E2Fs regulate adipocyte differentiation
Authors: Yolande Huss-Garcia
Rebecca L Landsberg
Johan Auwerx
Jacqueline A Lees
Claude Sardet
Lluis Fajas
Journal: Developmental Cell (2002)
Discipline: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
Keywords: preadipocytes; cell cycle; PPAR gamma; E2F family; transcription
Affiliations: Institut de Génétique et de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire, CNRS/INSERM/ULP, B.P. 163, F-67404 Illkirch cedex, C.U. de, Strasbourg, France.

Abstract:  When preadipocytes reenter the cell cycle, PPAR gamma expression is induced, coincident with an increase in DNA synthesis, suggesting the involvement of the E2F family of cell cycle regulators. We show here that E2F1 induces PPAR gamma transcription during clonal expansion, whereas E2F4 represses PPARg amma expression during terminal adipocyte differentiation. Using a combination of in vivo experiments with knockout and chimeric animals and in vitro experiments, we demonstrate that the absence of E2F1 impairs, whereas depletion of E2F4 stimulates, adipogenesis. E2Fs hence represent the link between proliferative signaling pathways, triggering clonal expansion, and terminal adipocyte differentiation through regulation of PPAR gamma expression. This underscores the complex role of the E2F protein family in the control of both cell proliferation and differentiation. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 A question for mathematicians. What level of overlap between independent publications is accepted? I imagine that the emphasis is on the steps of a proof rather than on the choice of words, and that there is a tolerance for the repetition of a passage when this is the most economical way of explaining a point. In the case that currently intrigues me, the authors both belong to the College of Mathematics and Information Science at the same university, so a degree of collaboration between them is to be expected, and of course  authorship is not such a big issue in maths With that in mind, I compare this paper with  Minimally thin sets associated with the stationary Schru00f6dinger operator [(Zhao 2014)] . Is the overlap excessive? ![file] On first glance, the main difference is that *[at left]* Zhao (2014) is responding to the contributions of Long-Gao-Deng (2012), crediting them for inspiration and for introducing seminal concepts , while *[at right]* Xue (2014) concurrently credits Zhao (2014) with those same contributions . ![file] The respective references being [5] Long, PH, Gao, ZQ, Deng, GT: Criteria of Wiener type for minimally thin sets and rarefied sets associated with the stationary Schru00f6dinger operator in a cone. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012, Article ID 453891 (2012) and [2] Zhao, T: Minimally thin sets at infinity with respect to the Schru00f6dinger operator. J. Inequal. Appl. 2014, Article ID 67 (2014) [the  8 in the text appears to be a misprint - Ref 8 is Long s 2012 dissertation]. Finally on page 5 the two papers diverge. Both report Theorem A, crediting it respectively to Long-Gao-Deng and to Long s dissertation. Then Zhao (2014) introduces Theorems 1 and 2. Xue (2014) reports these, labelled Theorems B and C to indicate that they are Zhao s contribution, before introducing an alternative construction for proving C. ![file] ,