ArticlePloS one2015
Differences in the Early Development of Human and Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Large Animal Models for Preclinical Evaluation of Heart Valve Prostheses, Left Ventricular Assist Devices and Total Artificial Hearts: A Narrative Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cross-Generational Integration of Exercise and Nutritional Encoding in Offspring Adipose Genomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Embryoid bodies as a model system for exploring early human embryonic development.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Review
- BMP and NODAL paracrine signalling regulate the totipotent-like cell state in embryonic stem cells.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Article
- Timing and Graded BMP Signalling Determines Fate of Neural Crest and Ectodermal Placode Derivatives from Pluripotent Stem Cells.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Transplantable human thyroid organoids generated from embryonic stem cells to rescue hypothyroidism.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Cellular and Engineered Organoids for Cardiovascular Models.Circulation research · 2022Review
- Article
- Adaptation of the AID system for stem cell and transgenic mouse research.Stem cell research · 2020Article
- Modification of stem cell states by alcohol and acetaldehyde.Chemico-biological interactions · 2020Review
- Expression of Calcification and Extracellular Matrix Genes in the Cardiovascular System of the Healthy Domestic Sheep (Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Automated minute scale RNA-seq of pluripotent stem cell differentiation reveals early divergence of human and mouse gene expression kinetics.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- A single cell transcriptional portrait of embryoid body differentiation and comparison to progenitors of the developing embryo.Stem cell research · 2018Article
- Apical polarization and lumenogenesis: The apicosome sheds new light.The Journal of cell biology · 2017Article
- Ontogeny informs regeneration: explant models to investigate the role of the extracellular matrix in cartilage tissue assembly and development.Connective tissue researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We performed a systematic analysis of gene expression features in early (10-21 days) development of human vs mouse embryonic cells (hESCs vs mESCs). Many development features were found to be conserved, and a majority of differentially regulated genes have similar expression change in both organisms. The similarity is especially evident, when gene expression profiles are clustered together and properties of clustered groups of genes are compared. First 10 days of mESC development match the features of hESC development within 21 days, in accordance with the differences in population doubling time in human and mouse ESCs. At the same time, several important differences are seen. There is a clear difference in initial expression change of transcription factors and stimulus responsive genes, which may be caused by the difference in experimental procedures. However, we also found that some biological processes develop differently; this can clearly be shown, for example, for neuron and sensory organ development. Some groups of genes show peaks of the expression levels during the development and these peaks cannot be claimed to happen at the same time points in the two organisms, as well as for the same groups of (orthologous) genes. We also detected a larger number of upregulated genes during development of mESCs as compared to hESCs. The differences were quantified by comparing promoters of related genes. Most of gene groups behave similarly and have similar transcription factor (TF) binding sites on their promoters. A few groups of genes have similar promoters, but are expressed differently in two species. Interestingly, there are groups of genes expressed similarly, although they have different promoters, which can be shown by comparing their TF binding sites. Namely, a large group of similarly expressed cell cycle-related genes is found to have discrepant TF binding properties in mouse vs human.
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.