Cited by 79Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsChromatin Remodeling and CancerEpigenetics and DNA Methylation

Is a super-enhancer greater than the sum of its parts?

Open access
Dukler, Noah, Gulko, Brad, Huang, Yi-Fei, Siepel, Adam·2017·Nature Genetics

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 · 10.1038/ng.3759

Cites

10 of 10 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?

  • Transcriptional effects of enhancer deletions within extended super-enhancer loci are consistent with generally additive effects of individual enhancers.

    “the transcriptional effects of enhancer deletions within extended super-enhancer loci are also consistent with the generally additive effects of individual enhancers [517, 518].”

    From Transcriptional enhancers and their communication with gene promoters (2021) · cites this paper as [518]

    In “To the Editor” (page unavailable), the authors find that enhancer-knockout data from the α-globin and Wap loci are consistent with a model without explicit interactions between enhancers. But their preferred linear-logistic model is not a model in which individual enhancers contribute additively to transcriptional output; it fits both data sets better than the directly additive model. The claim captures the lack of clear evidence for interactions but blurs that distinction. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dukler, N., Gulko, B., Huang, Y.-F., & Siepel, A.
Affiliations
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Siepel, Adam
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2017-01
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
2-3
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W2561961480
Cited by
79
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p30ca045508-35)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG007070)
  • National Cancer Institute (P30-CA045508)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM102192)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
Keywords
super-enhancers, enhancer-promoter interactions, enhancers, muscle fiber phenotype, gastric cancer, epigenomics
MeSH terms
Enhancer Elements, Genetic, Humans, Transcription, Genetic

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