MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170516524 · doi:10.3390/genes2010081

Looking into the Black Box: Insights into the Mechanisms of Somatic Cell Reprogramming

2011· article· en· W2170516524 on OpenAlexafffund
Laurent David, Payman Samavarchi‐Tehrani, Azadeh Golipour, Jeffrey L. Wrana

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchStem Cell NetworkHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsReprogrammingInduced pluripotent stem cellEpigeneticsSomatic cellBiologyChromatinTransdifferentiationRegenerative medicineComputational biologyEpigenesisCell biologyGeneticsStem cellCellDNA methylationGene expressionGeneEmbryonic stem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dramatic discovery that somatic cells could be reprogrammed to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), by the expression of just four factors, has opened new opportunities for regenerative medicine and novel ways of modeling human diseases. Extensive research over the short time since the first iPSCs were generated has yielded the ability to reprogram various cell types using a diverse range of methods. However the duration, efficiency, and safety of induced reprogramming have remained a persistent limitation to achieving a robust experimental and therapeutic system. The field has worked to resolve these issues through technological advances using non-integrative approaches, factor replacement or complementation with microRNA, shRNA and drugs. Despite these advances, the molecular mechanisms underlying the reprogramming process remain poorly understood. Recently, through the use of inducible secondary reprogramming systems, researchers have now accessed more rigorous mechanistic experiments to decipher this complex process. In this review we will discuss some of the major recent findings in reprogramming, pertaining to proliferation and cellular senescence, epigenetic and chromatin remodeling, and other complex cellular processes such as morphological changes and mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition. We will focus on the implications of this work in the construction of a mechanistic understanding of reprogramming and discuss unexplored areas in this rapidly expanding field.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenesSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207