Yes, maybe that's right. But based on some comments I almost sure about some level of capabilities of some writers.
The idea is old and everybody who read paper cited in the story knows that, but here reprogramming is epigenetically-triggered, i.e., there's transduction of proteins, not genetic material by viral vectors.
You have not understood me. I ment that the idea of reprogramming is quite old. If you prefer (please read slowly! ) generall idea (making iPSCs by virial vectors) is : VERY OLD in scientific scale of time. If readers of this paper look deeply into references of this, they will see that's true.
We are commenting on brief review because of it's briefness. Remember that you have only ~20 minutes for writing significant contribution, after then your post will be placed in the tail of the discussion, chances for never being moderated. Thus, comprehensive posts can be written if someone's already expert in the field, no time for quick literature search.
So why are you comment story? If you are not experts
As is stated in one of the publications you gave link to, the set of four proteins is sufficient and in sense of search procedure involved, minimal. Moreover, if you consider the mechanism of fibroblast->hPS transformation by use of the four delivered proteins, you've probably got bijection between biological function (transcription factor, histone acetylation/methylation pattern modification) and proteins delivered.
Are you trying to explain me what I was claiming in my comment?? Yes. You got, that job done in paper I linked was good, and the autors found the bijection. But I'm not sure that you got why bijection is so important in analisis of this kind of problems . Of course the reason is not simplicity of mixture. The reason is because , if you get iPSCs what you will do with it?? You must to force then to specify. Where is the way, that you can find the simplest solution - how to force them?? Could you point of this Q ?