MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129148890 · doi:10.1038/srep13533

Dissecting the role of distinct OCT4-SOX2 heterodimer configurations in pluripotency

2015· article· en· W2129148890 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Natàlia Tàpia, Caitlin M. MacCarthy, Daniel Esch, Adele G. Marthaler, Ulf Tiemann, Marcos J. Araúzo‐Bravo, Ralf Jauch, Vlad Cojocaru, Hans R. Schöler

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMax-Planck-GesellschaftHeinrich-Heine-Universität DüsseldorfStem Cell Network
KeywordsSOX2Induced pluripotent stem cellEmbryonic stem cellBiologyCell biologyTranscription factorGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transcription factors OCT4 and SOX2 are required for generating induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and for maintaining embryonic stem cells (ESCs). OCT4 and SOX2 associate and bind to DNA in different configurations depending on the arrangement of their individual DNA binding elements. Here we have investigated the role of the different OCT4-SOX2-DNA assemblies in regulating and inducing pluripotency. To this end, we have generated SOX2 mutants that interfere with specific OCT4-SOX2 heterodimer configurations and assessed their ability to generate iPSCs and to rescue ESC self-renewal. Our results demonstrate that the OCT4-SOX2 configuration that dimerizes on a Hoxb1-like composite, a canonical element with juxtaposed individual binding sites, plays a more critical role in the induction and maintenance of pluripotency than any other OCT4-SOX2 configuration. Overall, the results of this study provide new insight into the protein interactions required to establish a de novo pluripotent network and to maintain a true pluripotent cell fate.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207