MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2725308582 · doi:10.1016/j.gde.2017.06.005

Direct reprogramming with SOX factors: masters of cell fate

2017· review· en· W2725308582 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa M. Julian, Angela McDonald, William L. Stanford

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Genetics & Development · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaHospital for Sick ChildrenOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransdifferentiationReprogrammingBiologyCell fate determinationSomatic cellTranscription factorRegenerative medicineCell biologyCellLineage (genetic)Cellular differentiationStem cellGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last decade significant advances have been made toward reprogramming the fate of somatic cells, typically by overexpression of cell lineage-determinant transcription factors. As key regulators of cell fate, the SOX family of transcription factors has emerged as potent drivers of direct somatic cell reprogramming into multiple lineages, in some cases as the sole overexpressed factor. The vast capacity of SOX factors, especially those of the SOXB1, E and F subclasses, to reprogram cell fate is enlightening our understanding of organismal development, cancer and disease, and offers tremendous potential for regenerative medicine and cell-based therapies. Understanding the molecular mechanisms through which SOX factors reprogram cell fate is essential to optimize the development of novel somatic cell transdifferentiation strategies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations85
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Genetics & DevelopmentSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207