30 (2013).

9 Lodato, M. A. et al. SOX2 co-occupies distal enhancer elements with distinct POU factors in ESCs and NPCs to specify cell state. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003288 (2013).

10 Vierbuchen, T. et al. Direct conversion of fibroblasts to functional neurons by defined factors. Nature 463, 1035–1041 (2010).

11 Ieda, M. et al. Direct reprogramming of fibroblasts into functional cardiomyocytes by defined factors. Cell 142, 375–386 (2010).

12 D'Alessio, A. C. et al. A systematic approach to identify candidate transcription factors that control cell identity. Stem Cell Rep. 5, 763–775 (2015).

13 Lupien, M. et al. FoxA1 translates epigenetic signatures into enhancer-driven lineage-specific transcription. Cell 132, 958–970 (2008).

14 Arvey, A., Agius, P., Noble, W. S. & Leslie, C. Sequence and chromatin determinants of cell-type-specific transcription factor binding. Genome Res. 22, 1723–1734 (2012).

15 Biggin, M. D. Animal transcription networks as highly connected, quantitative continua. Dev. Cell 21, 611–626 (2011).

16 ENCODE Project Consortium. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, 57–74 (2012).

17 Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium et al. Integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes. Nature 518, 317–330 (2015).

18 Mikkelsen, T. S. et al. Dissecting direct reprogramming through integrative genomic analysis. Nature 454, 49–55 (2008).

19 Stadtfeld, M., Maherali, N., Breault, D. & Hochedlinger, K. Defining molecular cornerstones during fibroblast to iPS cell reprogramming in mouse. Cell Stem Cell 2, 230–240 (2008).

20 Zunder, E. R., Lujan, E., Goltsev, Y., Wernig, M. & Nolan, G. P. A continuous molecular roadmap to iPSC reprogramming through progression analysis of single-cell mass cytometry. Cell Stem Cell 16, 323–337 (2015).

21 Hansson, J. et al. Highly coordinated proteome dynamics during reprogramming of somatic cells to pluripotency. Cell Rep. 2, 1579–1592 (2012).

22 Guo, S. et al. Nonstochastic reprogramming from a privileged somatic cell state. Cell 156, 649–662 (2014).

23 Smith, Z. D., Nachman, I., Regev, A. & Meissner, A. Dynamic single-cell imaging of direct reprogramming reveals an early specifying event. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 521–526 (2010).

24 Brambrink, T. et al. Sequential expression of pluripotency markers during direct reprogramming of mouse somatic cells. Cell Stem Cell 2, 151–159 (2008).

25 Samavarchi-Tehrani, P. et al. Functional genomics reveals a BMP-driven mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition in the initiation of somatic cell reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 7, 64–77 (2010).

26 Hussein, S. M. et al. Genome-wide characterization of the routes to pluripotency. Nature 516, 198–206 (2014).

27 Koche, R. P. et al. Reprogramming factor expression initiates widespread targeted chromatin remodeling. Cell Stem Cell 8, 96–105 (2011).

28 Sridharan, R. et al. Role of the murine reprogramming factors in the induction of pluripotency. Cell 136, 364–377 (2009).

29 Lee, D. S. et al. An epigenomic roadmap to induced pluripotency reveals DNA methylation as a reprogramming modulator. Nat. Commun. 5, 5619 (2014).

30 Heinz, S., Romanoski, C. E., Benner, C. & Glass, C. K. The selection and function of cell type-specific enhancers. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16, 144–154 (2015).

31 Onder, T. T. et al. Chromatin-modifying enzymes as modulators of reprogramming. Nature 483, 598–602 (2012).

32 Liang, G., He, J. & Zhang, Y. Kdm2b promotes induced pluripotent stem cell generation by facilitating gene activation early in reprogramming. Nat. Cell Biol. 14, 457–466 (2012). References 31 and 32 identify the H3K79 methyltransferase DOT1L and the H3K36 demethylase KDM2B as participating in the early disassembly of epigenetic modifications associated with transcription elongation at somatically active genes.

33 Mansour, A. A. et al. The H3K27 demethylase Utx regulates somatic and germ cell epigenetic reprogramming. Nature 488, 409–413 (2012). This work reveals that the H3K27 demethylase UTX participates in the activation of pluripotency-associated genes by removing differentiation-associated repressive modifications at CpG island-containing promoters.

34 Ramirez-Carrozzi, V. R. et al. A unifying model for the selective regulation of inducible transcription by CpG islands and nucleosome remodeling. Cell 138, 114–128 (2009).

35 Kim, J. et al. A Myc network accounts for similarities between embryonic stem and cancer cell transcription programs. Cell 143, 313–324 (2010). Kim et al . demonstrate that transcriptional signatures shared between ES cells and hyperproliferative cancer cell models reflect a discrete MYC-driven genetic module that is separate from that of OCT4 and SOX2 in pluripotent cells and uniquely present in proliferating, OSKM-dependent intermediates.

36 Nie, Z. et al. c-Myc is a universal amplifier of expressed genes in lymphocytes and embryonic stem cells. Cell 151, 68–79 (2012).

37 Rahl, P. B. et al. c-Myc regulates transcriptional pause release. Cell 141, 432–445 (2010). Rahl et al . demonstrate that MYC stabilizes transcription elongation, which explains its contribution to the early phenotypic response to direct reprogramming and its more universal binding to the promoters of cell cycle genes at this stage.

38 Mathieu, J. et al. Hypoxia-inducible factors have distinct and stage-specific roles during reprogramming of human cells to pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 14, 592–605 (2014).

39 Panopoulos, A. D. et al. The metabolome of induced pluripotent stem cells reveals metabolic changes occurring in somatic cell reprogramming. Cell Res. 22, 168–177 (2012).

40 Folmes, C. D. et al. Somatic oxidative bioenergetics transitions into pluripotency-dependent glycolysis to facilitate nuclear reprogramming. Cell Metab. 14, 264–271 (2011).

41 Cao, Y. et al. miR-290/371-Mbd2-Myc circuit regulates glycolytic metabolism to promote pluripotency. EMBO J. 34, 609–623 (2015).

42 Zhang, J., Nuebel, E., Daley, G. Q., Koehler, C. M. & Teitell, M. A. Metabolic regulation in pluripotent stem cells during reprogramming and self-renewal. Cell Stem Cell 11, 589–595 (2012).

43 Li, R. et al. A mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition initiates and is required for the nuclear reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts. Cell Stem Cell 7, 51–63 (2010).

44 Thiery, J. P., Acloque, H., Huang, R. Y. & Nieto, M. A. Epithelial-mesenchymal transitions in development and disease. Cell 139, 871–890 (2009).

45 Xu, J., Lamouille, S. & Derynck, R. TGF-β-induced epithelial to mesenchymal transition. Cell Res. 19, 156–172 (2009).

46 Wang, G. et al. Critical regulation of miR-200/ZEB2 pathway in Oct4/Sox2-induced mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition and induced pluripotent stem cell generation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 2858–2863 (2013).

47 Ichida, J. K. et al. A small-molecule inhibitor of Tgf-β signaling replaces Sox2 in reprogramming by inducing Nanog. Cell Stem Cell 5, 491–503 (2009).

48 Maherali, N. & Hochedlinger, K. Tgfβ signal inhibition cooperates in the induction of iPSCs and replaces Sox2 and cMyc. Curr. Biol. 19, 1718–1723 (2009).

49 Lujan, E. et al. Early reprogramming regulators identified by prospective isolation and mass cytometry. Nature 521, 352–356 (2015). Lujan et al . identified transcriptional activators that are associated with the induction of pluripotency but are not necessary for the maintenance of self-renewal.

50 Jaenisch, R. & Young, R. Stem cells, the molecular circuitry of pluripotency and nuclear reprogramming. Cell 132, 567–582 (2008).

51 Buganim, Y. et al. Single-cell expression analyses during cellular reprogramming reveal an early stochastic and a late hierarchic phase. Cell 150, 1209–1222 (2012). This study demonstrates that the consolidation of pluripotency proceeds deterministically following the induction of endogenous SOX2 expression.

52 Golipour, A. et al. A late transition in somatic cell reprogramming requires regulators distinct from the pluripotency network. Cell Stem Cell 11, 769–782 (2012). This paper demonstrates that the terminal steps of reprogramming require withdrawal of exogenous OSKM factors to consolidate autonomous self-renewal and reactivate the endogenous pluripotency network.

53 Hanna, J. et al. Direct cell reprogramming is a stochastic process amenable to acceleration. Nature 462, 595–601 (2009). This work demonstrates that all perpetually dividing reprogramming cell lineages will eventually generate iPSCs, supporting a single switch-like transition into deterministic reprogramming.

54 Araki, R. et al. Conversion of ancestral fibroblasts to induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cells 28, 213–220 (2010). Araki et al . characterize the morphological, proliferative and molecular properties of iPSC-forming cell lineages from the time of OSKM induction using continuous live-cell imaging.

55 O'Malley, J. et al. High-resolution analysis with novel cell-surface markers identifies routes to iPS cells. Nature 499, 88–91 (2013).

56 Polo, J. M. et al. A molecular roadmap of reprogramming somatic cells into iPS cells. Cell 151, 1617–1632 (2012).

57 Maherali, N. et al. Global epigenetic remodeling in directly reprogrammed fibroblasts. Cell Stem Cell 1, 55–70 (2007).

58 Wernig, M. et al. In vitro reprogramming of fibroblasts into a pluripotent ES-cell-like state. Nature 448, 318–324 (2007).

59 Polo, J. M. et al. Cell type of origin influences the molecular and functional properties of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 848–855 (2010).

60 Tonge, P. D. et al. Divergent reprogramming routes lead to alternative stem-cell states. Nature 516, 192–197 (2014).

61 Pasque, V. et al. X chromosome reactivation dynamics reveal stages of reprogramming to pluripotency. Cell 159, 1681–1697 (2014).

62 Maza, I. et al. Transient acquisition of pluripotency during somatic cell transdifferentiation with iPSC reprogramming factors. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 769–774 (2015).

63 Bar-Nur, O. et al. Lineage conversion induced by pluripotency factors involves transient passage through an iPSC stage. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 761–768 (2015).

64 Okita, K., Ichisaka, T. & Yamanaka, S. Generation of germline-competent induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 448, 313–317 (2007).

65 Posfai, E., Tam, O. H. & Rossant, J. Mechanisms of pluripotency in vivo and in vitro. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 107, 1–37 (2014).

66 Nichols, J. et al. Formation of pluripotent stem cells in the mammalian embryo depends on the POU transcription factor Oct4. Cell 95, 379–391 (1998).

67 Chambers, I. et al. Functional expression cloning of Nanog, a pluripotency sustaining factor in embryonic stem cells. Cell 113, 643–655 (2003).

68 Mitsui, K. et al. The homeoprotein Nanog is required for maintenance of pluripotency in mouse epiblast and ES cells. Cell 113, 631–642 (2003).

69 Bernstein, B. E., Meissner, A. & Lander, E. S. The mammalian epigenome. Cell 128, 669–681 (2007).

70 Chen, X. et al. Integration of external signaling pathways with the core transcriptional network in embryonic stem cells. Cell 133, 1106–1117 (2008).

71 Azuara, V. et al. Chromatin signatures of pluripotent cell lines. Nat. Cell Biol. 8, 532–538 (2006).

72 Mikkelsen, T. S. et al. Genome-wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage-committed cells. Nature 448, 553–560 (2007).

73 Gifford, C. A. et al. Transcriptional and epigenetic dynamics during specification of human embryonic stem cells. Cell 153, 1149–1163 (2013).

74 Ziller, M. J. et al. Dissecting neural differentiation regulatory networks through epigenetic footprinting. Nature 518, 355–359 (2015).

75 Boyer, L. A. et al. Polycomb complexes repress developmental regulators in murine embryonic stem cells. Nature 441, 349–353 (2006).

76 Singh, A. M. et al. Cell-cycle control of bivalent epigenetic domains regulates the exit from pluripotency. Stem Cell Rep. 5, 323–336 (2015).

77 Rada-Iglesias, A. et al. A unique chromatin signature uncovers early developmental enhancers in humans. Nature 470, 279–283 (2011).

78 Creyghton, M. P. et al. Histone H3K27ac separates active from poised enhancers and predicts developmental state. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 21931–21936 (2010).

79 Meissner, A. Epigenetic modifications in pluripotent and differentiated cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 1079–1088 (2010).

80 Taberlay, P. C. et al. Polycomb-repressed genes have permissive enhancers that initiate reprogramming. Cell 147, 1283–1294 (2011). Taberlay et al . demonstrate that OCT4 binding to the MyoD enhancer results in H3K4 methylation and H3K27 demethylation at the promoter, which is indicative of a transient topological interaction that precedes transcription.

81 Marks, H. et al. The transcriptional and epigenomic foundations of ground state pluripotency. Cell 149, 590–604 (2012).

82 Brinkman, A. B. et al. Sequential ChIP-bisulfite sequencing enables direct genome-scale investigation of chromatin and DNA methylation cross-talk. Genome Res. 22, 1128–1138 (2012).

83 Chamberlain, S. J., Yee, D. & Magnuson, T. Polycomb repressive complex 2 is dispensable for maintenance of embryonic stem cell pluripotency. Stem Cells 26, 1496–1505 (2008).

84 Galonska, C., Ziller, M. J., Karnik, R. & Meissner, A. Ground state conditions induce rapid reorganization of core pluripotency factor binding before global epigenetic reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 17, 462–470 (2015).

85 Geula, S. et al. m6A mRNA methylation facilitates resolution of naive pluripotency toward differentiation. Science 347, 1002–1006 (2015). Geula et al . identified a requirement for DNA, H3K27 and mRNA methylation for self-renewal in mouse epiblast stem cells but not for stem cells cultured in 2i/LIF.

86 Chan, Y. S. et al. A PRC2-dependent repressive role of PRDM14 in human embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cell reprogramming. Stem Cells 31, 682–692 (2013).

87 Liao, J. et al. Targeted disruption of DNMT1, DNMT3A and DNMT3B in human embryonic stem cells. Nat. Genet. 47, 469–478 (2015).

88 Voigt, P., Tee, W. W. & Reinberg, D. A double take on bivalent promoters. Genes Dev. 27, 1318–1338 (2013).

89 Landeira, D. et al. Jarid2 is a PRC2 component in embryonic stem cells required for multi-lineage differentiation and recruitment of PRC1 and RNA polymerase II to developmental regulators. Nat. Cell Biol. 12, 618–624 (2010).

90 Jia, J. et al. Regulation of pluripotency and self- renewal of ESCs through epigenetic-threshold modulation and mRNA pruning. Cell 151, 576–589 (2012).

91 Pasini, D. et al. Regulation of stem cell differentiation by histone methyltransferases and demethylases. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 73, 253–263 (2008).

92 Joshi, O. et al. Dynamic reorganization of extremely long-range promoter-promoter interactions between two states of pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 17, 748–757 (2015).

93 Deaton, A. M. & Bird, A. CpG islands and the regulation of transcription. Genes Dev. 25, 1010–1022 (2011).

94 Mendenhall, E. M. et al. GC-rich sequence elements recruit PRC2 in mammalian ES cells. PLoS Genet. 6, e1001244 (2010).

95 Thomson, J. P. et al. CpG islands influence chromatin structure via the CpG-binding protein Cfp1. Nature 464, 1082–1086 (2010).

96 Simon, J. A. & Kingston, R. E. Mechanisms of Polycomb gene silencing: knowns and unknowns. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 697–708 (2009).

97 He, J. et al. Kdm2b maintains murine embryonic stem cell status by recruiting PRC1 complex to CpG islands of developmental genes. Nat. Cell Biol. 15, 373–384 (2013).

98 Farcas, A. M. et al. KDM2B links the Polycomb Repressive Complex 1 (PRC1) to recognition of CpG islands. eLife 1, e00205 (2012).

99 Wu, X., Johansen, J. V. & Helin, K. Fbxl10/Kdm2b recruits Polycomb repressive complex 1 to CpG islands and regulates H2A ubiquitylation. Mol. Cell 49, 1134–1146 (2013).

100 Blackledge, N. P. et al. Variant PRC1 complex-dependent H2A ubiquitylation drives PRC2 recruitment and polycomb domain formation. Cell 157, 1445–1459 (2014). This study identified a specific complex, normally recruited to CpG islands by the H3K36 demethylase KDM2B, that is sufficient to recruit PRC2 and establish H3K27me3 downstream of PRC1.

101 Li, E. Chromatin modification and epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3, 662–673 (2002).

102 Weinberger, L., Ayyash, M., Novershtern, N. & Hanna, J. H. Dynamic stem cell states: naive to primed pluripotency in rodents and humans. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2015.28 (2016).

103 Tesar, P. J. et al. New cell lines from mouse epiblast share defining features with human embryonic stem cells. Nature 448, 196–199 (2007).

104 Brons, I. G. et al. Derivation of pluripotent epiblast stem cells from mammalian embryos. Nature 448, 191–195 (2007).

105 Huangfu, D. et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells by defined factors is greatly improved by small-molecule compounds. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 795–797 (2008).

106 Fouse, S. et al. Promoter CpG methylation contributes to ES cell gene regulation in parallel with Oct4/Nanog, PcG complex, and histone H3 K4/K27 trimethylation. Cell Stem Cell 2, 1–10 (2008).

107 Tsumura, A. et al. Maintenance of self-renewal ability of mouse embryonic stem cells in the absence of DNA methyltransferases Dnmt1, Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b. Genes Cells 11, 805–814 (2006).

108 Jackson, M. et al. Severe global DNA hypomethylation blocks differentiation and induces histone hyperacetylation in embryonic stem cells. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24, 8862–8871 (2004).

109 Leeb, M. et al. Polycomb complexes act redundantly to repress genomic repeats and genes. Genes Dev. 24, 265–276 (2010).

110 Pasini, D. et al. Coordinated regulation of transcriptional repression by the RBP2 H3K4 demethylase and Polycomb-Repressive Complex 2. Genes Dev. 22, 1345–1355 (2008).

111 Dovey, O. M., Foster, C. T. & Cowley, S. M. Histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1), but not HDAC2, controls embryonic stem cell differentiation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 8242–8247 (2010).

112 Ng, R. K. et al. Epigenetic restriction of embryonic cell lineage fate by methylation of Elf5. Nat. Cell Biol. 10, 1280–1290 (2008).

113 Smith, Z. D. & Meissner, A. DNA methylation: roles in mammalian development. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 204–220 (2013).

114 Yuan, P. et al. Eset partners with Oct4 to restrict extraembryonic trophoblast lineage potential in embryonic stem cells. Genes Dev. 23, 2507–2520 (2009).

115 Bilodeau, S., Kagey, M. H., Frampton, G. M., Rahl, P. B. & Young, R. A. SetDB1 contributes to repression of genes encoding developmental regulators and maintenance of ES cell state. Genes Dev. 23, 2484–2489 (2009).

116 Fei, Q. et al. SETDB1 modulates PRC2 activity at developmental genes independently of H3K9 trimethylation in mouse ES cells. Genome Res. 25, 1325–1335 (2015).

117 Karimi, M. M. et al. DNA methylation and SETDB1/H3K9me3 regulate predominantly distinct sets of genes, retroelements, and chimeric transcripts in mESCs. Cell Stem Cell 8, 676–687 (2011).

118 Ficz, G. et al. FGF signaling inhibition in ESCs drives rapid genome-wide demethylation to the epigenetic ground state of pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 13, 351–359 (2013).

119 Habibi, E. et al. Whole-genome bisulfite sequencing of two distinct interconvertible DNA methylomes of mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 13, 360–369 (2013).

120 Hackett, J. A. et al. Synergistic mechanisms of DNA demethylation during transition to ground-state pluripotency. Stem Cell Rep. 1, 518–531 (2013).

121 Leitch, H. G. et al. Naive pluripotency is associated with global DNA hypomethylation. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 311–316 (2013).

122 Theunissen, T. W. et al. Nanog overcomes reprogramming barriers and induces pluripotency in minimal conditions. Curr. Biol. 21, 65–71 (2011).

123 Tran, K. A. et al. Collaborative rewiring of the pluripotency network by chromatin and signalling modulating pathways. Nat. Commun. 6, 6188 (2015).

124 Bar-Nur, O. et al. Small molecules facilitate rapid and synchronous iPSC generation. Nat. Methods 11, 1170–1176 (2014).

125 Jahner, D. et al. De novo methylation and expression of retroviral genomes during mouse embryogenesis. Nature 298, 623–628 (1982).

126 Gifford, W. D., Pfaff, S. L. & Macfarlan, T. S. Transposable elements as genetic regulatory substrates in early development. Trends Cell Biol. 23, 218–226 (2013).

127 Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium et al. Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature 420, 520–562 (2002).

128 Lander, E. S. et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409, 860–921 (2001).

129 Smith, Z. D. et al. DNA methylation dynamics of the human preimplantation embryo. Nature 511, 611–615 (2014).

130 Rowe, H. M. et al. KAP1 controls endogenous retroviruses in embryonic stem cells. Nature 463, 237–240 (2010).

131 Thomas, J. H. & Schneider, S. Coevolution of retroelements and tandem zinc finger genes. Genome Res. 21, 1800–1812 (2011).

132 Jacobs, F. M. et al. An evolutionary arms race between KRAB zinc-finger genes ZNF91/93 and SVA/L1 retrotransposons. Nature 516, 242–245 (2014).

133 Castro-Diaz, N. et al. Evolutionally dynamic L1 regulation in embryonic stem cells. Genes Dev. 28, 1397–1409 (2014).

134 Friedli, M. et al. Loss of transcriptional control over endogenous retroelements during reprogramming to pluripotency. Genome Res. 24, 1251–1259 (2014).

135 Ohnuki, M. et al. Dynamic regulation of human endogenous retroviruses mediates factor-induced reprogramming and differentiation potential. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 12426–12431 (2014).

136 Bourque, G. et al. Evolution of the mammalian transcription factor binding repertoire via transposable elements. Genome Res. 18, 1752–1762 (2008).

137 Kunarso, G. et al. Transposable elements have rewired the core regulatory network of human embryonic stem cells. Nat. Genet. 42, 631–634 (2010). Genomic analysis of OCT4 and NANOG binding in mouse and human ES cells revealed substantial divergence that can be partially explained by the species-specific radiation of repetitive elements with OCT4- and NANOG-binding motifs that function as enhancers.

138 Loewer, S. et al. Large intergenic non-coding RNA-RoR modulates reprogramming of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Genet. 42, 1113–1117 (2010).

139 Lu, X. et al. The retrovirus HERVH is a long noncoding RNA required for human embryonic stem cell identity. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 21, 423–425 (2014). References 135 and 139 demonstrate that endogenous retroviruses of the LTR7 subfamily are specifically bound by OCT4, SOX2 and KLF4 in humans, and that their transcription supports generation of iPSCs.

140 Durruthy-Durruthy, J. et al. The primate-specific noncoding RNA HPAT5 regulates pluripotency during human preimplantation development and nuclear reprogramming. Nat. Genet. 48, 44–52 (2015).

141 Macfarlan, T. S. et al. Embryonic stem cell potency fluctuates with endogenous retrovirus activity. Nature 487, 57–63 (2012). Macfarlan et al . find that specific retrotransposons are dynamically expressed in a small population of mouse ES cells that globally resemble early cleavage stage embryos and have an unusual extra-embryonic potential.

142 Toyooka, Y., Shimosato, D., Murakami, K., Takahashi, K. & Niwa, H. Identification and characterization of subpopulations in undifferentiated ES cell culture. Development 135, 909–918 (2008).

143 Singh, A. M., Hamazaki, T., Hankowski, K. E. & Terada, N. A heterogeneous expression pattern for Nanog in embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells 25, 2534–2542 (2007).

144 Singer, Z. S. et al. Dynamic heterogeneity and DNA methylation in embryonic stem cells. Mol. Cell 55, 319–331 (2014).

145 Hayashi, K., Lopes, S. M., Tang, F. & Surani, M. A. Dynamic equilibrium and heterogeneity of mouse pluripotent stem cells with distinct functional and epigenetic states. Cell Stem Cell 3, 391–401 (2008).

146 Papatsenko, D. et al. Single-cell analyses of ESCs reveal alternative pluripotent cell states and molecular mechanisms that control self-renewal. Stem Cell Rep. 5, 207–220 (2015).

147 Ishiuchi, T. et al. Early embryonic-like cells are induced by downregulating replication-dependent chromatin assembly. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 22, 662–671 (2015).

148 Elsasser, S. J., Noh, K. M., Diaz, N., Allis, C. D. & Banaszynski, L. A. Histone H3.3 is required for endogenous retroviral element silencing in embryonic stem cells. Nature 522, 240–244 (2015).

149 Sadic, D. et al. Atrx promotes heterochromatin formation at retrotransposons. EMBO Rep. 16, 836–850 (2015).

150 Yang, B. X. et al. Systematic identification of factors for provirus silencing in embryonic stem cells. Cell 163, 230–245 (2015).

151 Feldman, N. et al. G9a-mediated irreversible epigenetic inactivation of Oct-3/4 during early embryogenesis. Nat. Cell Biol. 8, 188–194 (2006).

152 You, J. S. et al. OCT4 establishes and maintains nucleosome-depleted regions that provide additional layers of epigenetic regulation of its target genes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 14497–14502 (2011). You et al . demonstrate that OCT4 can bind to nucleosomal DNA at DNA-hypomethylated enhancers in somatic cells to initiate a preliminary nucleosome-free region.

153 MacArthur, B. D. et al. Nanog-dependent feedback loops regulate murine embryonic stem cell heterogeneity. Nat. Cell Biol. 14, 1139–1147 (2012).

154 Epsztejn-Litman, S. et al. De novo DNA methylation promoted by G9a prevents reprogramming of embryonically silenced genes. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 15, 1176–1183 (2008).

155 Hochedlinger, K., Yamada, Y., Beard, C. & Jaenisch, R. Ectopic expression of Oct-4 blocks progenitor-cell differentiation and causes dysplasia in epithelial tissues. Cell 121, 465–477 (2005).

156 Shields, J. M., Christy, R. J. & Yang, V. W. Identification and characterization of a gene encoding a gut-enriched Kruppel-like factor expressed during growth arrest. J. Biol. Chem. 271, 20009–20017 (1996).

157 Garrett-Sinha, L. A., Eberspaecher, H., Seldin, M. F. & de Crombrugghe, B. A gene for a novel zinc-finger protein expressed in differentiated epithelial cells and transiently in certain mesenchymal cells. J. Biol. Chem. 271, 31384–31390 (1996).

158 Stadler, M. B. et al. DNA-binding factors shape the mouse methylome at distal regulatory regions. Nature 480, 490–495 (2011).

159 Meshorer, E. & Misteli, T. Chromatin in pluripotent embryonic stem cells and differentiation. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 7, 540–546 (2006).

160 Kagey, M. H. et al. Mediator and cohesin connect gene expression and chromatin architecture. Nature 467, 430–435 (2010).

161 Whyte, W. A. et al. Master transcription factors and mediator establish super-enhancers at key cell identity genes. Cell 153, 307–319 (2013).

162 Whyte, W. A. et al. Enhancer decommissioning by LSD1 during embryonic stem cell differentiation. Nature 482, 221–225 (2012). References 160–162 demonstrate that super-enhancers regulate cell-type specific genes. The H3K4 demethylase LSD1 interacts with these enhancers in mouseES cells and controls differentiation by removing epigenetic modifications associated with their activity.

163 Wang, Y. et al. LSD1 is a subunit of the NuRD complex and targets the metastasis programs in breast cancer. Cell 138, 660–672 (2009).

164 Foster, C. T. et al. Lysine-specific demethylase 1 regulates the embryonic transcriptome and CoREST stability. Mol. Cell. Biol. 30, 4851–4863 (2010).

165 Shi, Y. et al. Histone demethylation mediated by the nuclear amine oxidase homolog LSD1. Cell 119, 941–953 (2004).

166 Macfarlan, T. S. et al. Endogenous retroviruses and neighboring genes are coordinately repressed by LSD1/KDM1A. Genes Dev. 25, 594–607 (2011).

167 Rudolph, T. et al. Heterochromatin formation in Drosophila is initiated through active removal of H3K4 methylation by the LSD1 homolog SU(VAR)3-3. Mol. Cell 26, 103–115 (2007).

168 Reynolds, N. et al. NuRD suppresses pluripotency gene expression to promote transcriptional heterogeneity and lineage commitment. Cell Stem Cell 10, 583–594 (2012).

169 Lessard, J. A. & Crabtree, G. R. Chromatin regulatory mechanisms in pluripotency. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 26, 503–532 (2010).

170 Rais, Y. et al. Deterministic direct reprogramming of somatic cells to pluripotency. Nature 502, 65–70 (2013).

171 dos Santos, R. L. et al. MBD3/NuRD facilitates induction of pluripotency in a context-dependent manner. Cell Stem Cell 15, 102–110 (2014).

172 Luo, M. et al. NuRD blocks reprogramming of mouse somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cells 31, 1278–1286 (2013).

173 Cacchiarelli, D. et al. Integrative analyses of human reprogramming reveal dynamic nature of induced pluripotency. Cell 162, 412–424 (2015).

174 Jin, C. et al. H3.3/H2A. Z double variant-containing nucleosomes mark 'nucleosome-free regions' of active promoters and other regulatory regions. Nat. Genet. 41, 941–945 (2009).

175 Mito, Y., Henikoff, J. G. & Henikoff, S. Histone replacement marks the boundaries of cis-regulatory domains. Science 315, 1408–1411 (2007).

176 He, H. H. et al. Nucleosome dynamics define transcriptional enhancers. Nat. Genet. 42, 343–347 (2010).

177 Zaret, K. S. & Carroll, J. S. Pioneer transcription factors: establishing competence for gene expression. Genes Dev. 25, 2227–2241 (2011).

178 Sherwood, R. I. et al. Discovery of directional and nondirectional pioneer transcription factors by modeling DNase profile magnitude and shape. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 171–178 (2014).

179 Soufi, A., Donahue, G. & Zaret, K. S. Facilitators and impediments of the pluripotency reprogramming factors' initial engagement with the genome. Cell 151, 994–1004 (2012).

180 Soufi, A. et al. Pioneer transcription factors target partial DNA motifs on nucleosomes to initiate reprogramming. Cell 161, 555–568 (2015). This article demonstrates that the pioneer factor-like activity of OCT4, SOX2 and KLF4 is achieved by cooperatively binding to partially exposed recognition motifs within nucleosomal DNA.

181 Heng, J. C. et al. The nuclear receptor Nr5a2 can replace Oct4 in the reprogramming of murine somatic cells to pluripotent cells. Cell Stem Cell 6, 167–174 (2010).

182 Hutchins, A. P. et al. Co-motif discovery identifies an Esrrb-Sox2-DNA ternary complex as a mediator of transcriptional differences between mouse embryonic and epiblast stem cells. Stem Cells 31, 269–281 (2013).

183 Maekawa, M. et al. Direct reprogramming of somatic cells is promoted by maternal transcription factor Glis1. Nature 474, 225–229 (2011).

184 Tsubooka, N. et al. Roles of Sall4 in the generation of pluripotent stem cells from blastocysts and fibroblasts. Genes Cells 14, 683–694 (2009).

185 Wang, W. et al. Rapid and efficient reprogramming of somatic cells to induced pluripotent stem cells by retinoic acid receptor gamma and liver receptor homolog 1. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 18283–18288 (2011).

186 Jolma, A. et al. DNA-binding specificities of human transcription factors. Cell 152, 327–339 (2013).

187 Nakagawa, M. et al. Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells without Myc from mouse and human fibroblasts. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 101–106 (2008).

188 Kingston, R. E. & Narlikar, G. J. ATP-dependent remodeling and acetylation as regulators of chromatin fluidity. Genes Dev. 13, 2339–2352 (1999).

189 Ho, L. et al. An embryonic stem cell chromatin remodeling complex, esBAF, is essential for embryonic stem cell self-renewal and pluripotency. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 5181–5186 (2009).

190 Singhal, N. et al. Chromatin-remodeling components of the BAF complex facilitate reprogramming. Cell 141, 943–955 (2010). Singhal et al . demonstrate a requirement for the ES cell-specific BAF (esBAF) complex to reactivate the endogenous Oct4 locus in somatic nuclei during reprogramming.

191 van den Berg, D. L. et al. An Oct4-centered protein interaction network in embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 6, 369–381 (2010).

192 Pardo, M. et al. An expanded Oct4 interaction network: implications for stem cell biology, development, and disease. Cell Stem Cell 6, 382–395 (2010).

193 Floer, M. et al. A RSC/nucleosome complex determines chromatin architecture and facilitates activator binding. Cell 141, 407–418 (2010).

194 Cheloufi, S. The histone chaperone CAF-1 safeguards somatic cell identity. Nature 528, 218–224 (2015).

195 Ang, Y. S. et al. Wdr5 mediates self-renewal and reprogramming via the embryonic stem cell core transcriptional network. Cell 145, 183–197 (2011).

196 Apostolou, E. et al. Genome-wide chromatin interactions of the Nanog locus in pluripotency, differentiation, and reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 12, 699–712 (2013).

197 Yang, P., Wu, W. & Macfarlan, T. S. Maternal histone variants and their chaperones promote paternal genome activation and boost somatic cell reprogramming. Bioessays 37, 52–59 (2015).

198 Lin, C. J., Koh, F. M., Wong, P., Conti, M. & Ramalho-Santos, M. Hira-mediated H3.3 incorporation is required for DNA replication and ribosomal RNA transcription in the mouse zygote. Dev. Cell 30, 268–279 (2014).

199 Inoue, A. & Zhang, Y. Nucleosome assembly is required for nuclear pore complex assembly in mouse zygotes. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 21, 609–616 (2014).

200 Boskovic, A. et al. Higher chromatin mobility supports totipotency and precedes pluripotency in vivo. Genes Dev. 28, 1042–1047 (2014).

201 Oback, B. & Wells, D. N. Donor cell differentiation, reprogramming, and cloning efficiency: elusive or illusive correlation? Mol. Reprod. Dev. 74, 646–654 (2007).

202 Gonzalez-Munoz, E., Arboleda-Estudillo, Y., Otu, H. H. & Cibelli, J. B. Histone chaperone ASF1A is required for maintenance of pluripotency and cellular reprogramming. Science 345, 822–825 (2014).

203 Shinagawa, T. et al. Histone variants enriched in oocytes enhance reprogramming to induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 14, 217–227 (2014).

204 Miyamoto, K. et al. Nuclear Wave1 is required for reprogramming transcription in oocytes and for normal development. Science 341, 1002–1005 (2013).

205 Nashun, B., Akiyama, T., Suzuki, M. G. & Aoki, F. Dramatic replacement of histone variants during genome remodeling in nuclear-transferred embryos. Epigenetics 6, 1489–1497 (2011).

206 Wen, D. et al. Histone variant H3.3 is an essential maternal factor for oocyte reprogramming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7325–7330 (2014).

207 Gao, S. et al. Rapid H1 linker histone transitions following fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer: evidence for a uniform developmental program in mice. Dev. Biol. 266, 62–75 (2004).

208 Burton, A. & Torres-Padilla, M. E. Chromatin dynamics in the regulation of cell fate allocation during early embryogenesis. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 723–734 (2014).

209 Nakamura, T. et al. PGC7 binds histone H3K9me2 to protect against conversion of 5mC to 5hmC in early embryos. Nature 486, 415–419 (2012).

210 Eggan, K. et al. X-chromosome inactivation in cloned mouse embryos. Science 290, 1578–1581 (2000).

211 Pasque, V., Gillich, A., Garrett, N. & Gurdon, J. B. Histone variant macroH2A confers resistance to nuclear reprogramming. EMBO J. 30, 2373–2387 (2011).

212 Inoue, K. et al. Impeding Xist expression from the active X chromosome improves mouse somatic cell nuclear transfer. Science 330, 496–499 (2010).

213 Chan, M. M., Smith, Z. D., Egli, D., Regev, A. & Meissner, A. Mouse ooplasm confers context-specific reprogramming capacity. Nat. Genet. 44, 978–980 (2012).

214 Matoba, S. et al. Embryonic development following somatic cell nuclear transfer impeded by persisting histone methylation. Cell 159, 884–895 (2014). This work identified H3K9 methylation as a significant epigenetic impediment to successful zygotic genome activation and progression of embryonic development during SCNT.

215 Blelloch, R. et al. Reprogramming efficiency following somatic cell nuclear transfer is influenced by the differentiation and methylation state of the donor nucleus. Stem Cells 24, 2007–2013 (2006).

216 Pereira, C. F. et al. ESCs require PRC2 to direct the successful reprogramming of differentiated cells toward pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 6, 547–556 (2010).

217 Piccolo, F. M. et al. Different roles for Tet1 and Tet2 proteins in reprogramming-mediated erasure of imprints induced by EGC fusion. Mol. Cell 49, 1023–1033 (2013).

218 Foshay, K. M. et al. Embryonic stem cells induce pluripotency in somatic cell fusion through biphasic reprogramming. Mol. Cell 46, 159–170 (2012).

219 Han, D. W. et al. Pluripotential reprogramming of the somatic genome in hybrid cells occurs with the first cell cycle. Stem Cells 26, 445–454 (2008).

220 Looney, T. J. et al. Systematic mapping of occluded genes by cell fusion reveals prevalence and stability of cis-mediated silencing in somatic cells. Genome Res. 24, 267–280 (2014).