↓ Skip to main content

Hippo Signaling Influences HNF4A and FOXA2 Enhancer Switching during Hepatocyte Differentiation

Overview of attention for article published in Cell Reports, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hippo Signaling Influences HNF4A and FOXA2 Enhancer Switching during Hepatocyte Differentiation
Published in
Cell Reports, October 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.08.046
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivia Alder, Rebecca Cullum, Sam Lee, Arohumam C. Kan, Wei, Yuyin Yi, Victoria C. Garside, Misha Bilenky, Malachi Griffith, A. Sorana Morrissy, Gordon A. Robertson, Nina Thiessen, Yongjun Zhao, Qian Chen, Duojia Pan, Steven J.M. Jones, Marco A. Marra, Pamela A. Hoodless

Abstract

Cell fate acquisition is heavily influenced by direct interactions between master regulators and tissue-specific enhancers. However, it remains unclear how lineage-specifying transcription factors, which are often expressed in both progenitor and mature cell populations, influence cell differentiation. Using in vivo mouse liver development as a model, we identified thousands of enhancers that are bound by the master regulators HNF4A and FOXA2 in a differentiation-dependent manner, subject to chromatin remodeling, and associated with differentially expressed target genes. Enhancers exclusively occupied in the embryo were found to be responsive to developmentally regulated TEAD2 and coactivator YAP1. Our data suggest that Hippo signaling may affect hepatocyte differentiation by influencing HNF4A and FOXA2 interactions with temporal enhancers. In summary, transcription factor-enhancer interactions are not only tissue specific but also differentiation dependent, which is an important consideration for researchers studying cancer biology or mammalian development and/or using transformed cell lines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
China 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Finland 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Hong Kong 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 72 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 34%
Researcher 21 26%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Computer Science 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 3 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2014.
All research outputs
#7,510,406
of 12,009,201 outputs
Outputs from Cell Reports
#4,820
of 5,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,645
of 213,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell Reports
#184
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,009,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,346 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 213,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.