Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27700985›Full record

ArticleeLife2016

Stochasticity in the miR-9/Hes1 oscillatory network can account for clonal heterogeneity in the timing of differentiation.

Nick E Phillips, Cerys S Manning, Tom Pettini, Veronica Biga, Elli Marinopoulou, Peter Stanley, James Boyd, James Bagnall, Pawel Paszek, David G Spiller and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Differential phase register of Hes1 oscillations with mitoses underlies cell-cycle heterogeneity in ERProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Order Through Disorder: The Characteristic Variability of Systems.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2020
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Nick E PhillipsFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Cerys S ManningFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Tom PettiniFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Veronica BigaFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Elli MarinopoulouFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Peter StanleyFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
James BoydFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
James BagnallFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Pawel PaszekFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
David G SpillerFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Michael Rh WhiteFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3617-3232
Marc GoodfellowCollege of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7282-7280
Tobias GallaTheoretical Physics, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Magnus RattrayFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Nancy PapalopuluFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6992-6870

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/I017976/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/K003097/1Medical Research Council MR/K015885/1Medical Research Council MR/M008908/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 090868/Z/09/ZWellcome Trust 097820/Z/11/BWellcome Trust 103986/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust WT105618MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies suggest that cells make stochastic choices with respect to differentiation or division. However, the molecular mechanism underlying such stochasticity is unknown. We previously proposed that the timing of vertebrate neuronal differentiation is regulated by molecular oscillations of a transcriptional repressor, HES1, tuned by a post-transcriptional repressor, miR-9. Here, we computationally model the effects of intrinsic noise on the

Indexed as

Cell DifferentiationCell ProliferationGene Expression RegulationComputer SimulationHumansMicroRNAsNeuronsStem CellsTranscription Factor HES-1HES1 protein, humanMicroRNAsMIRN92 microRNA, humanTranscription Factor HES-1computational biologydevelopmental biologyHes1miR-9molecular oscillationsmouseneural stem cellssingle cell heterogeneitystem cellsstochasticitysystems biology

Identifiers

PMID27700985
PMCPMC5050025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.