Peer Review Report For: Inferring and simulating a gene regulatory network for the sympathoadrenal differentiation from single-cell transcriptomics in human. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]
Rattachement africain : fr, us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background Neuroblastoma is a malignant childhood cancer with significant inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity arising from the abnormal differentiation of neural crest cells into sympathetic neurons. The lack of actionable mutations limits therapeutic options, highlighting the need to better understand the molecular mechanisms that drive this differentiation. Although RNA velocity has provided some insights, modeling regulatory relationships is limited. Methods To address this, we applied our integrated gene regulatory network (GRNs) inference (CARDAMOM) and simulation (HARISSA) tools using a published single-cell RNAseq dataset from human sympathoadrenal differentiation. Results Our analysis identified a 97-gene GRN that drives the transition from Schwann cell precursors to chromaffin cells and sympathoblasts, highlighting dynamic interactions such as self-reinforcing loops and toggle switches. The simulation of that GRN was able to reproduce very satisfactorily the experimentally observed gene expression distributions. Conclusions Altogether, these findings demonstrate the utility of our GRN model framework for inferring GRN structure, even in the absence of a time-resolved dataset.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Peer Review Report For: Inferring and simulating a gene regulatory network for the sympathoadrenal differentiation from single-cell transcriptomics in human. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]
- Date Crossref
- 23/06/2026
- Éditeur
- F1000 Research Ltd
- Type
- peer-review
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.