Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29416007›Full record

ArticleCell death & disease2018

Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis reveals that mouse chemical iPSCs have closer epigenetic features to mESCs than OSKM-integrated iPSCs.

Wangfang Ping, Jian Hu, Gongcheng Hu, Yawei Song, Qing Xia, Mingze Yao, Shixin Gong, Cizhong Jiang, Hongjie Yao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell death & disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Wangfang PingCAS Key Laboratory of Regenerative Biology, Joint School of Life Sciences, CAS Center for Excellence in Molecular Cell Science, Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jian HuThe School of Life Sciences and Technology, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Signaling and Disease Research, The Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Gongcheng HuCAS Key Laboratory of Regenerative Biology, Joint School of Life Sciences, CAS Center for Excellence in Molecular Cell Science, Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yawei SongCAS Key Laboratory of Regenerative Biology, Joint School of Life Sciences, CAS Center for Excellence in Molecular Cell Science, Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Qing XiaCAS Key Laboratory of Regenerative Biology, Joint School of Life Sciences, CAS Center for Excellence in Molecular Cell Science, Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Mingze YaoCAS Key Laboratory of Regenerative Biology, Joint School of Life Sciences, CAS Center for Excellence in Molecular Cell Science, Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Shixin GongCAS Key Laboratory of Regenerative Biology, Joint School of Life Sciences, CAS Center for Excellence in Molecular Cell Science, Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Cizhong JiangThe School of Life Sciences and Technology, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Signaling and Disease Research, The Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Tongji University, Shanghai, China. czjiang@tongji.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-5406-2360
Hongjie YaoCAS Key Laboratory of Regenerative Biology, Joint School of Life Sciences, CAS Center for Excellence in Molecular Cell Science, Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China. yao_hongjie@gibh.ac.cn.
Chinese Academy of Sciences · CNTongji University · CNAnhui University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Induced pluripotent stem cells can be derived from somatic cells through ectopic expression of transcription factors or chemical cocktails. Chemical iPSCs (C-iPSCs) and OSKM-iPSCs (4F-iPSCs) have been suggested to have similar characteristics to mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). However, their epigenetic equivalence remains incompletely understood throughout the genome. In this study, we have generated mouse C-iPSCs and 4F-iPSCs, and further compared the genome-wide DNA methylomes of C-iPSCs, 4F-iPSCs, and mESCs that were maintained in 2i and LIF. Three pluripotent stem cells tend to be low methylated overall, however, DNA methylations in some specific regions (such as retrotransposons) are cell type-specific. Importantly, C-iPSCs are more hypomethylated than 4F-iPSCs. Bisulfite sequencing indicated that DNA methylation status in several known imprinted clusters, such as: Dlk1-Dio3 and Peg12-Ube3a, in C-iPSCs are closer to those of mESCs than 4F-iPSCs. Overall, our data demonstrate the reprogramming methods-dependent epigenetic differences of C-iPSCs and 4F-iPSCs and reveal that C-iPSCs are more hypomethylated than OSKM-integrated iPSCs.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationAnimalsCellular ReprogrammingEpigenesis, GeneticGenomic ImprintingInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMice, Inbred CBAMouse Embryonic Stem Cells

Identifiers

PMID29416007
PMCPMC5833453
OpenAlexW2791056883

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.