Maybe this should be 1 of the 5: Green Revolution --> the plant breeders who delivered shorter high yield cereals which I think was shown later to be mutants in the gibberellin signalling pathway. Our planet could probably not sustain 9 billion people without this.

A pipeline for single cells was published by our colleagues from RIKEN a while back on bioRxiv: www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
We have adapted the pipeline, but not yet published on it. I'd say that at this stage, it may be more useful to look at known enhancers rather than as a discovery tool.

OK; open chromatin does not necessarily equate activity. If you used 5' reagents for single cell RNA-Seq, you could check for enhancer-originated transcripts. For some enhancers, it's supposed to correlate with activity. Doesn't work with 3' scRNA-Seq.

Are you asking how to validate that the TF activity predictions are "wrong"? Or that the ATACSeq is "wrong"? I'd say the 1st thing to measure is whether protein is expressed (RNA expression does not necessarily equate protein). If there is little to no protein, TF activity prediction probably wrong.

Congratulations to Bart and Luke and thank you very much to all of our collaborators at the @scicambridge.bsky.social and beyond, as well as our funders, principally @wellcometrust.bsky.social

Congratulations to my friend Muzz; a brilliant scientist with unrivalled energy and determination ; and a great leader of people

Looks very interesting; left me wondering about the pros and cons of using a fusion protein with the TF itself; like an evolution of for example Dam-ID which lacks precision in terms of location but doesn’t require antibodies

Very good to have you join

Characterising stem cell biology as an offshoot of dev biol is neither helping the latter nor is it correct. In my field (blood stem cells) many of the pioneers came from a medicine or physics background (eg Till & McCulloch). I am not denying that there are overlaps btw.