4.8 Article

Functionally heterogeneous human satellite cells identified by single cell RNA sequencing

Journal

ELIFE
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELIFE SCIENCES PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.51576

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine New Faculty Physician Scientist Award [RN3-06504]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01AR072638-03, R56AR060868, R01AR076252]
  3. University of California, San Francisco UCSF PROF-PATH program via NIH [R25MD006832]
  4. University of California, San Francisco Research Allocation Program for trainees
  5. Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regeneration Medicine and Stem Cell Research Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although heterogeneity is recognized within the murine satellite cell pool, a comprehensive understanding of distinct subpopulations and their functional relevance in human satellite cells is lacking. We used a combination of single cell RNA sequencing and flow cytometry to identify, distinguish, and physically separate novel subpopulations of human PAX7+ satellite cells (Hu-MuSCs) from normal muscles. We found that, although relatively homogeneous compared to activated satellite cells and committed progenitors, the Hu-MuSC pool contains clusters of transcriptionally distinct cells with consistency across human individuals. New surface marker combinations were enriched in transcriptional subclusters, including a subpopulation of Hu-MuSCs marked by CXCR4/CD29/CD56/CAV1 (CAV1+). In vitro, CAV1+ Hu-MuSCs are morphologically distinct, and characterized by resistance to activation compared to CAV1- Hu-MuSCs. In vivo, CAV1 + Hu-MuSCs demonstrated increased engraftment after transplantation. Our findings provide a comprehensive transcriptional view of normal Hu-MuSCs and describe new heterogeneity, enabling separation of functionally distinct human satellite cell subpopulations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available