Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27736295›Full record

ReviewCell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.)2016

Computational methods for direct cell conversion.

Uma S Kamaraj, Julian Gough, Jose M Polo, Enrico Petretto, Owen J L Rackham

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Do cells use passwords in cell-state transitions? Is cell signaling sometimes encrypted?Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften · 2020
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Resurrecting the Dead (Molecules).Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Uma S Kamaraja Cardiovascular and Metabolic Disorders, Duke-NUS Medical School , Singapore.
Julian Goughb Department of Computer Science , University of Bristol , Bristol , UK.
Jose M Poloc Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Monash University , Clayton , Victoria , Australia.
Enrico Petrettoa Cardiovascular and Metabolic Disorders, Duke-NUS Medical School , Singapore.
Owen J L Rackhama Cardiovascular and Metabolic Disorders, Duke-NUS Medical School , Singapore.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U120097112
6 · The paper itself

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

AnimalsCellsCell TransdifferentiationCellular ReprogrammingComputational BiologyGene Expression RegulationHumansTranscription FactorsTranscription Factorsalgorithmpredictiontranscription factortransdifferentiation

Identifiers

PMID27736295
PMCPMC5224461

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.