ArticleCell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.)2015
Nuclear transcriptome profiling of induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells identify non-coding loci resistant to reprogramming.
Article in Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mitochondria-specific targeting of noncanonicalTheranostics · 2026Article
- Toward a better definition of hematopoietic progenitors suitable for B cell differentiation.PloS one · 2020Article
- Effects of neuroactive agents on axonal growth and pathfinding of retinal ganglion cells generated from human stem cells.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- The essentiality of non-coding RNAs in cell reprogramming.Non-coding RNA research · 2017Review
- Distinct 5-methylcytosine profiles in poly(A) RNA from mouse embryonic stem cells and brain.Genome biology · 2017Article
- RNA as a fundamental component of interphase chromosomes: could repeats prove key?Current opinion in genetics & development · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identification of functionally relevant differences between induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) and reference embryonic stem cells (ESC) remains a central question for therapeutic applications. Differences in gene expression between iPSC and ESC have been examined by microarray and more recently with RNA-SEQ technologies. We here report an in depth analyses of nuclear and cytoplasmic transcriptomes, using the CAGE (cap analysis of gene expression) technology, for 5 iPSC clones derived from mouse lymphocytes B and 3 ESC lines. This approach reveals nuclear transcriptomes significantly more complex in ESC than in iPSC. Hundreds of yet not annotated putative non-coding RNAs and enhancer-associated transcripts specifically transcribed in ESC have been detected and supported with epigenetic and chromatin-chromatin interactions data. We identified super-enhancers transcriptionally active specifically in ESC and associated with genes implicated in the maintenance of pluripotency. Similarly, we detected non-coding transcripts of yet unknown function being regulated by ESC specific super-enhancers. Taken together, these results demonstrate that current protocols of iPSC reprogramming do not trigger activation of numerous cis-regulatory regions. It thus reinforces the need for already suggested deeper monitoring of the non-coding transcriptome when characterizing iPSC clones. Such differences in regulatory transcript expression may indeed impact their potential for clinical applications.
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.