CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 933

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Facilitators and Impediments of the Pluripotency Reprogramming Factors' Initial Engagement with the Genome

Soufi, Abdenour, Donahue, Greg, Zaret, Kenneth S.·2012·Cell
DOI 10.1016/j.cell.2012.09.045PMC PMC3508134
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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.2012.09.045

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • OCT4-SOX2 binding increases KLF4 binding by several folds, mostly in chromatin regions that are closed in human fibroblasts.

    “Co-immunoprecipitation and chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing studies reveal that OCT4-SOX2 binding increases KLF4 binding by several folds, mostly in chromatin regions that are closed in human fibroblasts 41,53,54 .”

    From Mechanisms, pathways and strategies for rejuvenation through epigenetic reprogramming (2023) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Results section, “Oct4, Sox2, and Klf4 bind as pioneer factors to closed chromatin” (page unavailable), reports that most initial binding events occur in closed chromatin in human fibroblasts. But the reported several-fold increase is c-Myc enhancing Klf4 occupancy, not OCT4-SOX2 increasing KLF4 binding. The paper does not establish the claimed direction of that effect. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The modulatory activities of OSK and MYC on each other are bidirectional.

    “supporting the notion that the modulatory activities of OSK and MYC on each other are bidirectional.”

    From Mechanisms, pathways and strategies for rejuvenation through epigenetic reprogramming (2023) · cites this paper as [53]

  • MYC binding increases by 40-fold with OSK.

    “and MYC binding increases by 40-fold with OSK, supporting the notion that the modulatory activities of OSK and MYC on each other are bidirectional.”

    From Mechanisms, pathways and strategies for rejuvenation through epigenetic reprogramming (2023) · cites this paper as [53]

  • The presence of MYC increases OSK binding by twofold.

    “The presence of MYC increases OSK binding by twofold 53 , and MYC binding increases by 40-fold with OSK, supporting the notion that the modulatory activities of OSK and MYC on each other are bidirectional.”

    From Mechanisms, pathways and strategies for rejuvenation through epigenetic reprogramming (2023) · cites this paper as [53]

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Adams, 1995, Binding of disparate transcriptional activators to nucleosomal DNA is inherently cooperative, Mol. Cell. Biol., 15, 1405, 10.1128/MCB.15.3.1405 · DOI
  2. Anokye-Danso, 2011, Highly efficient miRNA-mediated reprogramming of mouse and human somatic cells to pluripotency, Cell Stem Cell, 8, 376, 10.1016/j.stem.2011.03.001 · DOI
  3. Bailey, 1998, Combining evidence using p-values: application to sequence homology searches, Bioinformatics, 14, 48, 10.1093/bioinformatics/14.1.48 · DOI
  4. Boyer, 2005, Core transcriptional regulatory circuitry in human embryonic stem cells, Cell, 122, 947, 10.1016/j.cell.2005.08.020 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Brambrink, 2008, Sequential expression of pluripotency markers during direct reprogramming of mouse somatic cells, Cell Stem Cell, 2, 151, 10.1016/j.stem.2008.01.004 · DOI
  6. Bryne, 2008, JASPAR, the open access database of transcription factor-binding profiles: new content and tools in the 2008 update, Nucleic Acids Res., 36, D102
  7. Buganim, 2012, Single-cell expression analyses during cellular reprogramming reveal an early stochastic and a late hierarchic phase, Cell, 150, 1209, 10.1016/j.cell.2012.08.023 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Chandra, 2012, Independence of repressive histone marks and chromatin compaction during senescent heterochromatic layer formation, Mol. Cell, 47, 203, 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.06.010 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Chen, 2008, Integration of external signaling pathways with the core transcriptional network in embryonic stem cells, Cell, 133, 1106, 10.1016/j.cell.2008.04.043 · DOI
  10. Cirillo, 1998, Binding of the winged-helix transcription factor HNF3 to a linker histone site on the nucleosome, EMBO J., 17, 244, 10.1093/emboj/17.1.244 · DOI
  11. Cirillo, 2002, Opening of compacted chromatin by early developmental transcription factors HNF3 (FoxA) and GATA-4, Mol. Cell, 9, 279, 10.1016/S1097-2765(02)00459-8 · DOI
  12. Clark, 1993, Co-crystal structure of the HNF-3/fork head DNA-recognition motif resembles histone H5, Nature, 364, 412, 10.1038/364412a0 · DOI
  13. Filion, 2010, Systematic protein location mapping reveals five principal chromatin types in Drosophila cells, Cell, 143, 212, 10.1016/j.cell.2010.09.009 · DOI
  14. Graf, 2009, Forcing cells to change lineages, Nature, 462, 587, 10.1038/nature08533 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Gualdi, 1996, Hepatic specification of the gut endoderm in vitro: cell signaling and transcriptional control, Genes Dev., 10, 1670, 10.1101/gad.10.13.1670 · DOI
  16. Guelen, 2008, Domain organization of human chromosomes revealed by mapping of nuclear lamina interactions, Nature, 453, 948, 10.1038/nature06947 · DOI
  17. Hanna, 2009, Direct cell reprogramming is a stochastic process amenable to acceleration, Nature, 462, 595, 10.1038/nature08592 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Hockemeyer, 2008, A drug-inducible system for direct reprogramming of human somatic cells to pluripotency, Cell Stem Cell, 3, 346, 10.1016/j.stem.2008.08.014 · DOI
  19. Kim, 2008, An extended transcriptional network for pluripotency of embryonic stem cells, Cell, 132, 1049, 10.1016/j.cell.2008.02.039 · DOI
  20. Knoepfler, 2008, Why myc? An unexpected ingredient in the stem cell cocktail, Cell Stem Cell, 2, 18, 10.1016/j.stem.2007.12.004 · DOI
  21. Koche, 2011, Reprogramming factor expression initiates widespread targeted chromatin remodeling, Cell Stem Cell, 8, 96, 10.1016/j.stem.2010.12.001 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Lerou, 2008, Derivation and maintenance of human embryonic stem cells from poor-quality in vitro fertilization embryos, Nat. Protoc., 3, 923, 10.1038/nprot.2008.60 · DOI
  23. Li, 2010, A mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition initiates and is required for the nuclear reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts, Cell Stem Cell, 7, 51, 10.1016/j.stem.2010.04.014 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Lister, 2011, Hotspots of aberrant epigenomic reprogramming in human induced pluripotent stem cells, Nature, 471, 68, 10.1038/nature09798 · DOI
  25. Lowry, 2008, Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cells from dermal fibroblasts, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 2883, 10.1073/pnas.0711983105 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Machanick, 2011, MEME-ChIP: motif analysis of large DNA datasets, Bioinformatics, 27, 1696, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr189 · DOI
  27. Maekawa, 2011, Direct reprogramming of somatic cells is promoted by maternal transcription factor Glis1, Nature, 474, 225, 10.1038/nature10106 · DOI
  28. Mah, 2011, Molecular insights into reprogramming-initiation events mediated by the OSKM gene regulatory network, PLoS ONE, 6, e24351, 10.1371/journal.pone.0024351 · DOI
  29. Mikkelsen, 2008, Dissecting direct reprogramming through integrative genomic analysis, Nature, 454, 49, 10.1038/nature07056 · DOI
  30. Myers, 2011, A user's guide to the encyclopedia of DNA elements (ENCODE), PLoS Biol., 9, e1001046, 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001046 · DOI
  31. Nair, 2003, X-ray structures of Myc-Max and Mad-Max recognizing DNA. Molecular bases of regulation by proto-oncogenic transcription factors, Cell, 112, 193, 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)01284-9 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Nakagawa, 2008, Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells without Myc from mouse and human fibroblasts, Nat. Biotechnol., 26, 101, 10.1038/nbt1374 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Onder, 2012, Chromatin-modifying enzymes as modulators of reprogramming, Nature, 483, 598, 10.1038/nature10953 · DOI
  34. Park, 2008, Generation of human-induced pluripotent stem cells, Nat. Protoc., 3, 1180, 10.1038/nprot.2008.92 · DOI
  35. Plath, 2011, Progress in understanding reprogramming to the induced pluripotent state, Nat. Rev. Genet., 12, 253, 10.1038/nrg2955 · DOI
  36. Reményi, 2003, Crystal structure of a POU/HMG/DNA ternary complex suggests differential assembly of Oct4 and Sox2 on two enhancers, Genes Dev., 17, 2048, 10.1101/gad.269303 · DOI
  37. Samavarchi-Tehrani, 2010, Functional genomics reveals a BMP-driven mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition in the initiation of somatic cell reprogramming, Cell Stem Cell, 7, 64, 10.1016/j.stem.2010.04.015 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Schuetz, 2011, The structure of the Klf4 DNA-binding domain links to self-renewal and macrophage differentiation, Cell. Mol. Life Sci., 68, 3121, 10.1007/s00018-010-0618-x · DOI · Paper page
  39. Smith, 2010, Dynamic single-cell imaging of direct reprogramming reveals an early specifying event, Nat. Biotechnol., 28, 521, 10.1038/nbt.1632 · DOI
  40. Sridharan, 2009, Role of the murine reprogramming factors in the induction of pluripotency, Cell, 136, 364, 10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.001 · DOI
  41. Taberlay, 2011, Polycomb-repressed genes have permissive enhancers that initiate reprogramming, Cell, 147, 1283, 10.1016/j.cell.2011.10.040 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Takahashi, 2007, Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors, Cell, 131, 861, 10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.019 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Thomson, 1998, Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts, Science, 282, 1145, 10.1126/science.282.5391.1145 · DOI
  44. Visel, 2007, VISTA Enhancer Browser—a database of tissue-specific human enhancers, Nucleic Acids Res., 35, D88, 10.1093/nar/gkl822 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Wen, 2009, Large histone H3 lysine 9 dimethylated chromatin blocks distinguish differentiated from embryonic stem cells, Nat. Genet., 41, 246, 10.1038/ng.297 · DOI
  46. Wernig, 2008, c-Myc is dispensable for direct reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts, Cell Stem Cell, 2, 10, 10.1016/j.stem.2007.12.001 · DOI
  47. Xu, 2009, Transcriptional competence and the active marking of tissue-specific enhancers by defined transcription factors in embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells, Genes Dev., 23, 2824, 10.1101/gad.1861209 · DOI
  48. Zhang, 2008, Model-based analysis of ChIP-Seq (MACS), Genome Biol., 9, R137, 10.1186/gb-2008-9-9-r137 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Bernstein, B.E., Stamatoyannopoulos, J.A., Costello, J.F., Ren, B., Milosavljevic, A., Meissner, A., Kellis, M., Marra, M.A., Beaudet, A.L., Ecker, J.R., et al. (2010). The NIH Roadmap Epigenomics Mapping Consortium. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 1045–1048. · DOI · Paper page
  50. Cai, Z., Chattopadhyay, N., Liu, W.J., Chan, C., Pignol, J.P., and Reilly, R.M. (2011). Optimized digital counting colonies of clonogenic assays using ImageJ software and customized macros: comparison with manual counting. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 87, 1135–1146. · DOI
  51. Eisen, M.B., Spellman, P.T., Brown, P.O., and Botstein, D. (1998). Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 14863–14868. · DOI · Paper page
  52. Hawkins, R.D., Hon, G.C., Lee, L.K., Ngo, Q., Lister, R., Pelizzola, M., Edsall, L.E., Kuan, S., Luu, Y., Klugman, S., et al. (2010). Distinct epigenomic landscapes of pluripotent and lineage-committed human cells. Cell Stem Cell 6, 479–491. · DOI · Paper page
  53. Page, R.D. (1996). TreeView: an application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 12, 357–358. · DOI
  54. Urlinger, S., Baron, U., Thellmann, M., Hasan, M.T., Bujard, H., and Hillen, W. (2000). Exploring the sequence space for tetracycline-dependent transcriptional activators: novel mutations yield expanded range and sensitivity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 7963–7968. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Soufi, A., Donahue, G., & Zaret, K. S.
Venue
Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-11
Volume
151
Issue
5
Pages
994-1004
ISSN
0092-8674
DOI
10.1016/j.cell.2012.09.045
PMC
PMC3508134
Cited by
933
References
10
Language
en
Licence

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