MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166827871 · doi:10.3389/fcell.2021.647981

Characterization of DNA Methylomic Signatures in Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells During Neuronal Differentiation

2021· article· en· W3166827871 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jennifer Imm, Ehsan Pishva, Muhammad Ali, Talitha L. Kerrigan, Aaron R. Jeffries, Joe Burrage, Enrico Glaab, Emma L. Cope, Kimberley Jones, Nicholas D. Allen, Katie Lunnon

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilW. Garfield Weston FoundationZonMwAlzheimer's SocietyGarfield Weston FoundationEU Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease Research
KeywordsInduced pluripotent stem cellCellular differentiationStem cellBiologyEmbryonic stem cellCell biologyDNA methylationNeuroscienceGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In development, differentiation from a pluripotent state results in global epigenetic changes, although the extent to which this occurs in induced pluripotent stem cell-based neuronal models has not been extensively characterized. In the present study, induced pluripotent stem cell colonies (33Qn1 line) were differentiated and collected at four time-points, with DNA methylation assessed using the Illumina Infinium Human Methylation EPIC BeadChip array. Dynamic changes in DNA methylation occurring during differentiation were investigated using a data-driven trajectory inference method. We identified a large number of Bonferroni-significant loci that showed progressive alterations in DNA methylation during neuronal differentiation. A gene–gene interaction network analysis identified 60 densely connected genes that were influential in the differentiation of neurons, with STAT3 being the gene with the highest connectivity.

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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cell and Developmental BiologySame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207