Brg is a core unit of BAF complex and is

Brg1 is a core unit of BAF complex and is required for the self-renewal and pluripotency of ESCs (Ho and Crabtree, 2010). We confirmed the interaction of DPF2 and BRG1 by immunoprecipitation and showed that these proteins extensively co-localize in the genome. Although both Brg1 and Dpf2 positively regulate Tbx3 expression in ESCs (Ho et al., 2011), Dpf2 did not affect the expression of Oct4, which is upregulated upon acute Solamargine weight of Brg1 (Bultman et al., 2000), indicating that Dpf2 mediates specific functions of the BAF complex during embryonic development. As a core factor of the BAF complex, Brg1 likely affects embryonic development by participating in various BAF complexes with different components (Ho and Crabtree, 2010, Panamarova et al., 2016). Consistent with this conclusion, loss of Dpf2 does not dramatically alter the genome-wide binding of BRG1. In summary, PRC2 and BAF complexes are important for the ESC differentiation and embryonic development (Ho and Crabtree, 2010). Our study uncovered unique mechanisms by which a specific BAF subunit and PRC2 subunits regulate genes important for the ESC differentiation.
STAR★Methods
Acknowledgments We thank A. Kartikasari for sharing the Tbx3 shRNA plasmid, Q. Wu for the Nanog shRNA plasmid, and H. Niwa for the pCAG-Tbx3-IN plasmid. We thank B.L. Ng for support with FACS; A. Kleger for valuable discussions; and W. Skarnes, A. Bradley, S. Teichmann, A. Bassett, and P. Tate for generous support of the work. This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31471389) and the Wellcome Trust. K.P. was supported by the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, the David Geffen School of Medicine, the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCLA, NIHP01 GM099134, and a faculty scholar grant from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), consisting of the combination of aspirin and a platelet P2Y inhibitor, is the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment aimed at preventing atherothrombotic complications in patients with a variety of coronary artery disease (CAD) manifestations . A patient with CAD may require DAPT in the context of myocardial revascularization (e.g., percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG], after an acute coronary syndrome [ACS]) (e.g., non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome [NSTE-ACS] or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI]), or for secondary prevention in high-risk clinical presentations (e.g., stable CAD in a patient with a history of myocardial infarction [MI]) , , . In each of these intersecting scenarios, decision-making of DAPT prescribers is confronted with a number of challenges leaf veins essentially include, but are not limited to, selecting the P2Y inhibitor and determining the optimal duration of DAPT with the scope of minimizing the risk of ischemic and bleeding complications in light of each patient’s clinical characteristic and circumstance . Clinical practice guidelines are written under the auspices of national or international societies, such as the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), to provide physicians with practical recommendations for the best management strategies of patients with given conditions. In both the United States and Europe, DAPT has for years been a subchapter or a brief mention in the guidelines for the management of patients presenting with NSTE-ACS, STEMI, or stable CAD, and those undergoing myocardial revascularization or noncardiac surgery. More recently, a guideline writing committee from the ACC/AHA and a task force from the ESC released their respective focused update recommendations on “Duration of DAPT in Patients with CAD” (ACC/AHA), published in 2016, and “DAPT in CAD” (ESC, in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery), published in 2017 , .