CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of reprogramming factor targets reveals both species-specific and conserved mechanisms in early iPSC reprogramming

Fu, Kai, Chronis, Constantinos, Soufi, Abdenour, Bonora, Giancarlo, Edwards, Miguel, Smale, Stephen T., Zaret, Kenneth S., Plath, Kathrin, Pellegrini, Matteo·2018·BMC Genomics
DOI 10.1186/s12864-018-5326-1PMC PMC6303873
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1186/s12864-018-5326-1

Cites

3 of 3 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-SOX2 binding increases KLF4 binding by several folds, mostly in chromatin regions that are closed in human fibroblasts.

    “Co-immunoprecipitation and chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing studies reveal that OCT4-SOX2 binding increases KLF4 binding by several folds, mostly in chromatin regions that are closed in human fibroblasts 41,53,54 .”

    From Mechanisms, pathways and strategies for rejuvenation through epigenetic reprogramming (2023) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Results section on general OSKM binding reports that OCT4, SOX2 and KLF4 co-bind more often than expected. The Results section on starting-cell chromatin states reports that about 40–50% of their human binding peaks lie in low-signal regions. Neither passage shows that OCT4–SOX2 binding causes a several-fold increase in KLF4 binding, or that this increase occurs mostly in closed chromatin. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • OCT4 directly binds enhancers of Polycomb group-repressed genes to induce conversion of their associated promoters from monovalent to bivalent domains.

    “Second, OCT4 directly binds enhancers of Polycomb group-repressed genes, which modify histones and silence target genes, to induce conversion of their associated promoters from monovalent to bivalent domains 40,41 .”

    From Mechanisms, pathways and strategies for rejuvenation through epigenetic reprogramming (2023) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Results section on syntenic conserved peaks reports OCT4 binding peaks in enhancer regions and a higher proportion of those peaks in bivalent promoters. It does not identify those enhancers as belonging to Polycomb-repressed genes or show that OCT4 binding converts associated promoters from monovalent to bivalent domains. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006;126:663–76. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, Narita M, Ichisaka T, Tomoda K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell. 2007;131:861–72. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Hirschi KK, Li S, Roy K. Induced pluripotent stem cells for regenerative medicine. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2014;16:277–94. · DOI
  4. Singh VK, Kalsan M, Kumar N, Saini A, Chandra R. Induced pluripotent stem cells: applications in regenerative medicine, disease modeling, and drug discovery. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2015;3:2. · DOI
  5. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. A decade of transcription factor-mediated reprogramming to pluripotency. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016;17:183–93. · DOI
  6. Yamanaka S. Induced pluripotent stem cells: past, present, and future. Cell Stem Cell. 2012;10:678–84. · DOI
  7. Malik N, Rao MS. A review of the methods for human iPSC derivation. Methods Mol Biol. 2013;997:23–33. · DOI
  8. Soufi A, Donahue G, Zaret KS. Facilitators and impediments of the pluripotency reprogramming factors' initial engagement with the genome. Cell. 2012;151:994–1004. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Liu LL, Brumbaugh J, Bar-Nur O, Smith Z, Stadtfeld M, Meissner A, Hochedlinger K, Michor F. Probabilistic modeling of reprogramming to induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Rep. 2016;17:3395–406. · DOI
  10. Koche RP, Smith ZD, Adli M, Gu H, Ku M, Gnirke A, Bernstein BE, Meissner A. Reprogramming factor expression initiates widespread targeted chromatin remodeling. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;8:96–105. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Nichols J, Smith A. Naive and primed pluripotent states. Cell Stem Cell. 2009;4:487–92. · DOI
  12. Ho R, Papp B, Hoffman JA, Merrill BJ, Plath K. Stage-specific regulation of reprogramming to induced pluripotent stem cells by Wnt signaling and T cell factor proteins. Cell Rep. 2013;3:2113–26. · DOI
  13. Mahony S, Benos PV. STAMP: a web tool for exploring DNA-binding motif similarities. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(Web Server):W253–8. · DOI
  14. Mathelier A, Zhao X, Zhang AW, Parcy F, Worsley-Hunt R, Arenillas DJ, Buchman S, Chen C-Y, Chou A, Ienasescu H, Lim J, Shyr C, Tan G, Zhou M, Lenhard B, Sandelin A, Wasserman WW. JASPAR 2014: an extensively expanded and updated open-access database of transcription factor binding profiles. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Database issue):D142–7. · DOI
  15. Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium, Kundaje A, Meuleman W, Ernst J, Bilenky M, Yen A, Heravi-Moussavi A, Kheradpour P, Zhang Z, Wang J, Ziller MJ, Amin V, Whitaker JW, Schultz MD, Ward LD, Sarkar A, Quon G, Sandstrom RS, Eaton ML, Wu Y-C, Pfenning AR, Wang X, Claussnitzer M, Liu Y, Coarfa C, Harris RA, Shoresh N, Epstein CB, Gjoneska E, Leung D, et al. integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes. Nature. 2015;518:317–30. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Ernst J, Kellis M. ChromHMM: automating chromatin-state discovery and characterization. Nat Methods. 2012;9:215–6. · DOI
  17. Cheng Y, Ma Z, Kim B-H, Wu W, Cayting P, Boyle AP, Sundaram V, Xing X, Dogan N, Li J, Euskirchen G, Lin S, Lin Y, Visel A, Kawli T, Yang X, Patacsil D, Keller CA, Giardine B, Mouse ENCODE consortium, Kundaje A, Wang T, Pennacchio LA, Weng Z, Hardison RC, Snyder MP. principles of regulatory information conservation between mouse and human. Nature. 2014;515:371–5. · DOI
  18. Schmidt D, Wilson MD, Ballester B, Schwalie PC, Brown GD, Marshall A, Kutter C, Watt S, Martinez-Jimenez CP, Mackay S, Talianidis I, Flicek P, Odom DT. Five-vertebrate ChIP-seq reveals the evolutionary dynamics of transcription factor binding. Science. 2010;328:1036–40. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Sundaram V, Cheng Y, Ma Z, Li D, Xing X, Edge P, Snyder MP, Wang T. Widespread contribution of transposable elements to the innovation of gene regulatory networks. Genome Res. 2014;24:gr.168872.113–1976. · DOI
  20. Kunarso G, Chia N-Y, Jeyakani J, Hwang C, Lu X, Chan Y-S, Ng H-H, Bourque G. Transposable elements have rewired the core regulatory network of human embryonic stem cells. Nat Genet. 2010;42:631–4. · DOI
  21. McLean CY, Bristor D, Hiller M, Clarke SL, Schaar BT, Lowe CB, Wenger AM, Bejerano G. GREAT improves functional interpretation of cis-regulatory regions. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28:495–501. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Thomson JA, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro SS, Waknitz MA, Swiergiel JJ, Marshall VS, Jones JM. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science. 1998;282:1145–7. · DOI
  23. Lerou PH, Yabuuchi A, Huo H, Miller JD, Boyer LF, Schlaeger TM, Daley GQ. Derivation and maintenance of human embryonic stem cells from poor-quality in vitro fertilization embryos. Nat Protoc. 2008;3:923–33. · DOI
  24. Hockemeyer D, Soldner F, Cook EG, Gao Q, Mitalipova M, Jaenisch R. A drug-inducible system for direct reprogramming of human somatic cells to pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell. 2008;3:346–53. · DOI
  25. Park I-H, Zhao R, West JA, Yabuuchi A, Huo H, Ince TA, Lerou PH, Lensch MW, Daley GQ. Reprogramming of human somatic cells to pluripotency with defined factors. Nature. 2008;451:141–6. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Langmead B, Trapnell C, Pop M, Salzberg SL. Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biol. 2009;10:R25. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Zhang Y, Liu T, Meyer CA, Eeckhoute J, Johnson DS, Bernstein BE, Nusbaum C, Myers RM, Brown M, Li W, Liu XS. Model-based analysis of ChIP-Seq (MACS). Genome Biol. 2008;9:R137. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Machanick P, Bailey TL. MEME-ChIP: motif analysis of large DNA datasets. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:1696–7. · DOI
  29. Quinlan AR, Hall IM. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:841–2. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Denas O, Sandstrom R, Cheng Y, Beal K, Herrero J, Hardison RC, Taylor J. Genome-wide comparative analysis reveals human-mouse regulatory landscape and evolution. BMC Genomics. 2015;16:87. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fu, K., Chronis, C., Soufi, A., Bonora, G., Edwards, M., Smale, S. T., Zaret, K. S., Plath, K., & Pellegrini, M.
Venue
BMC Genomics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-12
Volume
19
Issue
1
ISSN
1471-2164
DOI
10.1186/s12864-018-5326-1
PMC
PMC6303873
Cited by
23
References
3
Language
en
Licence
Funders
National Institutes of Health (5P01GM099134)

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