ArticlePLoS computational biology2021
A conserved expression signature predicts growth rate and reveals cell & lineage-specific differences.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Asymmetric division in a two-cell-like state rejuvenates embryonic stem cells.Cell research · 2026Article
- A cell-state axis underlying colonization in carcinomas with implications for metastasis risk prediction and interception.Cell reports · 2025Article
- Single-cell transcriptome of mouse hippocampus identifies neural precursor-like cells, and reveals IL15Rα knock out-mediated neuron remodeling.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Cell Migration-Proliferation Dichotomy in Cancer: Biological Fact or Experimental Artefact?Biology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the determinants for improved pluripotency induction and maintenance by engineered SOX17.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- Integration of Single-Cell Transcriptomics With a High Throughput Functional Screening Assay to Resolve Cell Type, Growth Kinetics, and Stemness Heterogeneity Within the Comma-1D Cell Line.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Quantitative considerations about the size dependence of cellular entry and excretion of colloidal nanoparticles for different cell types.Chemtexts · 2022Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Isogenic cells cultured together show heterogeneity in their proliferation rate. To determine the differences between fast and slow-proliferating cells, we developed a method to sort cells by proliferation rate, and performed RNA-seq on slow and fast proliferating subpopulations of pluripotent mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) and mouse fibroblasts. We found that slowly proliferating mESCs have a more naïve pluripotent character. We identified an evolutionarily conserved proliferation-correlated transcriptomic signature that is common to all eukaryotes: fast cells have higher expression of genes for protein synthesis and protein degradation. This signature accurately predicted growth rate in yeast and cancer cells, and identified lineage-specific proliferation dynamics during development, using C. elegans scRNA-seq data. In contrast, sorting by mitochondria membrane potential revealed a highly cell-type specific mitochondria-state related transcriptome. mESCs with hyperpolarized mitochondria are fast proliferating, while the opposite is true for fibroblasts. The mitochondrial electron transport chain inhibitor antimycin affected slow and fast subpopulations differently. While a major transcriptional-signature associated with cell-to-cell heterogeneity in proliferation is conserved, the metabolic and energetic dependency of cell proliferation is cell-type specific.
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.