4.8 Article

The Human Cell Atlas

期刊

ELIFE
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELIFE SCIENCES PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.27041

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/B/000C0425] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Cancer Research UK [22231] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_UU_00008/3, MC_UU_12008/1, MR/N024907/1, MC_PC_15075, MC_PC_12009, G1100073] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0515-10005] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. NNF Center for Biosustainability [High Throughput Molecular Bioscienc] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF10CC1016517] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Wellcome Trust [100308/Z/12/Z, 109965/Z/15/Z] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. BBSRC [BBS/E/B/000C0425] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. MRC [MC_PC_15075, MC_UU_12008/1, G1100073, MC_UU_00008/3, MR/N024907/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent advent of methods for high-throughput single-cell molecular profiling has catalyzed a growing sense in the scientific community that the time is ripe to complete the 150-year-old effort to identify all cell types in the human body. The Human Cell Atlas Project is an international collaborative effort that aims to define all human cell types in terms of distinctive molecular profiles (such as gene expression profiles) and to connect this information with classical cellular descriptions (such as location and morphology). An open comprehensive reference map of the molecular state of cells in healthy human tissues would propel the systematic study of physiological states, developmental trajectories, regulatory circuitry and interactions of cells, and also provide a framework for understanding cellular dysregulation in human disease. Here we describe the idea, its potential utility, early proofs-of-concept, and some design considerations for the Human Cell Atlas, including a commitment to open data, code, and community.

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