2016
DOI: 10.1038/nature19348
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Single-cell analysis of mixed-lineage states leading to a binary cell fate choice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

23
320
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 461 publications
(351 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
23
320
2
Order By: Relevance
“…“GMPs” were originally defined as LKS − CD34 + FcγR hi cells (Akashi et al, 2000). However, in addition to progenitors with dual granulocyte-monocyte potential (oligopotent or multi-lineage GMPs), this fraction contains granulocyte-committed progenitors (GPs) and monocyte-committed progenitors (MPs or cMoPs) (Akashi et al, 2000; Hettinger et al, 2013; Olsson et al, 2016; Yanez et al, 2015), which we recently reported can be separated on the basis of their expression of Ly6C and CD115 (GMPs are Ly6C − CD115 lo , GPs are Ly6C + CD115 lo , and MPs are Ly6C + CD115 hi (Yanez et al, 2015)). As expected, viSNE analysis confirmed the presence of subsets corresponding to GMPs, GPs and MPs/cMoPs in the LKS − CD34 + FcγR hi fraction of mouse bone marrow (Figure S1A–B).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…“GMPs” were originally defined as LKS − CD34 + FcγR hi cells (Akashi et al, 2000). However, in addition to progenitors with dual granulocyte-monocyte potential (oligopotent or multi-lineage GMPs), this fraction contains granulocyte-committed progenitors (GPs) and monocyte-committed progenitors (MPs or cMoPs) (Akashi et al, 2000; Hettinger et al, 2013; Olsson et al, 2016; Yanez et al, 2015), which we recently reported can be separated on the basis of their expression of Ly6C and CD115 (GMPs are Ly6C − CD115 lo , GPs are Ly6C + CD115 lo , and MPs are Ly6C + CD115 hi (Yanez et al, 2015)). As expected, viSNE analysis confirmed the presence of subsets corresponding to GMPs, GPs and MPs/cMoPs in the LKS − CD34 + FcγR hi fraction of mouse bone marrow (Figure S1A–B).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, recent studies have challenged hierarchical models of hematopoiesis and instead suggested that progenitors make lineage commitment decisions at an earlier stage than previously thought (Notta et al, 2016; Paul et al, 2015). A hybrid of these two scenarios is also possible, with some early progenitors losing multipotency and immediately adopting a particular fate, and others undergoing progressive lineage restriction under the control of competing transcriptional programs (Drissen et al, 2016; Olsson et al, 2016). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several recent reports have demonstrated the potential of single cell RNA-seq to provide new resolution of TF network architecture (Kolodziejczyk et al, 2015, Olsson et al, 2016, Scialdone et al, 2016). It is of course important to remember the experimental caveats.…”
Section: Recent Insights From Emerging Technologiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, mRNA levels do not always correspond to TF protein level (or activity). Second, single cell RNA-seq alone cannot distinguish indirect vs. direct TF interactions, although here, its combination with genetic deletion of specific TFs has yielded important resolution (Olsson et al, 2016, Scialdone et al, 2016). Third, current single cell RNA-seq approaches generally have lower sequencing coverage than bulk cell analyses, which may influence the transcript detection and/or observed intercellular heterogeneity.…”
Section: Recent Insights From Emerging Technologiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…43,56 Genome-wide analysis reveals that certain groups of genes are associated with distinct development stages and subsets of DCs. Dendritic cell commitment (e.g., MPP → CDP transition) is associated with down-regulation of genes (e.g., CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein alpha, GATA2, GFI1, and T-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia protein 1) that restrict hematopoietic cell differentiation from HSPCs 49,75,86 and up-regulation of CDP signature genes (e.g., E2F2 and HOXA1) associated with cell cycle. 56 Interestingly, pan-DC genes (e.g., FLT3, IRF5, SPIB, and STAT1), which are expressed in both cDCs and pDCs but expressed at low levels in MPP and CDP, are known to regulate the overall generation and immune response of DCs.…”
Section: Epigenetic Organization Of Hierarchical Tf Network In DC Prmentioning
confidence: 99%