↓ Skip to main content

Hippo Signaling Influences HNF4A and FOXA2 Enhancer Switching during Hepatocyte Differentiation

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
66 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, September 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.08.046
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alder O, Cullum R, Lee S, Kan AC, Wei W, Yi Y, Garside VC, Bilenky M, Griffith M, Morrissy AS, Robertson GA, Thiessen N, Zhao Y, Chen Q, Pan D, Jones SJ, Marra MA, Hoodless PA

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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Germany 1 2%
Finland 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
China 1 2%
Hong Kong 1 2%
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 58 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 41%
Researcher 20 30%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 17%
Computer Science 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 2 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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
#1,983,680
of 4,507,652 outputs
Outputs from Cell Reports
#1,506
of 2,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,353
of 119,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell Reports
#69
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,652 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 119,734 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.