Cited by 338Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyEpigenetics and DNA Methylation

Dynamic Transformations of Genome-wide Epigenetic Marking and Transcriptional Control Establish T Cell Identity

Open access
Zhang, Jingli A., Mortazavi, Ali, Williams, Brian A., Wold, Barbara J., Rothenberg, Ellen V.·2012·Cell

Abstract

T cell development comprises a stepwise process of commitment from a multipotent precursor. To define molecular mechanisms controlling this progression, we probed five stages spanning the commitment process using RNA-seq and ChIP-seq to track genome-wide shifts in transcription, cohorts of active transcription factor genes, histone modifications at diverse classes of cis-regulatory elements, and binding repertoire of GATA-3 and PU.1, transcription factors with complementary roles in T cell development. The results highlight potential promoter-distal cis-regulatory elements in play and reveal both activation sites and diverse mechanisms of repression that silence genes used in alternative lineages. Histone marking is dynamic and reversible, and though permissive marks anticipate, repressive marks often lag behind changes in transcription. In vivo binding of PU.1 and GATA-3 relative to epigenetic marking reveals distinctive factor-specific rules for recruitment of these crucial transcription factors to different subsets of their potential sites, dependent on dose and developmental context.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cell.2012.01.056

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PU.1 binding sites and binding partners are not the same in early T-cell precursors as in myeloid cells or B lineage cells.

    “PU.1 binding sites and PU.1 binding partners are not the same in early T-cell precursors as in myeloid cells or B lineage cells (13, 80, 84, 85)”

    From Mechanisms of Action of Hematopoietic Transcription Factor PU.1 in Initiation of T-Cell Development (2019) · cites this paper as [84]

    The Results section, “Early T-cell specific sites for PU.1: a positive role” (page not available), says PU.1 binding sites in early T-cell precursors differ from those reported in B cells and macrophages. It also reports different preferred sequence motifs, but does not establish that PU.1’s binding partners differ between those cell types. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • PU.1 occupancy of genomic sites declines as development proceeds, but is still detectable through T-lineage commitment at approximately 5,000 sites before disappearing.

    “Although PU.1 occupancy of genomic sites declines as development proceeds, PU.1 occupancy is still detectable through T-lineage commitment at ~5,000 sites before disappearing (84).”

    From Mechanisms of Action of Hematopoietic Transcription Factor PU.1 in Initiation of T-Cell Development (2019) · cites this paper as [84]

    The Results section, “Early T-cell specific sites for PU.1: a positive role” (page unavailable), reports reduced PU.1 binding intensity in FLDN2b cells at T-lineage commitment and absence of PU.1 in later DP cells. It does not report approximately 5,000 occupied sites at commitment; the site count it gives is approximately 34,000 in DN T cells. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Additional factors probably collaborate with PU.1 to fine-tune the responses of Mef2c and Lmo2, because they are already declining by the end of ETP stage, multiple cell cycles before DN2b stage when PU.1 itself declines.

    “Additional factors also probably collaborate with PU.1 to fine-tune the responses of Mef2c and Lmo2, for they are already declining by the end of ETP stage, multiple cell cycles before DN2b stage when PU.1 itself declines (65, 67, 84, 121, 124) (Figure 8A).”

    From Mechanisms of Action of Hematopoietic Transcription Factor PU.1 in Initiation of T-Cell Development (2019) · cites this paper as [84]

    The Results section on transcription-factor expression dynamics reports that Mef2c, Lmo2, and Sfpi1 (PU.1) decrease between FLDN1 and FLDN2b. The Results section on early T-cell-specific PU.1 sites says PU.1 is markedly downregulated at DN2b, and the binding-dynamics section suggests PU.1 can act through combinations of binding complexes. Our copy does not establish that Mef2c and Lmo2 begin declining by the end of ETP, multiple cell cycles before PU.1, or that other factors specifically collaborate with PU.1 to regulate those two genes. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • PU.1 binds to more than 30,000 genomic sites in early T-cell precursors at the earliest stages.

    “PU.1 was found binding to >30,000 genomic sites in these cells at the earliest stages (84)”
  • Endogenous, naturally expressed PU.1 is a prominent actor across the genome in T-cell precursors before commitment.

    “With the advent of ChIP-seq data, though, it was confirmed that endogenous, naturally expressed PU.1 is indeed a prominent actor across the genome in T-cell precursors before commitment.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, J. A., Mortazavi, A., Williams, B. A., Wold, B. J., & Rothenberg, E. V.
Affiliations
California Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Rothenberg, Ellen V.
Venue
Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
149
Issue
2
Pages
467-482
ISSN
0092-8674 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2002424170
Cited by
337
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 12
FWCI
16.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R33HL089123)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA090233, RC2CA148278)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI095943)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › T-cell and B-cell Immunology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
Keywords
T cell development, transcription factor binding, GATA3, PU.1, histone modifications, cis-regulatory elements, transcriptional repression, lineage commitment, epigenetic regulation, transcriptional regulation
MeSH terms
Proto-Oncogene Protein Spi-1, Animals, Cell Differentiation, Gene Expression Regulation, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Promoter Regions, Genetic, Proto-Oncogene Proteins, T-Lymphocytes, Transcription, Genetic, Signal Transduction, Trans-Activators, Histone Code, Epigenesis, Genetic, Regulatory Elements, Transcriptional, GATA3 Transcription Factor, Mice, Receptors, Notch, Genome-Wide Association Study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review