![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2008, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Tcf3 is an integral component of the core regulatory circuitry of embryonic stem cells 1 Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, USA; 2 Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA 3These authors contributed equally to this work. 4Corresponding author.E-MAIL young/at/wi.mit.edu; FAX (617) 258-9872. Received December 12, 2007; Accepted January 18, 2008. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Embryonic stem (ES) cells have a unique regulatory circuitry, largely controlled by the transcription factors Oct4, Sox2, and Nanog, which generates a gene expression program necessary for pluripotency and self-renewal. How external signals connect to this regulatory circuitry to influence ES cell fate is not known. We report here that a terminal component of the canonical Wnt pathway in ES cells, the transcription factor T-cell factor-3 (Tcf3), co-occupies promoters throughout the genome in association with the pluripotency regulators Oct4 and Nanog. Thus, Tcf3 is an integral component of the core regulatory circuitry of ES cells, which includes an autoregulatory loop involving the pluripotency regulators. Both Tcf3 depletion and Wnt pathway activation cause increased expression of Oct4, Nanog, and other pluripotency factors and produce ES cells that are refractory to differentiation. Our results suggest that the Wnt pathway, through Tcf3, brings developmental signals directly to the core regulatory circuitry of ES cells to influence the balance between pluripotency and differentiation. [Keywords: Wnt pathway, embryonic stem cells, Tcf3, regulatory circuitry] Embryonic stem (ES) cells provide a unique opportunity to study early development and hold great promise for regenerative medicine (Thomson et al. 1998; Reubinoff et al. 2000; Pera and Trounson 2004). ES cells are derived from the inner cell mass of the developing blastocyst, and can be propagated in culture in an undifferentiated state while maintaining the capacity to generate any cell type in the body. Discovering how signaling pathways and transcriptional regulatory circuitry contribute to self-renewal and pluripotency is essential for understanding early development and realizing the therapeutic potential of ES cells. A model for the core transcriptional regulatory circuitry of ES cells has emerged from studying the target genes of the ES cell transcription factors Oct4, Sox2, and Nanog (Boyer et al. 2005; Loh et al. 2006). These master regulators occupy the promoters of active genes encoding transcription factors, signal transduction components, and chromatin-modifying enzymes that promote ES cell self-renewal. They also occupy the promoters of a large set of developmental transcription factors that are silent in ES cells, but whose expression is associated with lineage commitment and cellular differentiation. Polycomb Repressive Complexes co-occupy the genes encoding these developmental transcription factors to help maintain a silent transcriptional state in ES cells (Boyer et al. 2006; Lee et al. 2006; Wilkinson et al. 2006; Rajasekhar and Begemann 2007; Stock et al. 2007). External signals can promote ES cell pluripotency or cause these cells to differentiate, but precisely how these pathways are connected to the ES cell regulatory network has not been determined. These signals are produced by the stem cell niche in the developing blastocyst or, for cultured ES cells, can be produced by added factors or serum to maintain stem cell identity or promote differentiation. Recent studies have demonstrated the importance of several signaling pathways in maintaining or modifying ES cell state, including the Activin/Nodal, Notch, BMP4, and Wnt pathways (Rao 2004; Boiani and Scholer 2005; Friel et al. 2005; Kristensen et al. 2005; Valdimarsdottir and Mummery 2005; Dreesen and Brivanlou 2007; Pan and Thomson 2007). By understanding how these signaling pathways influence the gene expression program of ES cells, it should be possible to discover how they contribute to ES cell identity or promote specific differentiation programs. The Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway has multiple roles in ES cell biology, development, and disease (Logan and Nusse 2004; Reya and Clevers 2005; Clevers 2006). Several studies have shown that activation of the Wnt pathway can cause ES cells to remain pluripotent under conditions that induce differentiation (Kielman et al. 2002; Sato et al. 2004; Hao et al. 2006; Ogawa et al. 2006; Singla et al. 2006; Miyabayashi et al. 2007; Takao et al. 2007), while other studies have shown that the Wnt pathway has an important role in directing differentiation of ES cells (Otero et al. 2004; Lindsley et al. 2006). Recent studies have shown that T-Cell Factor-3 (Tcf3), a terminal component of the Wnt pathway, acts to repress the Nanog gene in ES cells (Pereira et al. 2006), providing an important clue for at least one mechanism by which the Wnt pathway regulates stem cell state. Nonetheless, we have an incomplete understanding of how the pathway exerts its effects, in part because few target genes have been identified for its terminal components in ES cells. Stimulation of the canonical Wnt signaling pathway causes the transcriptional coactivator β-catenin to translocate to the nucleus, where it interacts with constitutively DNA-bound Tcf/Lef proteins to activate target genes (Behrens et al. 1996; Brantjes et al. 2001; Cadigan 2002). Tcf3, a member of the Tcf/Lef family, is highly expressed in murine ES (mES) cells, and is critical for early embryonic development (Korinek et al. 1998; Merrill et al. 2004; Pereira et al. 2006). To determine how the Wnt pathway is connected to the gene expression program of ES cells, we determined the genome-wide binding profile of Tcf3 and examined how perturbations of the pathway affect the gene expression program. Remarkably, the genome-wide data reveal that Tcf3 co-occupies the ES cell genome with the pluripotency transcription factors Oct4 and Nanog. These and other results reveal that the Wnt pathway brings developmental signals directly to the core regulatory circuitry of ES cells, which consists of the pluripotency transcription factors and Tcf3, together with their mutual target genes. Results Identification of Tcf3-binding sites genome-wide To determine how the Wnt pathway regulates the gene expression program of mES cells, we first identified genes occupied by Tcf3. mES cells were grown under standard conditions (Supplemental Fig. S1) and DNA sequences occupied by Tcf3 were identified using chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) combined with DNA microarrays (ChIP–Chip). For this purpose, DNA microarrays were designed with 60-mer oligonucleotide probes tiling the entire nonrepeat portion of the mouse genome. The results revealed that Tcf3 occupies >1000 murine promoters (Supplemental Table S1), including those of the known Wnt targets Axin2 and Myc (Fig. 1A
Tcf3 Co-occupies the genome with ES cell master regulators Inspection of the genes occupied by Tcf3 revealed a large set that were previously shown to be bound by the homeodomain transcription factor Oct4 (Boyer et al. 2005; Loh et al. 2006), which is an essential regulator of early development and ES cell identity (Nichols et al. 1998; Hay et al. 2004). To examine the overlap of gene targets more precisely, we carried out ChIP–Chip experiments with antibodies directed against Oct4 in mES cells and used the same genome-wide microarray platform employed in the Tcf3 experiment. Remarkably, the binding profiles of Tcf3 and Oct4 revealed that they bind the same genomic regions and display identical spatial distribution patterns with regard to transcription start sites (TSSes) (Fig. 1B Previous studies in human ES cells have shown that Oct4 shares target genes with the transcription factors Nanog and Sox2 (Boyer et al. 2005), suggesting that Tcf3-occupied genes in mES cells should also be occupied by Nanog and Sox2. Additional genome-wide ChIP–Chip experiments with antibodies directed against Nanog revealed that it does indeed bind the same sites occupied by Oct4 and Tcf3 (Figs. 1B,C
The observation that Tcf3 co-occupies much of the genome with the ES cell pluripotency transcription factors has a number of implications for the regulatory circuitry of these cells. Tcf3 binds its own promoter as well as the promoters of genes encoding Oct4, Sox2, and Nanog (Fig. 2
A model for the core regulatory circuitry of ES cells has been proposed in which the genes bound by the master regulators Oct4, Sox2, and Nanog fall into two classes: transcriptionally active genes encoding transcription factors, signaling components, and other products that support the stem cell state; and transcriptionally inactive genes, consisting mostly of developmental regulators, where Polycomb is bound and RNA polymerase II is recruited, but transcription is stalled (Boyer et al. 2005, 2006; Lee et al. 2006; Guenther et al. 2007; Stock et al. 2007; Zeitlinger et al. 2007). Our results reveal that Tcf3, together with the pluripotency regulators, is associated with both classes of genes, and thus provide a modified model of the core regulatory circuitry of ES cells (Fig. 3B Expression analysis of Tcf3 knockdown in mES cells Genes bound by Tcf/Lef proteins are thought to be repressed in the absence of Wnt/β-catenin signaling and to be activated upon Wnt pathway stimulation (Behrens et al. 1996; Cavallo et al. 1998; Brantjes et al. 2001; Daniels and Weiss 2005; Miyabayashi et al. 2007). mES cells have low endogenous Wnt activity in standard culture conditions, and the Wnt pathway can be further stimulated in culture (Supplemental Fig. S4; Dravid et al. 2005; Yamaguchi et al. 2005; Lindsley et al. 2006; Ogawa et al. 2006; Anton et al. 2007; Takao et al. 2007). Thus, it is unclear whether Tcf3-occupied genes are being repressed or activated at the low level of Wnt activity characteristic of standard ES cell culture conditions. To investigate whether the effect of Tcf3 occupancy is to repress or to activate genes, RNAi constructs were used to deplete Tcf3 mRNA in mES cells in two independent experiments (Supplemental Fig. S5) and changes in global mRNA levels were assayed with DNA microarrays (Fig. 4A
While expression of Tcf3 target genes was often up-regulated upon loss of Tcf3, the expression of a substantial number of Tcf3-bound genes remained unchanged, and a relatively small number of Tcf3-bound genes showed reduced expression (Fig. 4A Expression analysis of Wnt pathway activation in mES cells We next studied the effect of increased stimulation of the Wnt pathway on Tcf3 target genes in mES cells. Cells were treated with Wnt3a conditioned media in (CM) two independent experiments, and changes in global mRNA levels were assayed with DNA microarrays (Fig. 4B Influence of Tcf3 and Wnt on pluripotency regulators and ES cell state Evidence that Tcf3 is an integral component of the core transcriptional circuitry of ES cells that functions to partially repress transcription of pluripotency genes led us to examine whether Tcf3 knockdown enhances features of ES cells associated with pluripotency and self-renewal. Quantitative real-time PCR analysis demonstrated that Tcf3 knockdown in mES cells results in higher transcript levels for the pluripotency genes Oct4, Sox2, and Nanog (Fig. 4C We next measured the levels of Oct4 and Nanog proteins in ES cells subjected to Tcf3 knockdown. The results of immunofluorescence experiments show that there are substantial increases in the levels of Oct4 and Nanog transcription factors in the nucleus of such cells (Fig. 4D Discussion It is fundamentally important to determine how signaling pathways control ES cell pluripotency and differentiation, and how these pathways connect to discrete sets of target genes to affect such states. We found that a terminal component of the Wnt signaling pathway, the transcription factor Tcf3, is physically associated with the same genomic sites as the pluripotency regulators Oct4 and Nanog in mES cells. This result reveals that the Wnt pathway is physically connected to the core regulatory circuitry of these cells. This core circuitry consists of two key features: an interconnected autoregulatory loop, and the set of target genes that are mutually bound by the pluripotency transcription factors and Tcf3. The genome-wide data sets we report here enhance our knowledge of the targets of Oct4, Nanog, and Tcf3. These new data sets were generated using the same protocols and genome-wide tiling microarrays in ES cells grown under identical conditions, allowing more reliable conclusions about the overlap of these factors throughout the genome; previous data sets for these factors came from different mES cells grown in different settings, using different ChIP analysis platforms, and these data were not always genome-wide (Boyer et al. 2005, 2006; Loh et al. 2006). The new data reveal, for example, the remarkable extent to which Oct4 and Nanog binding overlap throughout the ES cell genome and the striking association of Tcf3 with those sites (Fig. 1B The revised model of core regulatory circuitry extends our knowledge of how extracellular signals from the Wnt pathway contribute to stem cell state. Pereira et al. (2006) demonstrated that Tcf3 binds the Nanog promoter and represses its mRNA expression in mES cells. Our data confirm Tcf3 binding and function at Nanog and extend our knowledge of Tcf3 targets to the other well-characterized pluripotency regulators Oct4 and Sox2, as well as most of their target genes. Pereira et al. (2006) proposed a model wherein Tcf3-mediated control of Nanog levels allows stem cells to balance the creation of lineage-committed and undifferentiated cells. Our results also support this model, but argue that Tcf3 contributes to the balance through its functions in the core regulatory circuitry described here. Our results suggest that the Wnt pathway, through Tcf3, influences the balance between pluripotency and differentiation in ES cells, as modeled in Figure 5.
Materials and methods mES cell culture conditions V6.5 mES cells were grown on irradiated murine embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) unless otherwise stated. Cells were grown under mES cell conditions as described previously in Boyer et al. (2005). Briefly, cells were grown on 0.2% gelatinized tissue culture plates in DMEM-KO (Invitrogen, 10829-018) supplemented with 15% fetal bovine serum (Hyclone, characterized SH3007103), 1000 U/mL LIF (ESGRO, ESG1106), 100 μM nonessential amino acids (Invitrogen, 11140-050), 2 mM L-glutamine (Invitrogen, 25030-081), 100 U/mL pennicillin, 100 μg/mL streptomycin (Invitrogen, 15140-122), and 8 nL/mL 2-mercaptoethanol (Sigma, M7522). Genome-wide location analysis ChIP protocol Protocols describing ChIP methods were downloaded from http://jura.wi.mit.edu/young_public/hESregulation/ChIP.html with slight modifications. Briefly, 108 mES cells were grown for one passage off of feeders and then cross-linked using formaldehyde. Cells were resuspended, lysed in lysis buffer, and sonicated to solubilize and sheer cross-linked DNA. Triton X-100 and SDS were added to the lysate after sonication to final concentrations of 1% and 0.1%, respectively. The resulting whole-cell extract was incubated overnight at 4°C with 100 μL of Dynal Protein G magnetic beads that had been preincubated with 10 μg of the appropriate antibody overnight. After 16–18 h, beads were washed with the following four buffers for 4 min per buffer: low-salt buffer (20 mM Tris at pH 8.1, 150 mM NaCl, 2 mM EDTA, 1% Triton X-100, 0.1% SDS), high-salt buffer (20 mM Tris at pH 8.1, 500 mM NaCl, 2 mM EDTA, 1% Triton X-100, 0.1% SDS), LiCl buffer (10 mM Tris at pH 8.1, 250 mM LiCl, 1 mM EDTA, 1% deoxycholate, 1% NP-40), and TE+ 50 mM NaCl. Bound complexes were eluted from the beads in elution buffer by heating at 65°C with occasional vortexing, and cross-links were reversed by overnight incubation at 65°C. ChIP antibodies Cell extracts were immunoprecipitated using antibodies against Tcf3 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, sc-8635), Oct4 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, sc-8628), or Nanog (Bethyl Laboratories, bl1662). Array design The murine 244k whole-genome array was purchased from Agilent Technology (http://www.agilent.com). The array consists of 25 slides each containing ~244,000 60-mer oligos (slide ID 15310-3, 15317, 15319-21, 15323, 15325, 15327-30, 15332-7, 15339-41, and 15343-44) covering the entire nonrepeat portion of the mouse genome at a density of about one oligo per 250 base pairs (bp). Data normalization and analysis Data normalization and analyses were performed as described previously in Boyer et al. (2005). Tcf3 knockdown Lentiviral production Lentivirus was produced according to Open Biosystems Trans-lentiviral shRNA Packaging System (TLP4614). The shRNA constructs targeting murine Tcf3 were designed using an siRNA rules-based algorithm consisting of sequence, specificity, and position scoring for optimal hairpins that consist of a 21-base stem and a 6-base loop (RMM4534-NM-009332). Five hairpin constructs were used to produce virus targeting Tcf3. A negative control virus was made from the pLKO.1 empty vector (RHS4080). Lentiviral infection of mES cells V6.5 mES cells were plated at ~30% confluence on the day of infection. Cells were seeded in 2× mES media with 6 μg/mL polybrene (Sigma, H9268-10G) and Tcf3 knockdown or control (pLKO.1) virus was immediately added. After 24 h, infection media was removed and replaced with mES media with 2 μg/mL Puromycin (Sigma, P8833). RNA was harvested at 48 h after infection. Knockdown efficiency Knockdown efficiency was measured using real-time PCR to measure levels of Tcf3 mRNA (Supplemental Fig. S5). RNA isolation, real-time PCR, and analysis of transcript levels To determine transcript levels by RT–PCR, RNA was isolated from ~106 to 107 mES cells using TRIzol reagent following the protocol for cells grown in monolayer (Invitrogen, 15596-026). Samples were treated with DNase I (Invitrogen, 18068-015) and cDNA was prepared using SuperScript III RT kit (Invitrogen, 180808-051) using oligo dT primed first-strand synthesis. Real-time PCR was carried out on the 7000 ABI Detection System using TaqMan probes for the housekeeping gene Gapdh (Applied Biosystems, Mm99999915_g1) as a control and genes of interest (Applied Biosystems: Tcf3, Mm00493456_m1; Oct4, Mm00658129_gH; Sox2, Mm00488369_s1; Nanog, Mm02384862_g1). Expression arrays Genomic expression analysis was measured using Agilent Whole-Mouse Genome Microarrays (Agilent, G4122F). Two micrograms of RNA were labeled for each sample using the Two-color Low RNA Input Linear Amplification Kit PLUS (Agilent, 5188-5340). RNA from the treated sample (either Tcf3 KD cells or cells treated with Wnt3a CM) were labeled with Cy5, and RNA from control cells (infected with empty vector virus or a mock CM control, respectively) were labeled with Cy3. Labeled cRNA was hybridized overnight at 65°C. Slides were washed according to the Agilent protocol and scanned on an Agilent DNA microarray scanner BA. Data were analyzed using Agilent Feature Extraction version 9.5.3 with default settings recommended by Agilent. Flagged and low-intensity spots were then removed and spots representing a single gene were averaged. Wnt pathway activation Wnt pathway activity in mES cells was stimulated using Wnt3a CM (American Type Culture Collection [ATCC], CRL-2647) and mock CM (ATCC, CRL-2648) was used as a control. Preparation of CM was performed as per protocol provided with the cells. CM was diluted with mES media at a ratio of 1:1. Immunohistochemical analysis Mouse ES cells were cross-linked for 10 min at room temperature with 4% paraformaldehyde. Cells were permeabilized with 0.2% Triton X-100 for 10 min and stained for Oct4 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, sc-5279; 1:200 dilution), Nanog (Abcam, ab1603; 1:250 dilution), and DAPI Nucleic Acid Stain (Invitrogen D1306; 1:10000 dilution) overnight at 4°C. After several washes, cells were incubated for 2 h at room temperature with goat anti-mouse-conjugated Alexa Fluor 488 (Invitrogen; 1:200 dilution) or goat anti-rabbit-conjugated Alexa Fluor 568 (Invitrogen; 1:200 dilution). Quantitative image acquisition and data analysis Image acquisition and data analysis were performed essentially as described in Moffat et al. (2006). Five days post-infection, cells were fixed and stained with Oct4 and Hoechst 33342 (1:1000 dilution). Stained cells were imaged on an Arrayscan HCS Reader (Cellomics) using the standard acquisition camera mode (10× objective, nine fields). Hoechst was used as the focus channel and intrawell focusing was done every three fields. The Apotome feature was applied to acquire all images. Objects selected for analysis were identified based on the Hoechst staining intensity using the Target Activation Protocol and the Isodata Threshold method. Parameters were established requiring that individual objects pass an intensity and size threshold. The Object Segmentation Assay Parameter was adjusted for maximal resolution. Following object selection, the average Oct4 intensity was determined and then a mean value for each well was calculated. All wells used for subsequent analysis contained at least 5000 selected objects. Accession numbers All microarray data from this study are available at ArrayExpress at the EBI (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/arrayexpress) under the accession designation E-TABM-409. Acknowledgments We thank Stuart Levine, Alex Marson, Martin Aryee, and Sumeet Gupta for experimental and analytical support; Warren Whyte for the Gfp lentivirus vector; Roshan Kumar for knockdown and microarray advice; Jennifer Love for microarray advice; Laurie Boyer and Mathias Pawlak for cell culture advice; and Tony Lee, Scott McCuine, Brett Chevalier, and Rudolph Jaenisch for helpful discussions. Images for immunofluorescence were collected using the W.M. Keck Foundation Biological Imagining Facility at the Whitehead Institute and Whitehead-MIT Bioimaging Center. The SSEA-1 monoclonal antibody developed by D. Solter and B.B. Knowles was obtained from the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank, developed under the auspices of the NICGH, and maintained by the University of Iowa, Department of Biological Sciences, Iowa City, IA. This work was supported by grants from the NIH and The Whitehead Institute. S.J. was supported by an NSF Predoctoral Training Fellowship, and M.K. was supported by an NIH NIGMS Post-doctural Fellowship. Footnotes Supplemental material is available at http://www.genesdev.org. Article is online at http://www.genesdev.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gad.1642408. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||
Science. 1998 Nov 6; 282(5391):1145-7.
[Science. 1998]Nat Biotechnol. 2000 Apr; 18(4):399-404.
[Nat Biotechnol. 2000]Development. 2004 Nov; 131(22):5515-25.
[Development. 2004]Cell. 2005 Sep 23; 122(6):947-56.
[Cell. 2005]Nat Genet. 2006 Apr; 38(4):431-40.
[Nat Genet. 2006]Nature. 2006 May 18; 441(7091):349-53.
[Nature. 2006]Cell. 2006 Apr 21; 125(2):301-13.
[Cell. 2006]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Dec 19; 103(51):19296-301.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006]Dev Biol. 2004 Nov 15; 275(2):269-86.
[Dev Biol. 2004]Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2005 Nov; 6(11):872-84.
[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2005]Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2005 Dec 12; 57(13):1894-903.
[Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2005]APMIS. 2005 Nov-Dec; 113(11-12):756-72.
[APMIS. 2005]APMIS. 2005 Nov-Dec; 113(11-12):773-89.
[APMIS. 2005]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2004; 20():781-810.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2004]Nature. 2005 Apr 14; 434(7035):843-50.
[Nature. 2005]Cell. 2006 Nov 3; 127(3):469-80.
[Cell. 2006]Nat Genet. 2002 Dec; 32(4):594-605.
[Nat Genet. 2002]Nat Med. 2004 Jan; 10(1):55-63.
[Nat Med. 2004]Nature. 1996 Aug 15; 382(6592):638-42.
[Nature. 1996]Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Apr 1; 29(7):1410-9.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2001]Trends Genet. 2002 Jul; 18(7):340-2.
[Trends Genet. 2002]Mol Cell Biol. 1998 Mar; 18(3):1248-56.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1998]Development. 2004 Jan; 131(2):263-74.
[Development. 2004]Science. 1998 Sep 4; 281(5382):1509-12.
[Science. 1998]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Dec 18; 98(26):14973-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001]Mol Cell Biol. 2002 Feb; 22(4):1172-83.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2002]Cell. 2005 Sep 23; 122(6):947-56.
[Cell. 2005]Nat Genet. 2006 Apr; 38(4):431-40.
[Nat Genet. 2006]Cell. 1998 Oct 30; 95(3):379-91.
[Cell. 1998]Stem Cells. 2004; 22(2):225-35.
[Stem Cells. 2004]Cell. 2005 Sep 23; 122(6):947-56.
[Cell. 2005]J Cell Physiol. 2001 Mar; 186(3):315-28.
[J Cell Physiol. 2001]J Biol Chem. 2005 Feb 18; 280(7):5307-17.
[J Biol Chem. 2005]Cell. 2005 Sep 23; 122(6):947-56.
[Cell. 2005]Cell. 2003 May 30; 113(5):643-55.
[Cell. 2003]Science. 2004 Feb 27; 303(5662):1378-81.
[Science. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2005 Feb 18; 280(7):5307-17.
[J Biol Chem. 2005]J Biol Chem. 2005 Jul 1; 280(26):24731-7.
[J Biol Chem. 2005]Cell. 2005 Sep 23; 122(6):947-56.
[Cell. 2005]Nature. 2006 May 18; 441(7091):349-53.
[Nature. 2006]Cell. 2007 Jul 13; 130(1):77-88.
[Cell. 2007]Nat Cell Biol. 2007 Dec; 9(12):1428-35.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2007]Cell. 2005 Sep 23; 122(6):947-56.
[Cell. 2005]Nature. 2006 May 18; 441(7091):349-53.
[Nature. 2006]Cell. 2006 Apr 21; 125(2):301-13.
[Cell. 2006]Cell. 2007 Jul 13; 130(1):77-88.
[Cell. 2007]Nat Cell Biol. 2007 Dec; 9(12):1428-35.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2007]Nature. 1996 Aug 15; 382(6592):638-42.
[Nature. 1996]Nature. 1998 Oct 8; 395(6702):604-8.
[Nature. 1998]Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Apr 1; 29(7):1410-9.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2001]Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2005 Apr; 12(4):364-71.
[Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2005]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 27; 104(13):5668-73.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]Nature. 2006 May 18; 441(7091):349-53.
[Nature. 2006]Cell. 2006 Apr 21; 125(2):301-13.
[Cell. 2006]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Dec 19; 103(51):19296-301.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006]Stem Cells. 2007 Oct; 25(10):2498-510.
[Stem Cells. 2007]Nat Cell Biol. 2007 Dec; 9(12):1428-35.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2007]Stem Cell Rev. 2007 Jan; 3(1):39-48.
[Stem Cell Rev. 2007]Nature. 2000 Oct 19; 407(6806):913-6.
[Nature. 2000]Genes Dev. 2001 Jul 1; 15(13):1688-705.
[Genes Dev. 2001]Curr Biol. 2002 Nov 19; 12(22):1941-5.
[Curr Biol. 2002]Mol Cell Biol. 2006 Oct; 26(20):7479-91.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2006]Mol Cell Biol. 2006 Oct; 26(20):7479-91.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2006]Mol Cell Biol. 2006 Oct; 26(20):7479-91.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2006]Nat Med. 2004 Jan; 10(1):55-63.
[Nat Med. 2004]Dev Biol. 2006 Feb 1; 290(1):81-91.
[Dev Biol. 2006]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2006 Jun 30; 345(2):789-95.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2006]Cell. 2005 Sep 23; 122(6):947-56.
[Cell. 2005]Nature. 2006 May 18; 441(7091):349-53.
[Nature. 2006]Nat Genet. 2006 Apr; 38(4):431-40.
[Nat Genet. 2006]Mol Cell Biol. 2006 Oct; 26(20):7479-91.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2006]Nature. 2005 Apr 14; 434(7035):843-50.
[Nature. 2005]Stem Cells. 2005 Nov-Dec; 23(10):1489-501.
[Stem Cells. 2005]Dev Dyn. 2005 Jun; 233(2):484-95.
[Dev Dyn. 2005]Development. 2006 Oct; 133(19):3787-96.
[Development. 2006]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2006 Apr 28; 343(1):159-66.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2006]Cell. 2005 Sep 23; 122(6):947-56.
[Cell. 2005]Cell. 2005 Sep 23; 122(6):947-56.
[Cell. 2005]Cell. 2006 Mar 24; 124(6):1283-98.
[Cell. 2006]