Cited by 146

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bmi-1 cooperates with Foxg1 to maintain neural stem cell self-renewal in the forebrain

Fasano, Christopher A., Phoenix, Timothy N., Kokovay, Erzsebet, Lowry, Natalia, Elkabetz, Yechiel, Dimos, John T., Lemischka, Ihor R., Studer, Lorenz, Temple, Sally·2009·Genes & Development

Abstract

Neural stem cells (NSCs) persist throughout life in two forebrain areas: the subventricular zone (SVZ) and the hippocampus. Why forebrain NSCs self-renew more extensively than those from other regions remains unclear. Prior studies have shown that the polycomb factor Bmi-1 is necessary for NSC self-renewal and that it represses the cell cycle inhibitors p16, p19, and p21. Here we show that overexpression of Bmi-1 enhances self-renewal of forebrain NSCs significantly more than those derived from spinal cord, demonstrating a regional difference in responsiveness. We show that forebrain NSCs require the forebrain-specific transcription factor Foxg1 for Bmi-1-dependent self-renewal, and that repression of p21 is a focus of this interaction. Bmi-1 enhancement of NSC self-renewal is significantly greater with increasing age and passage. Importantly, when Bmi-1 is overexpressed in cultured adult forebrain NSCs, they expand dramatically and continue to make neurons even after multiple passages, when control NSCs have become restricted to glial differentiation. Together these findings demonstrate the importance of Bmi-1 and Foxg1 cooperation to maintenance of NSC multipotency and self-renewal, and establish a useful method for generating abundant forebrain neurons ex vivo, outside the neurogenic niche.

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 · 10.1101/gad.1743709

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Overexpression of Bmi1 leads to increased self-renewal and maintenance of multipotency.

    “This is supported by previous data that showed overexpression of USP16 in human-derived neurospheres led to a marked decrease in the formation of secondary neurospheres (Adorno et al., 2013), and overexpression of Bmi1 led to increased self-renewal and maintenance of multipotency (Fasano et al., 2009).”

    From Inhibiting USP16 rescues stem cell aging and memory in an Alzheimer’s model (2022) · cites this paper as Fasano et al., 2009

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: 38

  1. 10.1002/neu.10287 · DOI
  2. 10.1038/nn1153 · DOI
  3. 10.1101/gad.1299305 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00835-8 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.12.030 · DOI
  6. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1554-03.2004 · DOI
  7. 10.2353/ajpath.2007.060754 · DOI
  8. 10.1093/cercor/9.6.543 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1016/j.stem.2007.04.001 · DOI
  10. 10.1126/science.287.5457.1433 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1002/neu.480251010 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.devbrainres.2004.10.004 · DOI
  13. 10.1038/nature04915 · DOI
  14. Kaplan,, 1984, Mitotic neuroblasts in the 9-day-old and 11-month-old rodent hippocampus, J. Neurosci., 4, 1429, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.04-06-01429.1984 · DOI
  15. 10.1126/science.887941 · DOI
  16. 10.1038/nature02385 · DOI
  17. 10.1126/science.8178174 · DOI
  18. 10.1126/science.1067081 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.expneurol.2007.09.031 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/0896-6273(93)90281-U · DOI
  21. 10.1002/glia.10213 · DOI
  22. 10.1038/nature02060 · DOI
  23. 10.1073/pnas.0404700101 · DOI
  24. 10.1038/nature05349 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/S0896-6273(01)80048-9 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)00086-6 · DOI
  27. 10.1038/nmeth758 · DOI
  28. 10.1126/science.1553558 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1016/S0092-8674(04)00298-3 · DOI
  30. 10.1002/hipo.20218 · DOI
  31. 10.1038/nn1694 · DOI
  32. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1876-05.2005 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.01.045 · DOI
  34. 10.1038/nn1402 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/0896-6273(95)90262-7 · DOI
  36. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3452-04.2005 · DOI
  37. 10.1007/0-387-32442-9_31 · DOI
  38. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4969-06.2007 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fasano, C. A., Phoenix, T. N., Kokovay, E., Lowry, N., Elkabetz, Y., Dimos, J. T., Lemischka, I. R., Studer, L., & Temple, S.
Venue
Genes & Development
Published
2009-03-01
Volume
23
Issue
5
Pages
561-574
ISSN
  • 0890-9369
  • 1549-5477
Cited by
146
References
1
Language
en

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