CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 307

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epigenetics of Reprogramming to Induced Pluripotency

Papp, Bernadett, Plath, Kathrin·2013·Cell
DOI 10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.043PMC PMC3602907
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.2013.02.043

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • DNA methylation during iPS cell reprogramming facilitates chromatin remodeling while silencing differentiation-associated genes.

    “DNA methylation during iPS cell reprogramming facilitates chromatin remodeling while silencing differentiation-associated genes 90,91 .”

    From Mechanisms, pathways and strategies for rejuvenation through epigenetic reprogramming (2023) · cites this paper as [91]

    The section “DNA methylation and H3K9 methylation influence reprogramming factor binding” (page not provided) says somatic enhancers are inactivated during reprogramming and gain methylation later, supporting a role in maintaining silencing. It does not say DNA methylation facilitates chromatin remodeling; instead, it says methylation limits where early histone-modification changes can occur and can prevent reprogramming-factor binding. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 129

  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. Ang, 2011, Wdr5 mediates self-renewal and reprogramming via the embryonic stem cell core transcriptional network, Cell, 145, 183, 10.1016/j.cell.2011.03.003 · DOI
  3. Anguera, 2012, Molecular signatures of human induced pluripotent stem cells highlight sex differences and cancer genes, Cell Stem Cell, 11, 75, 10.1016/j.stem.2012.03.008 · DOI
  4. 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
  5. Beato, 1997, Transcription factor access to chromatin, Nucleic Acids Res., 25, 3559, 10.1093/nar/25.18.3559 · DOI
  6. Bergsland, 2011, Sequentially acting Sox transcription factors in neural lineage development, Genes Dev., 25, 2453, 10.1101/gad.176008.111 · DOI
  7. Blau, 1983, Cytoplasmic activation of human nuclear genes in stable heterocaryons, Cell, 32, 1171, 10.1016/0092-8674(83)90300-8 · DOI
  8. Bock, 2011, Reference Maps of human ES and iPS cell variation enable high-throughput characterization of pluripotent cell lines, Cell, 144, 439, 10.1016/j.cell.2010.12.032 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Boyer, 2005, Core transcriptional regulatory circuitry in human embryonic stem cells, Cell, 122, 947, 10.1016/j.cell.2005.08.020 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 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
  11. Brons, 2007, Derivation of pluripotent epiblast stem cells from mammalian embryos, Nature, 448, 191, 10.1038/nature05950 · DOI
  12. Buckley, 2012, Regulation of pluripotency and cellular reprogramming by the ubiquitin-proteasome system, Cell Stem Cell, 11, 783, 10.1016/j.stem.2012.09.011 · DOI
  13. 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
  14. Carey, 2011, Reprogramming factor stoichiometry influences the epigenetic state and biological properties of induced pluripotent stem cells, Cell Stem Cell, 9, 588, 10.1016/j.stem.2011.11.003 · DOI
  15. 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
  16. Chen, 2011, Rational optimization of reprogramming culture conditions for the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells with ultra-high efficiency and fast kinetics, Cell Res., 21, 884, 10.1038/cr.2011.51 · DOI
  17. Chen, 2013, H3K9 methylation is a barrier during somatic cell reprogramming into iPSCs, Nat. Genet., 45, 34, 10.1038/ng.2491 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Chin, 2009, Induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells are distinguished by gene expression signatures, Cell Stem Cell, 5, 111, 10.1016/j.stem.2009.06.008 · DOI
  19. Chin, 2010, Molecular analyses of human induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells, Cell Stem Cell, 7, 263, 10.1016/j.stem.2010.06.019 · DOI
  20. Creyghton, 2010, Histone H3K27ac separates active from poised enhancers and predicts developmental state, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 21931, 10.1073/pnas.1016071107 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Csankovszki, 2001, Synergism of Xist RNA, DNA methylation, and histone hypoacetylation in maintaining X chromosome inactivation, J. Cell Biol., 153, 773, 10.1083/jcb.153.4.773 · DOI
  22. Davis, 1987, Expression of a single transfected cDNA converts fibroblasts to myoblasts, Cell, 51, 987, 10.1016/0092-8674(87)90585-X · DOI
  23. Doege, 2012, Early-stage epigenetic modification during somatic cell reprogramming by Parp1 and Tet2, Nature, 488, 652, 10.1038/nature11333 · DOI
  24. Esteban, 2010, Vitamin C enhances the generation of mouse and human induced pluripotent stem cells, Cell Stem Cell, 6, 71, 10.1016/j.stem.2009.12.001 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Feldman, 2006, G9a-mediated irreversible epigenetic inactivation of Oct-3/4 during early embryogenesis, Nat. Cell Biol., 8, 188, 10.1038/ncb1353 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Festuccia, 2012, Esrrb is a direct Nanog target gene that can substitute for Nanog function in pluripotent cells, Cell Stem Cell, 11, 477, 10.1016/j.stem.2012.08.002 · DOI
  27. 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
  28. Gaetz, 2012, Evidence for a critical role of gene occlusion in cell fate restriction, Cell Res., 22, 848, 10.1038/cr.2011.190 · DOI
  29. Gaspar-Maia, 2009, Chd1 regulates open chromatin and pluripotency of embryonic stem cells, Nature, 460, 863, 10.1038/nature08212 · DOI
  30. Gill, 1988, Negative effect of the transcriptional activator GAL4, Nature, 334, 721, 10.1038/334721a0 · DOI
  31. Golipour, 2012, A late transition in somatic cell reprogramming requires regulators distinct from the pluripotency network, Cell Stem Cell, 11, 769, 10.1016/j.stem.2012.11.008 · DOI
  32. Green, 2005, Eukaryotic transcription activation: right on target, Mol. Cell, 18, 399, 10.1016/j.molcel.2005.04.017 · DOI
  33. 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
  34. Guccione, 2006, Myc-binding-site recognition in the human genome is determined by chromatin context, Nat. Cell Biol., 8, 764, 10.1038/ncb1434 · DOI
  35. Gurdon, 1958, Sexually mature individuals of Xenopus laevis from the transplantation of single somatic nuclei, Nature, 182, 64, 10.1038/182064a0 · DOI
  36. Hammachi, 2012, Transcriptional activation by Oct4 is sufficient for the maintenance and induction of pluripotency, Cell Rep., 1, 99, 10.1016/j.celrep.2011.12.002 · DOI
  37. Han, 2011, Direct reprogramming of fibroblasts into epiblast stem cells, Nat. Cell Biol., 13, 66, 10.1038/ncb2136 · DOI
  38. Hanna, 2008, Direct reprogramming of terminally differentiated mature B lymphocytes to pluripotency, Cell, 133, 250, 10.1016/j.cell.2008.03.028 · DOI
  39. Hanna, 2009, Direct cell reprogramming is a stochastic process amenable to acceleration, Nature, 462, 595, 10.1038/nature08592 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Hanna, 2010, Human embryonic stem cells with biological and epigenetic characteristics similar to those of mouse ESCs, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 9222, 10.1073/pnas.1004584107 · DOI
  41. Harrington, 1988, Cytosine methylation does not affect binding of transcription factor Sp1, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 85, 2066, 10.1073/pnas.85.7.2066 · DOI
  42. Hawkins, 2010, Distinct epigenomic landscapes of pluripotent and lineage-committed human cells, Cell Stem Cell, 6, 479, 10.1016/j.stem.2010.03.018 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Hirai, 2011, Radical acceleration of nuclear reprogramming by chromatin remodeling with the transactivation domain of MyoD, Stem Cells, 29, 1349, 10.1002/stem.684 · DOI
  44. Hirai, 2012, Efficient iPS cell production with the MyoD transactivation domain in serum-free culture, PLoS ONE, 7, e34149, 10.1371/journal.pone.0034149 · DOI
  45. Hoffman, 2005, X-inactivation status varies in human embryonic stem cell lines, Stem Cells, 23, 1468, 10.1634/stemcells.2004-0371 · DOI
  46. Huangfu, 2008, Induction of pluripotent stem cells by defined factors is greatly improved by small-molecule compounds, Nat. Biotechnol., 26, 795, 10.1038/nbt1418 · DOI
  47. Ichida, 2009, A small-molecule inhibitor of tgf-Beta signaling replaces sox2 in reprogramming by inducing nanog, Cell Stem Cell, 5, 491, 10.1016/j.stem.2009.09.012 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Jang, 2012, O-GlcNAc regulates pluripotency and reprogramming by directly acting on core components of the pluripotency network, Cell Stem Cell, 11, 62, 10.1016/j.stem.2012.03.001 · DOI
  49. Jiang, 2008, A core Klf circuitry regulates self-renewal of embryonic stem cells, Nat. Cell Biol., 10, 353, 10.1038/ncb1698 · DOI
  50. Judson, 2009, Embryonic stem cell-specific microRNAs promote induced pluripotency, Nat. Biotechnol., 27, 459, 10.1038/nbt.1535 · DOI
  51. Kim, 2008, An extended transcriptional network for pluripotency of embryonic stem cells, Cell, 132, 1049, 10.1016/j.cell.2008.02.039 · DOI
  52. Kim, 2010, A Myc network accounts for similarities between embryonic stem and cancer cell transcription programs, Cell, 143, 313, 10.1016/j.cell.2010.09.010 · DOI
  53. Kim, 2011, Neuronal maturation defect in induced pluripotent stem cells from patients with Rett syndrome, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 14169, 10.1073/pnas.1018979108 · DOI
  54. Koch, 2011, Excitation-induced ataxin-3 aggregation in neurons from patients with Machado-Joseph disease, Nature, 480, 543, 10.1038/nature10671 · DOI
  55. 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
  56. Koutroubas, 2008, Bypassing the requirements for epigenetic modifications in gene transcription by increasing enhancer strength, Mol. Cell. Biol., 28, 926, 10.1128/MCB.01344-07 · DOI
  57. Kuijk, 2012, The roles of FGF and MAP kinase signaling in the segregation of the epiblast and hypoblast cell lineages in bovine and human embryos, Development, 139, 871, 10.1242/dev.071688 · DOI
  58. Lengner, 2010, Derivation of pre-X inactivation human embryonic stem cells under physiological oxygen concentrations, Cell, 141, 872, 10.1016/j.cell.2010.04.010 · DOI
  59. Li, 1994, Nucleosome binding by the constitutive transcription factor Sp1, J. Biol. Chem., 269, 7756, 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)37351-9 · DOI
  60. Li, 2007, The role of chromatin during transcription, Cell, 128, 707, 10.1016/j.cell.2007.01.015 · DOI
  61. 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
  62. Liang, 2010, Butyrate promotes induced pluripotent stem cell generation, J. Biol. Chem., 285, 25516, 10.1074/jbc.M110.142059 · DOI
  63. Liang, 2012, Kdm2b promotes induced pluripotent stem cell generation by facilitating gene activation early in reprogramming, Nat. Cell Biol., 14, 457, 10.1038/ncb2483 · DOI
  64. Lin, 2012, Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc, Cell, 151, 56, 10.1016/j.cell.2012.08.026 · DOI
  65. Lister, 2011, Hotspots of aberrant epigenomic reprogramming in human induced pluripotent stem cells, Nature, 471, 68, 10.1038/nature09798 · DOI
  66. Loh, 2006, The Oct4 and Nanog transcription network regulates pluripotency in mouse embryonic stem cells, Nat. Genet., 38, 431, 10.1038/ng1760 · DOI
  67. Lorch, 1987, Nucleosomes inhibit the initiation of transcription but allow chain elongation with the displacement of histones, Cell, 49, 203, 10.1016/0092-8674(87)90561-7 · DOI
  68. Lowry, 2012, Does transcription factor induced pluripotency accurately mimic embryo derived pluripotency?, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev., 22, 429, 10.1016/j.gde.2012.07.003 · DOI
  69. Maherali, 2007, Directly reprogrammed fibroblasts show global epigenetic remodeling and widespread tissue contribution, Cell Stem Cell, 1, 55, 10.1016/j.stem.2007.05.014 · DOI · Paper page
  70. Mali, 2010, Butyrate greatly enhances derivation of human induced pluripotent stem cells by promoting epigenetic remodeling and the expression of pluripotency-associated genes, Stem Cells, 28, 713, 10.1002/stem.402 · DOI · Paper page
  71. Mansour, 2012, The H3K27 demethylase Utx regulates somatic and germ cell epigenetic reprogramming, Nature, 488, 409, 10.1038/nature11272 · DOI
  72. Marchetto, 2010, A model for neural development and treatment of Rett syndrome using human induced pluripotent stem cells, Cell, 143, 527, 10.1016/j.cell.2010.10.016 · DOI · Paper page
  73. Marks, 2012, The transcriptional and epigenomic foundations of ground state pluripotency, Cell, 149, 590, 10.1016/j.cell.2012.03.026 · DOI
  74. Mekhoubad, 2012, Erosion of dosage compensation impacts human iPSC disease modeling, Cell Stem Cell, 10, 595, 10.1016/j.stem.2012.02.014 · DOI
  75. Mikkelsen, 2008, Dissecting direct reprogramming through integrative genomic analysis, Nature, 454, 49, 10.1038/nature07056 · DOI
  76. Nagamatsu, 2012, Optimal ratio of transcription factors for somatic cell reprogramming, J. Biol. Chem., 287, 36273, 10.1074/jbc.M112.380683 · DOI
  77. 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
  78. Nazor, 2012, Recurrent variations in DNA methylation in human pluripotent stem cells and their differentiated derivatives, Cell Stem Cell, 10, 620, 10.1016/j.stem.2012.02.013 · DOI
  79. Nichols, 2009, Naive and primed pluripotent states, Cell Stem Cell, 4, 487, 10.1016/j.stem.2009.05.015 · DOI
  80. Nie, 2012, c-Myc is a universal amplifier of expressed genes in lymphocytes and embryonic stem cells, Cell, 151, 68, 10.1016/j.cell.2012.08.033 · DOI
  81. Niwa, 2000, Quantitative expression of Oct-3/4 defines differentiation, dedifferentiation or self-renewal of ES cells, Nat. Genet., 24, 372, 10.1038/74199 · DOI
  82. Okamoto, 2011, Eutherian mammals use diverse strategies to initiate X-chromosome inactivation during development, Nature, 472, 370, 10.1038/nature09872 · DOI
  83. Okita, 2007, Generation of germline-competent induced pluripotent stem cells, Nature, 448, 313, 10.1038/nature05934 · DOI
  84. Onder, 2012, New lessons learned from disease modeling with induced pluripotent stem cells, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev., 22, 500, 10.1016/j.gde.2012.05.005 · DOI
  85. Onder, 2012, Chromatin-modifying enzymes as modulators of reprogramming, Nature, 483, 598, 10.1038/nature10953 · DOI
  86. Pardo, 2010, An expanded Oct4 interaction network: implications for stem cell biology, development, and disease, Cell Stem Cell, 6, 382, 10.1016/j.stem.2010.03.004 · DOI · Paper page
  87. Pasque, 2011, Histone variant macroH2A confers resistance to nuclear reprogramming, EMBO J., 30, 2373, 10.1038/emboj.2011.144 · DOI
  88. Pasque, 2012, Histone variant macroH2A marks embryonic differentiation in vivo and acts as an epigenetic barrier to induced pluripotency, J. Cell Sci., 10.1242/jcs.113019 · DOI
  89. Pawlak, 2011, De novo DNA methylation by Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b is dispensable for nuclear reprogramming of somatic cells to a pluripotent state, Genes Dev., 25, 1035, 10.1101/gad.2039011 · DOI
  90. Percharde, 2012, Ncoa3 functions as an essential Esrrb coactivator to sustain embryonic stem cell self-renewal and reprogramming, Genes Dev., 26, 2286, 10.1101/gad.195545.112 · DOI
  91. Pfaff, 2011, miRNA screening reveals a new miRNA family stimulating iPS cell generation via regulation of Meox2, EMBO Rep., 12, 1153, 10.1038/embor.2011.176 · DOI
  92. Plath, 2011, Progress in understanding reprogramming to the induced pluripotent state, Nat. Rev. Genet., 12, 253, 10.1038/nrg2955 · DOI
  93. Polo, 2010, Cell type of origin influences the molecular and functional properties of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells, Nat. Biotechnol., 28, 848, 10.1038/nbt.1667 · DOI
  94. Pomp, 2011, Unexpected X chromosome skewing during culture and reprogramming of human somatic cells can be alleviated by exogenous telomerase, Cell Stem Cell, 9, 156, 10.1016/j.stem.2011.06.004 · DOI
  95. Prendergast, 1991, Methylation-sensitive sequence-specific DNA binding by the c-Myc basic region, Science, 251, 186, 10.1126/science.1987636 · DOI
  96. Rahl, 2010, c-Myc regulates transcriptional pause release, Cell, 141, 432, 10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.030 · DOI · Paper page
  97. Ramirez-Carrozzi, 2009, A unifying model for the selective regulation of inducible transcription by CpG islands and nucleosome remodeling, Cell, 138, 114, 10.1016/j.cell.2009.04.020 · DOI
  98. Roode, 2012, Human hypoblast formation is not dependent on FGF signalling, Dev. Biol., 361, 358, 10.1016/j.ydbio.2011.10.030 · DOI
  99. 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
  100. Sancho-Martinez, 2012, Lineage conversion methodologies meet the reprogramming toolbox, Nat. Cell Biol., 14, 892, 10.1038/ncb2567 · DOI
  101. Shen, 2008, X-inactivation in female human embryonic stem cells is in a nonrandom pattern and prone to epigenetic alterations, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 4709, 10.1073/pnas.0712018105 · DOI
  102. Silva, 2008, X-chromosome inactivation and epigenetic fluidity in human embryonic stem cells, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 4820, 10.1073/pnas.0712136105 · DOI
  103. Silva, 2009, Nanog is the gateway to the pluripotent ground state, Cell, 138, 722, 10.1016/j.cell.2009.07.039 · DOI · Paper page
  104. Smith, 2010, Dynamic single-cell imaging of direct reprogramming reveals an early specifying event, Nat. Biotechnol., 28, 521, 10.1038/nbt.1632 · DOI
  105. Soufi, 2012, Facilitators and impediments of the pluripotency reprogramming factors’ initial engagement with the genome, Cell, 151, 994, 10.1016/j.cell.2012.09.045 · DOI · Paper page
  106. Sridharan, 2009, Role of the murine reprogramming factors in the induction of pluripotency, Cell, 136, 364, 10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.001 · DOI
  107. Stadtfeld, 2010, Induced pluripotency: history, mechanisms, and applications, Genes Dev., 24, 2239, 10.1101/gad.1963910 · DOI
  108. Stadtfeld, 2012, Ascorbic acid prevents loss of Dlk1-Dio3 imprinting and facilitates generation of all-iPS cell mice from terminally differentiated B cells, Nat. Genet., 44, 398, 10.1038/ng.1110 · DOI · Paper page
  109. Taberlay, 2011, Polycomb-repressed genes have permissive enhancers that initiate reprogramming, Cell, 147, 1283, 10.1016/j.cell.2011.10.040 · DOI · Paper page
  110. Tchieu, 2010, Female human iPSCs retain an inactive X chromosome, Cell Stem Cell, 7, 329, 10.1016/j.stem.2010.06.024 · DOI
  111. Teif, 2012, Genome-wide nucleosome positioning during embryonic stem cell development, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol., 19, 1185, 10.1038/nsmb.2419 · DOI
  112. Tesar, 2007, New cell lines from mouse epiblast share defining features with human embryonic stem cells, Nature, 448, 196, 10.1038/nature05972 · DOI
  113. Tiemann, 2011, Optimal reprogramming factor stoichiometry increases colony numbers and affects molecular characteristics of murine induced pluripotent stem cells, Cytometry A, 79, 426, 10.1002/cyto.a.21072 · DOI
  114. Tomoda, 2012, Derivation conditions impact X-inactivation status in female human induced pluripotent stem cells, Cell Stem Cell, 11, 91, 10.1016/j.stem.2012.05.019 · DOI
  115. Trounson, 2012, Human disease modeling with induced pluripotent stem cells, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev., 22, 509, 10.1016/j.gde.2012.07.004 · DOI
  116. Utley, 1997, SWI/SNF stimulates the formation of disparate activator-nucleosome complexes but is partially redundant with cooperative binding, J. Biol. Chem., 272, 12642, 10.1074/jbc.272.19.12642 · DOI
  117. Visel, 2009, ChIP-seq accurately predicts tissue-specific activity of enhancers, Nature, 457, 854, 10.1038/nature07730 · DOI · Paper page
  118. Wallrath, 1994, Architectural variations of inducible eukaryotic promoters: preset and remodeling chromatin structures, Bioessays, 16, 165, 10.1002/bies.950160306 · DOI
  119. Wang, 2011, The histone demethylases Jhdm1a/1b enhance somatic cell reprogramming in a vitamin-C-dependent manner, Cell Stem Cell, 9, 575, 10.1016/j.stem.2011.10.005 · DOI · Paper page
  120. Wang, 2011, Rapid and efficient reprogramming of somatic cells to induced pluripotent stem cells by retinoic acid receptor gamma and liver receptor homolog 1, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 18283, 10.1073/pnas.1100893108 · DOI
  121. Wang, 2011, Reprogramming of mouse and human somatic cells by high-performance engineered factors, EMBO Rep., 12, 373, 10.1038/embor.2011.11 · DOI
  122. Ware, 2009, Histone deacetylase inhibition elicits an evolutionarily conserved self-renewal program in embryonic stem cells, Cell Stem Cell, 4, 359, 10.1016/j.stem.2009.03.001 · DOI
  123. Wernig, 2007, In vitro reprogramming of fibroblasts into a pluripotent ES-cell-like state, Nature, 448, 318, 10.1038/nature05944 · DOI
  124. 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
  125. Wolffe, 1991, Implications of DNA replication for eukaryotic gene expression, J. Cell Sci., 99, 201, 10.1242/jcs.99.2.201 · DOI
  126. Wutz, 2011, Gene silencing in X-chromosome inactivation: advances in understanding facultative heterochromatin formation, Nat. Rev. Genet., 12, 542, 10.1038/nrg3035 · DOI
  127. Yamaguchi, 2011, Sox2 expression effects on direct reprogramming efficiency as determined by alternative somatic cell fate, Stem Cell Res. (Amst.), 6, 177, 10.1016/j.scr.2010.09.004 · DOI
  128. You, 2011, OCT4 establishes and maintains nucleosome-depleted regions that provide additional layers of epigenetic regulation of its target genes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 14497, 10.1073/pnas.1111309108 · DOI · Paper page
  129. Zhu, 2013, Genome-wide Chromatin State Transitions Associated with Developmental and Environmental Cues, Cell, 152, 642, 10.1016/j.cell.2012.12.033 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Papp, B., & Plath, K.
Venue
Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-03
Volume
152
Issue
6
Pages
1324-1343
ISSN
0092-8674
DOI
10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.043
PMC
PMC3602907
Cited by
307
References
11
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