Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genome-wide dynamics of replication timing revealed by in vitro models of mouse embryogenesis

Open access
Hiratani, Ichiro, Ryba, Tyrone, Itoh, Mari, Rathjen, Joy, Kulik, Michael, Papp, Bernadett, Fussner, Eden, Bazett-Jones, David P., Plath, Kathrin, Dalton, Stephen, Rathjen, Peter D., Gilbert, David M.·2010·Genome Research

Abstract

Differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) is accompanied by changes in replication timing. To explore the relationship between replication timing and cell fate transitions, we constructed genome-wide replication-timing profiles of 22 independent mouse cell lines representing 10 stages of early mouse development, and transcription profiles for seven of these stages. Replication profiles were cell-type specific, with 45% of the genome exhibiting significant changes at some point during development that were generally coordinated with changes in transcription. Comparison of early and late epiblast cell culture models revealed a set of early-to-late replication switches completed at a stage equivalent to the post-implantation epiblast, prior to germ layer specification and down-regulation of key pluripotency transcription factors [POU5F1 (also known as OCT4)/NANOG/SOX2] and coinciding with the emergence of compact chromatin near the nuclear periphery. These changes were maintained in all subsequent lineages (lineage-independent) and involved a group of irreversibly down-regulated genes, at least some of which were repositioned closer to the nuclear periphery. Importantly, many genomic regions of partially reprogrammed induced pluripotent stem cells (piPSCs) failed to re-establish ESC-specific replication-timing and transcription programs. These regions were enriched for lineage-independent early-to-late changes, which in female cells included the inactive X chromosome. Together, these results constitute a comprehensive “fate map” of replication-timing changes during early mouse development. Moreover, they support a model in which a distinct set of replication domains undergoes a form of “autosomal Lyonization” in the epiblast that is difficult to reprogram and coincides with an epigenetic commitment to differentiation prior to germ layer specification.

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/gr.099796.109

Cites

60 of 60 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

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

Show all 60 references

Cited by

See all 323

Metadata

Authors
Hiratani, I., Ryba, T., Itoh, M., Rathjen, J., Kulik, M., Papp, B., Fussner, E., Bazett-Jones, D. P., Plath, K., Dalton, S., Rathjen, P. D., & Gilbert, D. M.
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2009-12-01
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
155-169
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2157251845
Cited by
323
References
60
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Genome-wide dynamics of replication timing revealed by in vitro models of mouse embryogenesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1101/gr.099796.109
The paper
Hiratani, I., Ryba, T., Itoh, M., Rathjen, J., Kulik, M., Papp, B., Fussner, E., Bazett-Jones, D. P., Plath, K., Dalton, S., Rathjen, P. D., & Gilbert, D. M. (2010). Genome-wide dynamics of replication timing revealed by in vitro models of mouse embryogenesis. Genome Research. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.099796.109

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.