ArticleStem cell reviews and reports2014
Comparison of reprogramming genes in induced pluripotent stem cells and nuclear transfer cloned embryos.
Article in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors and molecules that could impact cell differentiation in the embryo generated by nuclear transfer.Organogenesis · 2017Review
- Identifying Candidate Reprogramming Genes in Mouse Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The most effective reprogramming methods, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), are widely used in biological research and regenerative medicine, yet the mechanism that reprograms somatic cells to totipotency remains unclear and thus reprogramming efficiency is still low. Microarray technology has been employed in analyzing the transcriptomes changes during iPS reprogramming. Unfortunately, it is difficult to obtain enough DNA from SCNT reconstructed embryos to take advantage of this technology. In this study, we aimed to identify critical genes from the transcriptional profile for iPS reprogramming and compared expression levels of these genes in SCNT reprogramming. By integrating gene expression information from microarray databases and published studies comparing somatic cells with either miPSCs or mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs), we obtained two lists of co-upregulated genes. The gene ontology (GO) enriched analysis of these two lists demonstrated that the reprogramming process is associated with numerous biological processes. Specifically, we selected 32 genes related to heterochromatin, embryonic development, and cell cycle from our co-upregulated gene datasets and examined the gene expression level in iPSCs and SCNT embryos by qPCR. The results revealed that some reprogramming related genes in iPSCs were also expressed in SCNT reprogramming. We established the network of gene interactions that occur with genes differentially expressed in iPS and SCNT reprogramming and then performed GO analysis on the genes in the network. The network genes function in chromatin organization, heterochromatin, transcriptional regulation, and cell cycle. Further researches to improve reprogramming efficiency, especially in SCNT, will focus on functional studies of these selected genes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.