Cited by 708Gene Regulatory Network AnalysisPsoriasis: Treatment and PathogenesisT-cell and B-cell Immunology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 39 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Dynamic regulatory network controlling TH17 cell differentiation

Open access

Abstract

Despite their importance, the molecular circuits that control the differentiation of naive T cells remain largely unknown. Recent studies that reconstructed regulatory networks in mammalian cells have focused on short-term responses and relied on perturbation-based approaches that cannot be readily applied to primary T cells. Here we combine transcriptional profiling at high temporal resolution, novel computational algorithms, and innovative nanowire-based perturbation tools to systematically derive and experimentally validate a model of the dynamic regulatory network that controls the differentiation of mouse TH17 cells, a proinflammatory T-cell subset that has been implicated in the pathogenesis of multiple autoimmune diseases. The TH17 transcriptional network consists of two self-reinforcing, but mutually antagonistic, modules, with 12 novel regulators, the coupled action of which may be essential for maintaining the balance between TH17 and other CD4(+) T-cell subsets. Our study identifies and validates 39 regulatory factors, embeds them within a comprehensive temporal network and reveals its organizational principles; it also highlights novel drug targets for controlling TH17 cell differentiation.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper reconstructs and experimentally validates a dynamic transcriptional network for Th17 differentiation by combining a 72-hour expression time course, computational network inference, and nanowire-based perturbation of primary T cells. It identifies two opposing, self-reinforcing regulatory modules and characterizes multiple previously unrecognized regulators.

Key findings

  • Across 18 time points spanning 72 hours, 1,291 genes were differentially expressed during Th17 differentiation and grouped into 20 co-expression clusters; the response resolved into early (up to 4 hours), intermediate (4–20 hours), and late (20–72 hours) phases.
  • The inferred network contained 9,159 interactions linking 71 regulators to 1,266 genes, with 33 regulators active in all networks and 18 active in only one; the authors validated 39 of 65 selected genes by perturbation, including 29 regulators and 10 receptors, 21 of which had not previously been linked to Th17 differentiation.
  • At 48 hours, the functional network split into two antagonistic modules: 22 positive regulators (9 novel) whose loss reduced Th17 signature genes, and 5 negative regulators (3 novel) whose loss increased them; 70% of within-module edges were positive, 88% of between-module edges were negative, and this organization was statistically significant (empirical p<10^-3).
  • Twelve novel factors were characterized further; examples include Mina, whose knockdown reduced IL-17a and increased Foxp3, Fas, whose knockout reduced IL-17a and increased IFN-γ, Pou2af1, whose knockout reduced IL-17a and increased IL-2, and Tsc22d3, whose knockdown increased IL-17a, IL-21, and IL-10.

Methods

  • Naïve CD4+ T cells were differentiated toward Th17 with TGF-β1 and IL-6, with Th0 controls, and profiled by microarray at 18 time points from 0.5 to 72 hours; differential expression was called using four methods, and genes were partitioned by k-means clustering.
  • Regulatory interactions were inferred by overlapping published regulator–target datasets with co-expression clusters, then time-stamping edges using target expression and regulator mRNA plus inferred protein levels; candidate regulators and receptors were ranked and tested by nanowire-delivered siRNA, knockout mice, Nanostring (275 genes), Fluidigm (86 genes), RNA-Seq, and ChIP-seq.
  • Statistical support included Fisher’s exact tests for target overlap, permutation tests for network validation, and shuffled-network tests for module organization.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the functional wiring likely includes both direct and indirect interactions and is a starting point for mapping physical DNA-binding or protein–protein interactions.
  • Evident from the text: only 39 of 65 selected genes were successfully perturbed, knockdown required at least a 60% reduction in target transcript, and network inference depended partly on published binding or perturbation data often generated in other cell types.
  • Evident from the text: the clear two-module organization appeared at 48 hours but not at 10 hours (p>0.5), suggesting the network is still malleable early in differentiation.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature11981

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 39 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 35 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 48
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 9
53 of 53
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Genes in the same co-expression cluster share regulators that are active at the relevant time points.

    “We hypothesized that each of the clusters (Fig. 1b, Supplementary Table 2) encompasses genes that share regulators active in the relevant time points.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The set of 74 manually annotated regulators had genuine prior links to Th17 differentiation.

    “we manually annotated 74 regulators that were previously associated with Th17 differentiation.”
2 of 2

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Conflicting knockdown thresholds

    Major

    The results count knockdowns with less than 60% of the transcript remaining as efficient. The methods instead require a 60% reduction, equivalent to less than 40% remaining. These thresholds would classify some experiments differently.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 88 references

3 of the 88 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Glasmacher, E. et al. A genomic regulatory element that directs assembly and function of immune-specific AP-1-IRF complexes. Science 338, 975–980 (2012) · DOI · Paper page
  2. Durant, L. et al. Diverse targets of the transcription factor STAT3 contribute to T cell pathogenicity and homeostasis. Immunity 32, 605–615 (2010) · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 708

Metadata

Authors
Yosef, N., Shalek, A. K., Gaublomme, J. T., Jin, H., Lee, Y., Awasthi, A., Wu, C., Karwacz, K., Xiao, S., Jorgolli, M., Gennert, D., Satija, R., Shakya, A., Lu, D. Y., Trombetta, J. J., Pillai, M. R., Ratcliffe, P. J., Coleman, M. L., Bix, M., Tantin, D., Park, H., Kuchroo, V. K., & Regev, A.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Park, Hongkun
  • Kuchroo, Vijay K.
  • Regev, Aviv
Venue
Nature
Published
2013-03-06
Volume
496
Issue
7446
Pages
461-468
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2102158172
Cited by
682
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 73 · 2015: 77 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 29
FWCI
37.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • British Heart Foundation (RG/11/1/28684)
  • National Institutes of Health (DP1OD003893, DP1OD003958)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (P50HG006193)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI 45757, R01AI100873, P01AI045757, P01AI073748, AI073748)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K01DK090105)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS030843, R29NS030843, NS045937, NS30843, R37NS030843, R01NS045937)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (F32HD075541)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Psoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › T-cell and B-cell Immunology
Keywords
Th17 cell differentiation, regulatory networks, naive T cells, CD4+ T cells, transcriptional regulatory networks, network inference, IL-17, therapeutic target, autoimmune disease, proinflammatory T cells
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Differentiation, Cells, Cultured, DNA, Interferon-gamma, Interleukin-2, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Neoplasm Proteins, Nuclear Proteins, RNA, Messenger, Silicon, Time Factors, Transcription Factors, Transcription, Genetic, Reproducibility of Results, Trans-Activators, Genome, fas Receptor, Mice, Forkhead Transcription Factors, Gene Regulatory Networks, Nanowires, Gene Knockdown Techniques, Th17 Cells

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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