ArticleBMC genomics2018
Comparison of reprogramming factor targets reveals both species-specific and conserved mechanisms in early iPSC reprogramming.
Article in BMC genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Harnessing Lessons from Gel-Based and Advanced Biomaterial Therapeutics to Enable Direct Cellular Reprogramming.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Redefining cellular reprogramming with advanced genomic technologies.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Advancing stem cell technologies for conservation of wildlife biodiversity.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2024Review
- Retrospective identification of cell-intrinsic factors that mark pluripotency potential in rare somatic cells.Cell systems · 2024Article
- Avian iPSC Derivation to Recover Threatened Wild Species: A Comprehensive Review in Light of Well-Established Protocols.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Mechanisms, pathways and strategies for rejuvenation through epigenetic reprogramming.Nature aging · 2024Review
- Probing cell identity hierarchies by fate titration and collision during direct reprogramming.Molecular systems biology · 2022Article
- Review
- Biological importance of OCT transcription factors in reprogramming and development.Experimental & molecular medicine · 2021Review
- S-nitrosoglutathione reductase (GSNOR) deficiency accelerates cardiomyocyte differentiation of induced pluripotent stem cells.The journal of cardiovascular aging · 2021Article
- Targeted expression profiling reveals distinct stages of early canine fibroblast reprogramming are regulated by 2-oxoglutarate hydroxylases.Stem cell research & therapy · 2020Article
- Next-generation disease modeling with direct conversion: a new path to old neurons.FEBS letters · 2019Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBoth human and mouse fibroblasts can be reprogrammed to pluripotency with Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc (OSKM) transcription factors. While both systems generate pluripotency, human reprogramming takes considerably longer than mouse.
resultsTo assess additional similarities and differences, we sought to compare the binding of the reprogramming factors between the two systems. In human fibroblasts, the OSK factors initially target many more closed chromatin sites compared to mouse. Despite this difference, the intra- and intergenic distribution of target sites, target genes, primary binding motifs, and combinatorial binding patterns between the reprogramming factors are largely shared. However, while many OSKM binding events in early mouse cell reprogramming occur in syntenic regions, only a limited number is conserved in human.
conclusionsOur findings suggest similar general effects of OSKM binding across these two species, even though the detailed regulatory networks have diverged significantly.
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.