ArticleNature biomedical engineering2017
Transcriptomic and epigenomic differences in human induced pluripotent stem cells generated from six reprogramming methods.
Article in Nature biomedical engineering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Translational toxicoepigenetic Meta-Analyses identify homologous gene DNA methylation reprogramming following developmental phthalate and lead exposure in mouse and human offspring.Environment international · 2024Pooled it
- Induced pluripotent stem cells from discovery to translation.Nature medicine · 2026Review
- Convergent transcriptomic signature in iPSC-dopaminergic neurons of hereditary Parkinson's disease.Life science alliance · 2026Article
- Healthy human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes exhibit sex dimorphism even without the addition of hormones.Stem cells (Dayton, Ohio) · 2025Article
- Regenerative Immunotherapy for Cancer: Transcription Factor Reprogramming of Tumor-Specific T Cells.Cancers · 2025Review
- Deciphering reprogramming efficiency in human induced pluripotent stem cells: insights from the generation of 150 cell lines.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Transcriptome and epigenome dynamics of the clonal heterogeneity of human induced pluripotent stem cells for cardiac differentiation.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2024Article
- Considerations for the development of iPSC-derived cell therapies: a review of key challenges by the JSRM-ISCT iPSC Committee.Cytotherapy · 2024Review
- PIWIL1 is recruited to centrosomes during mitosis in colorectal cancer cells and is linked to cell cycle progression.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Advances in human pluripotent stem cell reporter systems.iScience · 2024Review
- Article
- Profiling the role of m6A effectors in the regulation of pluripotent reprogramming.Human genomics · 2024Article
- Novel Approaches to Studying SLC13A5 Disease.Metabolites · 2024Review
- Engineering considerations of iPSC-based personalized medicine.Biomaterials research · 2023Review
- Environmental carcinogens disproportionally mutate genes implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Building gut from scratch - progress and update of intestinal tissue engineering.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022Review
- Human-induced pluripotent stem cells in cardiovascular research: current approaches in cardiac differentiation, maturation strategies, and scalable production.Cardiovascular research · 2022Review
- Motor neuron-derived induced pluripotent stem cells as a drug screening platform for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Review
- Huntington's disease iPSC models-using human patient cells to understand the pathology caused by expanded CAG repeats.Faculty reviews · 2022Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many reprogramming methods can generate human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) that closely resemble human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). This has led to assessments of how similar hiPSCs are to hESCs, by evaluating differences in gene expression, epigenetic marks and differentiation potential. However, all previous studies were performed using hiPSCs acquired from different laboratories, passage numbers, culturing conditions, genetic backgrounds and reprogramming methods, all of which may contribute to the reported differences. Here, by using high-throughput sequencing under standardized cell culturing conditions and passage number, we compare the epigenetic signatures (H3K4me3, H3K27me3 and HDAC2 ChIP-seq profiles) and transcriptome differences (by RNA-seq) of hiPSCs generated from the same primary fibroblast population by using six different reprogramming methods. We found that the reprogramming method impacts the resulting transcriptome and that all hiPSC lines could terminally differentiate, regardless of the reprogramming method. Moreover, by comparing the differences between the hiPSC and hESC lines, we observed a significant proportion of differentially expressed genes that could be attributed to polycomb repressive complex targets.
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.