MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804414244 · doi:10.1016/j.stem.2018.05.001

Exit from Naive Pluripotency Induces a Transient X Chromosome Inactivation-like State in Males

2018· article· en· W2804414244 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elsa Sousa, Hannah T. Stuart, Lawrence E. Bates, Mohammadmersad Ghorbani, Jennifer Nichols, Sabine Dietmann, José Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueCell stem cell · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council CanadaWellcome Trust
KeywordsXISTBiologyX-inactivationHomeobox protein NANOGEpiblastX chromosomeGeneticsChromatinDosage compensationEmbryonic stem cellGene silencingCell biologyGeneInduced pluripotent stem cellGastrulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A hallmark of naive pluripotency is the presence of two active X chromosomes in females. It is not clear whether prevention of X chromosome inactivation (XCI) is mediated by gene networks that preserve the naive state. Here, we show that robust naive pluripotent stem cell (nPSC) self-renewal represses expression of Xist, the master regulator of XCI. We found that nPSCs accumulate Xist on the male X chromosome and on both female X chromosomes as they become NANOG negative at the onset of differentiation. This is accompanied by the appearance of a repressive chromatin signature and partial X-linked gene silencing, suggesting a transient and rapid XCI-like state in male nPSCs. In the embryo, Xist is transiently expressed in males and in females from both X chromosomes at the onset of naive epiblast differentiation. In conclusion, we propose that XCI initiation is gender independent and triggered by destabilization of naive identity, suggesting that gender-specific mechanisms follow, rather than precede, XCI initiation.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations46
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell stem cellSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207