4.8 Article

The International Human Epigenome Consortium: A Blueprint for Scientific Collaboration and Discovery

期刊

CELL
卷 167, 期 5, 页码 1145-1149

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/B/0000C214] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Cancer Research UK [13031, 12796] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/N000838/1, G0800270, MR/M009033/1] Funding Source: Medline
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/B/000C0403, BBS/E/B/0000C214] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. British Heart Foundation [RG/08/014/24067, RG/13/13/30194] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Cancer Research UK [13031, 12796] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [MR/L003120/1, MR/M009033/1, G0800270, G1000801g, MR/N000838/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0512-10165] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Novo Nordisk Foundation Section for Basic Stem Cell Biology [Porse group, Helin group NNF] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. The Danish Cancer Society [R90-A5943] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. Korea Health Promotion Institute [2014-NI73002-00] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  12. BBSRC [BBS/E/B/000C0403] Funding Source: UKRI
  13. MRC [MR/M009033/1, MR/L003120/1, MR/N000838/1, G0800270] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The International Human Epigenome Consortium (IHEC) coordinates the generation of a catalog of high-resolution reference epigenomes of major primary human cell types. The studies now presented (see the Cell Press IHEC web portal at http://www.cell.com/consortium/IHEC) highlight the coordinated achievements of IHEC teams to gather and interpret comprehensive epigenomic datasets to gain insights in the epigenetic control of cell states relevant for human health and disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据