ReviewCell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.)2016
Computational methods for direct cell conversion.
Review in Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational approaches for direct cell reprogramming: from the bulk omics era to the single cell era.Briefings in functional genomics · 2022Article
- Benchmarking of ATAC Sequencing Data From BGI's Low-Cost DNBSEQ-G400 Instrument for Identification of Open and Occupied Chromatin Regions.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Article
- Do cells use passwords in cell-state transitions? Is cell signaling sometimes encrypted?Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften · 2020Article
- Review
- Computational approaches for predicting key transcription factors in targeted cell reprogramming (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2018Review
- Resurrecting the Dead (Molecules).Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Directed cell conversion (or transdifferentiation) of one somatic cell-type to another can be achieved by ectopic expression of a set of transcription factors. Since the experimental identification of transcription factors for transdifferentiation is extremely time-consuming and expensive, there are still relatively few transdifferentiations achieved in comparison to the number of human cell-types. However, the growing volume of transcriptional data available and the recent introduction of data-driven algorithmic approaches that predict factors for transdifferentiation holds great promise for accelerating this field. Here we review those computational methods whose in-silico predictions have been experimentally validated, highlighting differences and similarities. Our analysis reveals that the factors predicted by each method tend to be different due to varying source cells used, gene expression quantification and algorithmic steps. We show these differences have an impact on the regulatory influences downstream, with some methods favoring transcription factors regulating developmental progression and others favoring factors regulating mature cell processes. These computational approaches offer a starting point to predict and test novel factors for transdifferentiation. We argue that collecting high-quality gene expression data from single-cells or pure cell-populations across a broader set of cell-types would be necessary to improve the quality and consistency of the in-silico predictions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.