4.7 Article

Ablation of a Single N-Glycosylation Site in Human FSTL 1 Induces Cardiomyocyte Proliferation and Cardiac Regeneration

Journal

MOLECULAR THERAPY-NUCLEIC ACIDS
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages 133-143

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.omtn.2018.08.021

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [R01 HL142768-01]
  2. NIH Shared Instrumentation Grant [S10OD021838]
  3. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL142768] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH [S10OD021838] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adult mammalian hearts have a very limited regeneration capacity, due largely to a lack of cardiomyocyte (CM) proliferation. It was recently reported that epicardial, but not myocardial, follistatin-like 1 (Fstl1) activates CM proliferation and cardiac regeneration after myocardial infarction (MI). Furthermore, bacterially synthesized human FSTL 1 (hFSTL1) was found to induce CM proliferation, whereas hFSTL1 synthesized in mammals did not, suggesting that post-translational modifications (e.g., glycosylation) of the hFSTL1 protein affect its regenerative activity. We used modified mRNA (modRNA) technology to investigate the possible role of specific hFSTL1 N-glycosylation sites in the induction, by hFSTL1, of CM proliferation and cardiac regeneration. We found that the mutation of a single site (N180Q) was sufficient and necessary to increase the proliferation of rat neonatal and mouse adult CMs in vitro and after MI in vivo, respectively. A single administration of the modRNA construct encoding the N180Q mutant significantly increased cardiac function, decreased scar size, and increased capillary density 28 days post-MI. Overall, our data suggest that the delivery of N180Q hFSTL1 modRNA to the myocardium can mimic the beneficial effect of epicardial hFSTL1, triggering marked CM proliferation and cardiac regeneration in a mouse MI model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available