CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 37

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biological importance of OCT transcription factors in reprogramming and development

Kim, Kee-Pyo, Han, Dong Wook, Kim, Johnny, Schöler, Hans R.·2021·Experimental & Molecular Medicine
DOI 10.1038/s12276-021-00637-4PMC PMC8257633
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Ectopic expression of Oct4, Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc can reprogram somatic cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Attempts to identify genes or chemicals that can functionally replace each of these four reprogramming factors have revealed that exogenous Oct4 is not necessary for reprogramming under certain conditions or in the presence of alternative factors that can regulate endogenous Oct4 expression. For example, polycistronic expression of Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc can elicit reprogramming by activating endogenous Oct4 expression indirectly. Experiments in which the reprogramming competence of all other Oct family members tested and also in different species have led to the decisive conclusion that Oct proteins display different reprogramming competences and species-dependent reprogramming activity despite their profound sequence conservation. We discuss the roles of the structural components of Oct proteins in reprogramming and how donor cell epigenomes endow Oct proteins with different reprogramming competences.

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 · 10.1038/s12276-021-00637-4

Cites

9 of 9 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 is the master regulator of epigenetic reprogramming.

    “Multiple studies have suggested OCT4 (Fig. 1a) as the master regulator of epigenetic reprogramming [31][32][33] , as OCT4 overexpression alone is sufficient to induce pluripotency when other canonical reprogramming factors are endogenously expressed or are in the presence of other chromatin remodeling chemical factors 32,34,35 .”

    From Mechanisms, pathways and strategies for rejuvenation through epigenetic reprogramming (2023) · cites this paper as [31]

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: 144

  1. Rosenfeld, M. G. POU-domain transcription factors: pou-er-ful developmental regulators. Genes Dev. 5, 897–907 (1991). · DOI
  2. Schöler, H. R. Octamania: the POU factors in murine development. Trends Genet. 7, 323–329 (1991). · DOI
  3. Wegner, M., Drolet, D. W. & Rosenfeld, M. G. POU-domain proteins: structure and function of developmental regulators. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 5, 488–498 (1993). · DOI
  4. Kang, J., Shakya, A. & Tantin, D. Stem cells, stress, metabolism and cancer: a drama in two Octs. Trends Biochem Sci. 34, 491–499 (2009). · DOI
  5. Han, D. W. et al. Direct reprogramming of fibroblasts into neural stem cells by defined factors. Cell Stem Cell 10, 465–472 (2012). · DOI
  6. Lujan, E., Chanda, S., Ahlenius, H., Sudhof, T. C. & Wernig, M. Direct conversion of mouse fibroblasts to self-renewing, tripotent neural precursor cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 2527–2532 (2012). · DOI
  7. Sheng, C. et al. Direct reprogramming of Sertoli cells into multipotent neural stem cells by defined factors. Cell Res. 22, 208–218 (2012). · DOI
  8. Takahashi, K. & Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126, 663–676 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  9. Tsunemoto, R. et al. Diverse reprogramming codes for neuronal identity. Nature 557, 375–380 (2018). · DOI
  10. Wapinski, O. L. et al. Hierarchical mechanisms for direct reprogramming of fibroblasts to neurons. Cell 155, 621–635 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Pan, G. J., Chang, Z. Y., Scholer, H. R. & Pei, D. Stem cell pluripotency and transcription factor Oct4. Cell Res. 12, 321–329 (2002). · DOI
  12. Shi, G. & Jin, Y. Role of Oct4 in maintaining and regaining stem cell pluripotency. Stem Cell Res Ther. 1, 39 (2010). · DOI
  13. Tantin, D. Oct transcription factors in development and stem cells: insights and mechanisms. Development 140, 2857–2866 (2013). · DOI
  14. Wu, G. & Scholer, H. R. Role of Oct4 in the early embryo development. Cell Regen. 3, 7 (2014).
  15. Jerabek, S. et al. Changing POU dimerization preferences converts Oct6 into a pluripotency inducer. EMBO Rep. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201642958 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  16. Maekawa, M. et al. Direct reprogramming of somatic cells is promoted by maternal transcription factor Glis1. Nature 474, 225–229 (2011). · DOI
  17. Malik, V. et al. Pluripotency reprogramming by competent and incompetent POU factors uncovers temporal dependency for Oct4 and Sox2. Nat. Commun. 10, 3477 (2019).
  18. Nakagawa, M. et al. Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells without Myc from mouse and human fibroblasts. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 101–106 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  19. An, Z. et al. Sox2 and Klf4 as the functional core in pluripotency induction without exogenous Oct4. Cell Rep. 29, 1986–2000 e1988 (2019). · DOI
  20. Velychko, S. et al. Fusion of reprogramming factors alters the trajectory of somatic lineage conversion. Cell Rep. 27, 30–39 e34 (2019). · DOI
  21. Buganim, Y. et al. Single-cell expression analyses during cellular reprogramming reveal an early stochastic and a late hierarchic phase. Cell 150, 1209–1222 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  22. Gao, Y. et al. Replacement of Oct4 by Tet1 during iPSC induction reveals an important role of DNA methylation and hydroxymethylation in reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 12, 453–469 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  23. Heng, J. C. et al. The nuclear receptor Nr5a2 can replace Oct4 in the reprogramming of murine somatic cells to pluripotent cells. Cell Stem Cell 6, 167–174 (2010). · DOI
  24. Hou, P. et al. Pluripotent stem cells induced from mouse somatic cells by small-molecule compounds. Science 341, 651–654 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  25. Shi, Y. et al. A combined chemical and genetic approach for the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2, 525–528 (2008). · DOI
  26. Shu, J. et al. Induction of pluripotency in mouse somatic cells with lineage specifiers. Cell 153, 963–975 (2013). · DOI
  27. Shu, J. et al. GATA family members as inducers for cellular reprogramming to pluripotency. Cell Res. 25, 169–180 (2015). · DOI
  28. Kim, K. P. et al. Permissive epigenomes endow reprogramming competence to transcriptional regulators. Nat. Chem. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41589-020-0618-6 (2020). · DOI
  29. Kim, K. P. et al. Reprogramming competence of OCT factors is determined by transactivation domains. Sci. Adv. 6, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz7364 (2020). · DOI
  30. Falkner, F. G. & Zachau, H. G. Correct transcription of an immunoglobulin kappa gene requires an upstream fragment containing conserved sequence elements. Nature 310, 71–74 (1984). · DOI
  31. Parslow, T. G., Blair, D. L., Murphy, W. J. & Granner, D. K. Structure of the 5’ ends of immunoglobulin genes: a novel conserved sequence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81, 2650–2654 (1984). · DOI
  32. Herr, W. et al. The POU domain: a large conserved region in the mammalian pit-1, oct-1, oct-2, and Caenorhabditis elegans unc-86 gene products. Genes Dev. 2, 1513–1516 (1988). · DOI
  33. Lenardo, M. J. et al. Repression of the IgH enhancer in teratocarcinoma cells associated with a novel octamer factor. Science 243, 544–546 (1989). · DOI
  34. Phillips, K. & Luisi, B. The virtuoso of versatility: POU proteins that flex to fit. J. Mol. Biol. 302, 1023–1039 (2000). · DOI
  35. Verrijzer, C. P. et al. The DNA binding specificity of the bipartite POU domain and its subdomains. EMBO J. 11, 4993–5003 (1992). · DOI
  36. Kong, X. et al. Functional interplay between the RK motif and linker segment dictates Oct4-DNA recognition. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 4381–4392 (2015). · DOI
  37. van Leeuwen, H. C., Strating, M. J., Rensen, M., de Laat, W. & van der Vliet, P. C. Linker length and composition influence the flexibility of Oct-1 DNA binding. EMBO J. 16, 2043–2053 (1997). · DOI
  38. Brumbaugh, J. et al. Phosphorylation regulates human OCT4. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 7162–7168 (2012). · DOI
  39. Constable, S., Lim, J. M., Vaidyanathan, K. & Wells, L. O-GlcNAc transferase regulates transcriptional activity of human Oct4. Glycobiology 27, 927–937 (2017). · DOI
  40. Li, S. et al. Disruption of OCT4 ubiquitination increases OCT4 protein stability and ASH2L-B-mediated H3K4 methylation promoting pluripotency acquisition. Stem Cell Rep. 11, 973–987 (2018). · DOI
  41. Marsboom, G. et al. Glutamine metabolism regulates the pluripotency transcription factor OCT4. Cell Rep. 16, 323–332 (2016). · DOI
  42. Wei, F., Scholer, H. R. & Atchison, M. L. Sumoylation of Oct4 enhances its stability, DNA binding, and transactivation. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 21551–21560 (2007). · DOI
  43. Ambrosetti, D. C., Basilico, C. & Dailey, L. Synergistic activation of the fibroblast growth factor 4 enhancer by Sox2 and Oct-3 depends on protein-protein interactions facilitated by a specific spatial arrangement of factor binding sites. Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 6321–6329 (1997). · DOI
  44. Remenyi, A. et al. Crystal structure of a POU/HMG/DNA ternary complex suggests differential assembly of Oct4 and Sox2 on two enhancers. Genes Dev. 17, 2048–2059 (2003). · DOI
  45. Rhee, J. M., Gruber, C. A., Brodie, T. B., Trieu, M. & Turner, E. E. Highly cooperative homodimerization is a conserved property of neural POU proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 273, 34196–34205 (1998). · DOI
  46. Tomilin, A. et al. Synergism with the coactivator OBF-1 (OCA-B, BOB-1) is mediated by a specific POU dimer configuration. Cell 103, 853–864 (2000). · DOI
  47. Mitchell, P. J. & Tjian, R. Transcriptional regulation in mammalian cells by sequence-specific DNA binding proteins. Science 245, 371–378 (1989). · DOI
  48. Seipel, K., Georgiev, O. & Schaffner, W. Different activation domains stimulate transcription from remote (‘enhancer’) and proximal (‘promoter’) positions. EMBO J. 11, 4961–4968 (1992). · DOI
  49. Fletcher, C., Heintz, N. & Roeder, R. G. Purification and characterization of OTF-1, a transcription factor regulating cell cycle expression of a human histone H2b gene. Cell 51, 773–781 (1987). · DOI
  50. Sturm, R. A., Das, G. & Herr, W. The ubiquitous octamer-binding protein Oct-1 contains a POU domain with a homeo box subdomain. Genes Dev. 2, 1582–1599 (1988). · DOI
  51. Hodson, D. J. et al. Regulation of normal B-cell differentiation and malignant B-cell survival by OCT2. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E2039–E2046 (2016). · DOI
  52. Muller, M. M., Ruppert, S., Schaffner, W. & Matthias, P. A cloned octamer transcription factor stimulates transcription from lymphoid-specific promoters in non-B cells. Nature 336, 544–551 (1988). · DOI
  53. Scheidereit, C. et al. A human lymphoid-specific transcription factor that activates immunoglobulin genes is a homoeobox protein. Nature 336, 551–557 (1988). · DOI
  54. Andersen, B. et al. Skn-1a and Skn-1i: two functionally distinct Oct-2-related factors expressed in epidermis. Science 260, 78–82 (1993). · DOI
  55. Andersen, B. et al. Functions of the POU domain genes Skn-1a/i and Tst-1/Oct-6/SCIP in epidermal differentiation. Genes Dev. 11, 1873–1884 (1997). · DOI
  56. Matsumoto, I., Ohmoto, M., Narukawa, M., Yoshihara, Y. & Abe, K. Skn-1a (Pou2f3) specifies taste receptor cell lineage. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 685–687 (2011). · DOI
  57. Okamoto, K. et al. A novel octamer binding transcription factor is differentially expressed in mouse embryonic cells. Cell 60, 461–472 (1990). · DOI
  58. Rosner, M. H. et al. A POU-domain transcription factor in early stem cells and germ cells of the mammalian embryo. Nature 345, 686–692 (1990). · DOI
  59. Scholer, H. R., Ruppert, S., Suzuki, N., Chowdhury, K. & Gruss, P. New type of POU domain in germ line-specific protein Oct-4. Nature 344, 435–439 (1990). · DOI
  60. Nordhoff, V. et al. Comparative analysis of human, bovine, and murine Oct-4 upstream promoter sequences. Mamm. Genome 12, 309–317 (2001). · DOI
  61. Yeom, Y. I. et al. Germline regulatory element of Oct-4 specific for the totipotent cycle of embryonal cells. Development 122, 881–894 (1996). · DOI
  62. Choi, H. W. et al. Distinct enhancer activity of Oct4 in naive and primed mouse pluripotency. Stem Cell Rep. 7, 911–926 (2016). · DOI
  63. Tesar, P. J. et al. New cell lines from mouse epiblast share defining features with human embryonic stem cells. Nature 448, 196–199 (2007). · DOI
  64. Loh, Y. H. et al. The Oct4 and Nanog transcription network regulates pluripotency in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat. Genet. 38, 431–440 (2006). · DOI
  65. Niwa, H., Miyazaki, J. & Smith, A. G. Quantitative expression of Oct-3/4 defines differentiation, dedifferentiation or self-renewal of ES cells. Nat. Genet. 24, 372–376 (2000). · DOI
  66. Nichols, J. et al. Formation of pluripotent stem cells in the mammalian embryo depends on the POU transcription factor Oct4. Cell 95, 379–391 (1998). · DOI
  67. Takahashi, K. et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 131, 861–872 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  68. He, X. et al. Expression of a large family of POU-domain regulatory genes in mammalian brain development. Nature 340, 35–41 (1989). · DOI
  69. Schöler, H. R., Hatzopoulos, A. K., Balling, R., Suzuki, N. & Gruss, P. A family of octamer-specific proteins present during mouse embryogenesis: evidence for germline-specific expression of an Oct factor. EMBO J. 8, 2543–2550 (1989). · DOI
  70. Bermingham, J. R. Jr. et al. Tst-1/Oct-6/SCIP regulates a unique step in peripheral myelination and is required for normal respiration. Genes Dev. 10, 1751–1762 (1996). · DOI
  71. Friedrich, R. P., Schlierf, B., Tamm, E. R., Bosl, M. R. & Wegner, M. The class III POU domain protein Brn-1 can fully replace the related Oct-6 during schwann cell development and myelination. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 1821–1829 (2005). · DOI
  72. Jaegle, M. et al. The POU proteins Brn-2 and Oct-6 share important functions in Schwann cell development. Genes Dev. 17, 1380–1391 (2003). · DOI
  73. Jaegle, M. et al. The POU factor Oct-6 and Schwann cell differentiation. Science 273, 507–510 (1996). · DOI
  74. Lodato, M. A. et al. SOX2 co-occupies distal enhancer elements with distinct POU factors in ESCs and NPCs to specify cell state. PLoS Genet 9, e1003288 (2013). · DOI
  75. Schreiber, J. et al. Redundancy of class III POU proteins in the oligodendrocyte lineage. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 32286–32293 (1997). · DOI
  76. Chang, Y. K. et al. Quantitative profiling of selective Sox/POU pairing on hundreds of sequences in parallel by Coop-seq. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 832–845 (2017). · DOI
  77. Mistri, T. K. et al. Selective influence of Sox2 on POU transcription factor binding in embryonic and neural stem cells. EMBO Rep. 16, 1177–1191 (2015). · DOI
  78. Faus, I., Hsu, H. J. & Fuchs, E. Oct-6: a regulator of keratinocyte gene expression in stratified squamous epithelia. Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 3263–3275 (1994).
  79. Iwafuchi-Doi, M. et al. Transcriptional regulatory networks in epiblast cells and during anterior neural plate development as modeled in epiblast stem cells. Development 139, 3926–3937 (2012). · DOI
  80. Kamiya, D. et al. Intrinsic transition of embryonic stem-cell differentiation into neural progenitors. Nature 470, 503–509 (2011). · DOI
  81. Yasuhara, N. et al. Triggering neural differentiation of ES cells by subtype switching of importin-alpha. Nat. Cell Biol. 9, 72–79 (2007). · DOI
  82. Zhu, Q. et al. The transcription factor Pou3f1 promotes neural fate commitment via activation of neural lineage genes and inhibition of external signaling pathways. Elife 3, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02224 (2014). · DOI
  83. Meijer, D. et al. The octamer binding factor Oct6: cDNA cloning and expression in early embryonic cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 18, 7357–7365 (1990). · DOI
  84. Suzuki, N., Rohdewohld, H., Neuman, T., Gruss, P. & Schöler, H. R. Oct-6: a POU transcription factor expressed in embryonal stem cells and in the developing brain. EMBO J. 9, 3723–3732 (1990). · DOI
  85. Acampora, D. et al. Loss of the Otx2-binding site in the Nanog promoter affects the integrity of embryonic stem cell subtypes and specification of inner cell mass-derived epiblast. Cell Rep. 15, 2651–2664 (2016). · DOI
  86. Kurek, D. et al. Endogenous WNT signals mediate BMP-induced and spontaneous differentiation of epiblast stem cells and human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cell Rep. 4, 114–128 (2015). · DOI
  87. Li, G. et al. Dysregulation of the SIRT1/OCT6 axis contributes to environmental stress-induced neural induction defects. Stem Cell Rep. 8, 1270–1286 (2017). · DOI
  88. Yasuhara, N. et al. Importin alpha subtypes determine differential transcription factor localization in embryonic stem cells maintenance. Developmental Cell 26, 123–135 (2013). · DOI
  89. Brons, I. G. et al. Derivation of pluripotent epiblast stem cells from mammalian embryos. Nature 448, 191–195 (2007). · DOI
  90. Kojima, Y. et al. The transcriptional and functional properties of mouse epiblast stem cells resemble the anterior primitive streak. Cell Stem Cell 14, 107–120 (2014). · DOI
  91. DeVeale, B. et al. Oct4 is required ~E7.5 for proliferation in the primitive streak. PLoS Genet 9, e1003957 (2013). · DOI
  92. Adachi, K. & Scholer, H. R. Directing reprogramming to pluripotency by transcription factors. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 22, 416–422 (2012). · DOI
  93. Buganim, Y., Faddah, D. A. & Jaenisch, R. Mechanisms and models of somatic cell reprogramming. Nat. Rev. Genet 14, 427–439 (2013). · DOI
  94. Hochedlinger, K. & Plath, K. Epigenetic reprogramming and induced pluripotency. Development 136, 509–523 (2009). · DOI
  95. Papp, B. & Plath, K. Epigenetics of reprogramming to induced pluripotency. Cell 152, 1324–1343 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  96. Hanna, J. et al. Direct cell reprogramming is a stochastic process amenable to acceleration. Nature 462, 595–601 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  97. Cacchiarelli, D. et al. Integrative analyses of human reprogramming reveal dynamic nature of induced pluripotency. Cell 162, 412–424 (2015). · DOI
  98. Chia, N. Y. et al. A genome-wide RNAi screen reveals determinants of human embryonic stem cell identity. Nature 468, 316–320 (2010). · DOI
  99. dos Santos, R. L. et al. MBD3/NuRD facilitates induction of pluripotency in a context-dependent manner. Cell Stem Cell 15, 102–110 (2014). · DOI
  100. Ebrahimi, A. et al. Bromodomain inhibition of the coactivators CBP/EP300 facilitate cellular reprogramming. Nat. Chem. Biol. 15, 519–528 (2019). · DOI
  101. Feng, B. et al. Reprogramming of fibroblasts into induced pluripotent stem cells with orphan nuclear receptor Esrrb. Nat. Cell Biol. 11, 197–203 (2009). · DOI
  102. Han, J. et al. Tbx3 improves the germ-line competency of induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 463, 1096–1100 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  103. Hu, X. et al. Tet and TDG mediate DNA demethylation essential for mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition in somatic cell reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 14, 512–522 (2014). · DOI
  104. Mali, P. et al. Butyrate greatly enhances derivation of human induced pluripotent stem cells by promoting epigenetic remodeling and the expression of pluripotency-associated genes. Stem Cells 28, 713–720 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  105. Onder, T. T. et al. Chromatin-modifying enzymes as modulators of reprogramming. Nature 483, 598–602 (2012). · DOI
  106. Wang, W. et al. 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, 18283–18288 (2011). · DOI
  107. Hernandez, C. et al. Dppa2/4 facilitate epigenetic remodeling during reprogramming to pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 23, 396–411 e398 (2018). · DOI
  108. Takahashi, K. et al. Induction of pluripotency in human somatic cells via a transient state resembling primitive streak-like mesendoderm. Nat. Commun. 5, 3678 (2014).
  109. Aasen, T. et al. Efficient and rapid generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from human keratinocytes. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 1276–1284 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  110. Esteban, M. A. et al. Vitamin C enhances the generation of mouse and human induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 6, 71–79 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  111. Panopoulos, A. D. et al. Rapid and highly efficient generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from human umbilical vein endothelial cells. PloS ONE 6, e19743 (2011). · DOI
  112. Yoshida, Y., Takahashi, K., Okita, K., Ichisaka, T. & Yamanaka, S. Hypoxia enhances the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 5, 237–241 (2009). · DOI
  113. Kim, J. B. et al. Direct reprogramming of human neural stem cells by OCT4. Nature 461, 649–643 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  114. Kim, J. B. et al. Oct4-induced pluripotency in adult neural stem cells. Cell 136, 411–419 (2009). · DOI
  115. Li, Y. et al. Generation of iPSCs from mouse fibroblasts with a single gene, Oct4, and small molecules. Cell Res. 21, 196–204 (2011). · DOI
  116. Yuan, X. et al. Brief report: combined chemical treatment enables Oct4-induced reprogramming from mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Stem Cells 29, 549–553 (2011). · DOI
  117. Zhu, S. et al. Reprogramming of human primary somatic cells by OCT4 and chemical compounds. Cell Stem Cell 7, 651–655 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  118. Esch, D. et al. A unique Oct4 interface is crucial for reprogramming to pluripotency. Nat. Cell Biol. 15, 295–301 (2013). · DOI
  119. Jin, W. et al. Critical POU domain residues confer Oct4 uniqueness in somatic cell reprogramming. Sci. Rep. 6, 20818 (2016).
  120. Mai, T. et al. NKX3-1 is required for induced pluripotent stem cell reprogramming and can replace OCT4 in mouse and human iPSC induction. Nat. Cell Biol. 20, 900–908 (2018). · DOI
  121. Montserrat, N. et al. Reprogramming of human fibroblasts to pluripotency with lineage specifiers. Cell Stem Cell 13, 341–350 (2013). · DOI
  122. Velychko, S. et al. Excluding Oct4 from Yamanaka cocktail unleashes the developmental potential of iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell 25, 737–753 e734 (2019). · DOI
  123. Zhao, Y. et al. A XEN-like state bridges somatic cells to pluripotency during chemical reprogramming. Cell 163, 1678–1691 (2015). · DOI
  124. Barnea, E. & Bergman, Y. Synergy of SF1 and RAR in activation of Oct-3/4 promoter. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 6608–6619 (2000). · DOI
  125. Gu, P. et al. Orphan nuclear receptor LRH-1 is required to maintain Oct4 expression at the epiblast stage of embryonic development. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 3492–3505 (2005). · DOI
  126. Zhang, J. et al. Sall4 modulates embryonic stem cell pluripotency and early embryonic development by the transcriptional regulation of Pou5f1. Nat. cell Biol. 8, 1114–1123 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  127. Epsztejn-Litman, S. et al. De novo DNA methylation promoted by G9a prevents reprogramming of embryonically silenced genes. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 15, 1176–1183 (2008). · DOI
  128. Feldman, N. et al. G9a-mediated irreversible epigenetic inactivation of Oct-3/4 during early embryogenesis. Nat. Cell Biol. 8, 188–194 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  129. Buganim, Y. et al. The developmental potential of iPSCs is greatly influenced by reprogramming factor selection. Cell Stem Cell 15, 295–309 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  130. Carey, B. W. et al. Reprogramming factor stoichiometry influences the epigenetic state and biological properties of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 9, 588–598 (2011). · DOI
  131. Chen, J. et al. Rational optimization of reprogramming culture conditions for the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells with ultra-high efficiency and fast kinetics. Cell Res. 21, 884–894 (2011). · DOI
  132. Jauch, R. et al. Conversion of Sox17 into a pluripotency reprogramming factor by reengineering its association with Oct4 on DNA. Stem Cells 29, 940–951 (2011). · DOI
  133. Tapia, N. et al. Dissecting the role of distinct OCT4-SOX2 heterodimer configurations in pluripotency. Sci. Rep. 5, 13533 (2015). · DOI
  134. Urban, S. et al. A Brn2-Zic1 axis specifies the neuronal fate of retinoic-acid-treated embryonic stem cells. J. Cell Sci. 128, 2303–2318 (2015). · DOI
  135. Nishimoto, M. et al. Oct-3/4 maintains the proliferative embryonic stem cell state via specific binding to a variant octamer sequence in the regulatory region of the UTF1 locus. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 5084–5094 (2005). · DOI
  136. Niwa, H., Masui, S., Chambers, I., Smith, A. G. & Miyazaki, J. Phenotypic complementation establishes requirements for specific POU domain and generic transactivation function of Oct-3/4 in embryonic stem cells. Mol. Cell. Biol. 22, 1526–1536 (2002). · DOI
  137. Fang, R. et al. Generation of naive induced pluripotent stem cells from rhesus monkey fibroblasts. Cell Stem Cell 15, 488–497 (2014). · DOI
  138. Li, W. et al. Generation of rat and human induced pluripotent stem cells by combining genetic reprogramming and chemical inhibitors. Cell Stem Cell 4, 16–19 (2009). · DOI
  139. Wunderlich, S. et al. Primate iPS cells as tools for evolutionary analyses. Stem Cell Res 12, 622–629 (2014). · DOI
  140. Fu, K. et al. Comparison of reprogramming factor targets reveals both species-specific and conserved mechanisms in early iPSC reprogramming. BMC Genomics 19, 956 (2018).
  141. Soufi, A., Donahue, G. & Zaret, K. S. Facilitators and impediments of the pluripotency reprogramming factors’ initial engagement with the genome. Cell 151, 994–1004 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  142. Zaret, K. S. & Mango, S. E. Pioneer transcription factors, chromatin dynamics, and cell fate control. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 37, 76–81 (2016). · DOI
  143. Boller, S. et al. Pioneering activity of the C-terminal domain of EBF1 shapes the chromatin landscape for B cell programming. Immunity 44, 527–541 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  144. Cirillo, L. A. et al. Opening of compacted chromatin by early developmental transcription factors HNF3 (FoxA) and GATA-4. Mol. Cell 9, 279–289 (2002). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kim, K.-P., Han, D. W., Kim, J., & Schöler, H. R.
Venue
Experimental & Molecular Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-06
Volume
53
Issue
6
Pages
1018-1028
ISSN
  • 1226-3613
  • 2092-6413
DOI
10.1038/s12276-021-00637-4
PMC
PMC8257633
Cited by
37
References
9
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

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