Cited by 478Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene Regulatory Network AnalysisGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 15 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Single-cell analysis of mixed-lineage states leading to a binary cell fate choice

Open access

Abstract

Delineating hierarchical cellular states, including rare intermediates and the networks of regulatory genes that orchestrate cell-type specification, are continuing challenges for developmental biology. Single-cell RNA sequencing is greatly accelerating such research, given its power to provide comprehensive descriptions of genomic states and their presumptive regulators. Haematopoietic multipotential progenitor cells, as well as bipotential intermediates, manifest mixed-lineage patterns of gene expression at a single-cell level. Such mixed-lineage states may reflect the molecular priming of different developmental potentials by co-expressed alternative-lineage determinants, namely transcription factors. Although a bistable gene regulatory network has been proposed to regulate the specification of either neutrophils or macrophages, the nature of the transition states manifested in vivo, and the underlying dynamics of the cell-fate determinants, have remained elusive. Here we use single-cell RNA sequencing coupled with a new analytic tool, iterative clustering and guide-gene selection, and clonogenic assays to delineate hierarchical genomic and regulatory states that culminate in neutrophil or macrophage specification in mice. We show that this analysis captured prevalent mixed-lineage intermediates that manifested concurrent expression of haematopoietic stem cell/progenitor and myeloid progenitor cell genes. It also revealed rare metastable intermediates that had collapsed the haematopoietic stem cell/progenitor gene expression programme, instead expressing low levels of the myeloid determinants, Irf8 and Gfi1 (refs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). Genetic perturbations and chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing revealed Irf8 and Gfi1 as key components of counteracting myeloid-gene-regulatory networks. Combined loss of these two determinants ‘trapped’ the metastable intermediate. We propose that mixed-lineage states are obligatory during cell-fate specification, manifest differing frequencies because of their dynamic instability and are dictated by counteracting gene-regulatory networks.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Single-cell RNA-Seq and ICGS resolved nine hierarchical myeloid states and identified prevalent and rare mixed-lineage intermediates during neutrophil-versus-macrophage specification. Irf8 and Gfi1 act as counteracting determinants of a metastable transition state that can be “trapped” by combined loss of both factors.

Key findings

  • ICGS resolved nine hierarchically ordered cellular states—HSCP-1, HSCP-2, Meg, Eryth, Multi-Lin*, MDP, Mono, Gran, and Myelocyte—whose inferred developmental order agreed with the experimentally determined hematopoietic sequence.
  • A prevalent Multi-Lin* state co-expressed HSCP and myeloid progenitor genes (Ctsg, Mpo, Elane) and the TFs Gata2, Meis1, PU.1, and C/EBPα, with variable priming of megakaryocytic, erythroid, granulocytic, and monocytic genes.
  • Rare metastable intermediates expressed low levels of both Irf8 and Gfi1; Irf8hi GMPs were specified monocytic progenitors (CFU-M), Irf8− GMPs contained specified granulocytes (CFU-G) and bipotential progenitors (CFU-GM), and IG2s gave equal proportions of monocytic and granulocytic colonies.
  • ChIP-Seq showed Irf8 peaks enriched for EICE motifs co-bound by PU.1, shared Gfi1/Irf8 regions accessible in GMPs, and increased H3K4me2 at shared regions upon Gfi1 loss or Lsd1 inhibition, correlating with enhanced monocytic potential.

Methods

  • scRNA-Seq was performed on mouse LSK, CMP, GMP, and LKCD34+ cells using the C1 Single-Cell Auto Prep System; 96 LSK, 96 CMP, 136 GMP, and 66 LKCD34+ libraries were sequenced, with QC failures in 3 LSK, 2 CMP, 4 GMP, and 3 LKCD34+ samples. Additional scRNA-Seq was performed on GG1s, IG2s, and Irf8−/−Gfi1−/− GMP-like cells.
  • ICGS used pairwise correlation of dynamically expressed genes and iterative clustering with pattern-specific guide genes, excluding cell-cycle genes; results were compared with six independent computational approaches and annotated using GO-Elite/ImmGen enrichment.
  • ChIP-Seq for Gfi1, Irf8, and H3K4me2 was performed in GMPs, with external Cebpα ChIP-Seq and ATAC-Seq data; functional assays included CFU assays, flow cytometry, RT-PCR, and an inducible Gfi1 allele.

Limitations

  • The paper does not state a formal limitations section.
  • Evident from the text: the study is based on mouse bone marrow populations, and human relevance is not tested.
  • Evident from the text: rare intermediates are inferred partly from population frequencies, and the Gfi1-GFP reporter expresses stable GFP, which the authors note can over-estimate Gfi1 expression and likely accounts for higher GFP in GG3s despite very low Gfi1 transcripts.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature19348

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 15 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 65 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 29
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 17
44 of 44
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The nature of the transition states manifested in vivo and the underlying dynamics of the cell-fate determinants have remained elusive.

    “Although a bistable-gene-regulatory network has been proposed to regulate the specification of neutrophils versus macrophages7,8, the nature of the transition states manifested in vivo and the underlying dynamics of the cell-fate determinants have remained elusive.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Each ICGS-delineated cellular state has an underlying regulatory state characterized by distinct combinations of transcription factors.

    “Each ICGS delineated cellular state is expected to have an underlying regulatory state characterized by distinct combinations of TFs.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Mixed-lineage states reflect molecular priming of developmental potentials by co-expressed alternate-lineage determinants, namely transcription factors.

    “Such mixed-lineage states may reflect molecular priming of developmental potentials by co-expressed alternate-lineage determinants, namely transcription factors.”
3 of 3

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.

  • Extended Data Figure 10 identifies panel i as both a CFU assay and an ICGS analysis

    Minor

    The caption says the cytospin examines CFU from panel i, but describes panel i as an ICGS analysis rather than a CFU assay.

  • Extended Data Figure 7 assigns two different contents to panel c

    Minor

    The caption labels both a gene-expression comparison and ChIP-Seq/RNA-Seq tracks as panel c.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 50 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 478

Metadata

Authors
Olsson, A., Venkatasubramanian, M., Chaudhri, V. K., Aronow, B. J., Salomonis, N., Singh, H., & Grimes, H. L.
Affiliations
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
  • Salomonis, Nathan
  • Singh, Harinder
  • Grimes, H. Leighton
Venue
Nature
Published
2016-08-31
Volume
537
Issue
7622
Pages
698-702
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2515907404
Cited by
476
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 3
FWCI
31.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001425)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL122661)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK090971, P30DK078392)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (P30AR047363)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Keywords
cell fate determination, hematopoiesis, single-cell RNA sequencing, IRF8, GFI1, hematopoietic stem cells, myeloid progenitor cells, chromatin accessibility
MeSH terms
Interferon Regulatory Factor-8, Animals, Cell Differentiation, DNA-Binding Proteins, Female, Macrophages, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Models, Biological, Neutrophils, Transcription Factors, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Cell Lineage, Gene Expression Profiling, Myeloid Progenitor Cells, Chromatin Immunoprecipitation, Interferon Regulatory Factors, Mice, Gene Regulatory Networks, Single-Cell Analysis

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 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (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