ArticleDifferentiation; research in biological diversity
Reprogramming of trunk neural crest to a cranial crest-like identity alters their transcriptome and developmental potential.
Article in Differentiation; research in biological diversity. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Co-option and innovation in neural crest evolution.Science advances · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neural crest cells along the body axis of avian embryos differ in their developmental potential, such that the cranial neural crest forms cartilage and bone whereas the trunk neural crest is unable to do so. Previous studies have identified a cranial crest-specific subcircuit that can imbue the trunk neural crest with the ability to form cartilage after grafting to the head. Here, we examine transcriptional and cell fate changes that accompany this reprogramming. First, we examined whether reprogrammed trunk neural crest maintain the ability to form cartilage in their endogenous environment in the absence of cues from the head. The results show that some reprogrammed cells contribute to normal trunk neural crest derivatives, whereas others migrate ectopically to the forming vertebrae and express cartilage markers, thus mimicking heterotypically transplanted cranial crest cells. We find that reprogrammed trunk neural crest upregulated more than 3000 genes in common with cranial neural crest, including numerous transcriptional regulators. In contrast, many trunk neural crest genes are downregulated. Together, our findings show that reprogramming trunk neural crest with cranial crest subcircuit genes alters their gene regulatory program and developmental potential to be more cranial crest-like.
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.