2015
DOI: 10.1016/bs.adgen.2015.06.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Getting Down to Specifics

Abstract: The majority of multicellular organisms are comprised of an extraordinary range of cell types, with different properties and gene expression profiles. Understanding what makes each cell type unique, and how their individual characteristics are attributed, are key questions for both developmental and neurobiologists alike. The brain is an excellent example of the cellular diversity expressed in the majority of eukaryotes. The mouse brain comprises of approximately 75 million neurons varying in morphology, elect… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 240 publications
(353 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Imaging studies have been used to demonstrate gross changes to chromatin structure, for example changes to the distribution of heterochromatin have been observed in post-mitotic cells ( Francastel et al, 2000 ; Le Gros et al, 2016 ). Molecular studies investigating chromatin states in vivo during development have tended to utilise heterogeneous tissues due to the fact that profiling the epigenome of individual cell types frequently requires physical isolation of cells or nuclei, which can be laborious and prone to human error ( McClure and Southall, 2015 ). Therefore, there is a lack of information regarding cell-type-specific changes to chromatin states in in vivo models.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Imaging studies have been used to demonstrate gross changes to chromatin structure, for example changes to the distribution of heterochromatin have been observed in post-mitotic cells ( Francastel et al, 2000 ; Le Gros et al, 2016 ). Molecular studies investigating chromatin states in vivo during development have tended to utilise heterogeneous tissues due to the fact that profiling the epigenome of individual cell types frequently requires physical isolation of cells or nuclei, which can be laborious and prone to human error ( McClure and Southall, 2015 ). Therefore, there is a lack of information regarding cell-type-specific changes to chromatin states in in vivo models.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because the fully developed heart contributes less than 1% of the nuclei to the embryo, so far these approaches have been performed with earlier stages when the cardiogenic mesoderm makes up a larger fraction of the embryo and better signal-to-noise ratios can be obtained ( Table 1 ). In future experiments, enrichment of heart cells or nuclei prior to immunoprecipitation may circumvent this limitation (e.g., BiTS-ChIP) [ 62 , 63 ]. In addition, methods employing inducible GFP fusion proteins have recently been developed that allow tissue specific ChIP-seq even for factors that are expressed in several different tissues (CAST-ChIP [ 64 ]).…”
Section: Genome-wide Searches For Binding Sites and Target Genes Omentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The antibody specificity may be insufficient, or it could block successive interactions between TFs, making it difficult to observe indirect interactions. DamID is largely limited by its resolution as the GATC motifs are required, although it does not require the use of antibodies and therefore has advantages over ChIP protocols [17]. Thus, the currently known TF-gene associations are incomplete due to the limitations of experimental techniques.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%