4.7 Article

Ensuring expression of four core cardiogenic transcription factors enhances cardiac reprogramming

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-42945-w

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Vanderbilt Institute of Chemical Biology
  2. Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center [P30 CA68485]
  3. Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Program [NIH K08 HL111420, NIH R03 HL140264]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies have shown that forced expression of core cardiogenic transcription factors can directly reprogram fibroblasts to induced cardiomyocyte-like cells (iCMs). This cardiac reprogramming approach suggests a potential strategy for cardiomyocyte regeneration. However, a major challenge of this approach remains the low conversion rate. Here, we showed that ensuring expression of four cardiogenic transcription factors (i.e. Gata4 (G), Hand2 (H), Mef2c (M), and Tbx5 (T)) in individual fibroblasts is an initial bottleneck for cardiac reprogramming. Following co-transduction of three or four retroviral vectors encoding individual cardiogenic transcription factors, only a minor subpopulation of cells indeed expressed all three (GMT) or four (GHMT) factors. By selectively analyzing subpopulations of cells expressing various combinations of reprogramming factors, we found that co-expression of GMT in individual fibroblasts is sufficient to induce sarcomeric proteins. However, only a small fraction of those cells expressing GMT were able to develop organized sarcomeric structures and contractility. In contrast, ensuring expression of GHMT markedly enhanced the development of contractile cardiac structures and functions in fibroblasts, although its incremental effect on sarcomeric protein induction was relatively small. Our findings provide new insights into the mechanistic basis of inefficient cardiac reprogramming and can help to devise efficient reprogramming strategies.

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