ArticleStem cell reviews and reports2017
Identifying Candidate Reprogramming Genes in Mouse Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells.
Article in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Factor-based induced reprogramming approaches have tremendous potential for human regenerative medicine, but the efficiencies of these approaches are still low. In this study, we analyzed the global transcriptional profiles of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells (miPSCs) and mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) from seven different labs and present here the first successful clustering according to cell type, not by lab of origin. We identified 2131 different expression genes (DEs) as candidate pluripotency-associated genes by comparing mESCs/miPSCs with somatic cells and 720 DEs between miPSCs and mESCs. Interestingly, there was a significant overlap between the two DE sets. Therefore, we defined the overlap DEs as "consensus DEs" including 313 miPSC-specific genes expressed at a higher level in miPSCs versus mESCs and 184 mESC-specific genes in total and reasoned that these may contribute to the differences in pluripotency between mESCs and miPSCs. A classification of "consensus DEs" according to their different expression levels between somatic cells and mESCs/miPSCs shows that 86% of the miPSC-specific genes are more highly expressed in somatic cells, while 73% of mESC-specific genes are highly expressed in mESCs/miPSCs, indicating that the miPSCs have not efficiently silenced the expression pattern of the somatic cells from which they are derived and failed to completely induce the genes with high expression levels in mESCs. We further revealed a strong correlation between oocyte-enriched factors and insufficiently induced mESC-specific genes and identified 11 hub genes via network analysis. In light of these findings, we postulated that these key hub genes might not only drive somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) reprogramming but also augment the efficiency and quality of miPSC reprogramming.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28063063What 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.