↓ Skip to main content

Positive feedback between retinoic acid and 2-phospho-L-ascorbic acid trisodium salt during somatic cell reprogramming

Overview of attention for article published in Cell Regeneration, October 2020
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
Positive feedback between retinoic acid and 2-phospho-L-ascorbic acid trisodium salt during somatic cell reprogramming
Published in
Cell Regeneration, October 2020
DOI 10.1186/s13619-020-00057-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mengdan Zhang, Qian Li, Tingting Yang, Fei Meng, Xiaowei Lai, Lining Liang, Changpeng Li, Hao Sun, Jiaqi Sun, Hui Zheng

Abstract

Retinoic acid (RA) and 2-phospho-L-ascorbic acid trisodium salt (AscPNa) promote the reprogramming of mouse embryonic fibroblasts to induced pluripotent stem cells. In the current studies, the lower abilities of RA and AscPNa to promote reprogramming in the presence of each other suggested that they may share downstream pathways at least partially. The hypothesis was further supported by the RNA-seq analysis which demonstrated a high-level overlap between RA-activated and AscPNa activated genes during reprogramming. In addition, RA upregulated Glut1/3, facilitated the membrane transportation of dehydroascorbic acid, the oxidized form of L-ascorbic acid, and subsequently maintained intracellular L-ascorbic acid at higher level and for longer time. On the other hand, AscPNa facilitated the mesenchymal-epithelial transition during reprogramming, downregulated key mesenchymal transcriptional factors like Zeb1 and Twist1, subsequently suppressed the expression of Cyp26a1/b1 which mediates the metabolism of RA, and sustained the intracellular level of RA. Furthermore, the different abilities of RA and AscPNa to induce mesenchymal-epithelial transition, pluripotency, and neuronal differentiation explain their complex contribution to reprogramming when used individually or in combination. Therefore, the current studies identified a positive feedback between RA and AscPNa, or possibility between vitamin A and C, and further explored their contributions to reprogramming.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 17%
Other 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Unknown 3 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 17%
Unknown 3 50%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 May 2021.
All research outputs
#18,753,253
of 23,245,494 outputs
Outputs from Cell Regeneration
#115
of 158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,771
of 411,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell Regeneration
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,245,494 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 158 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 411,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.