4.8 Article

Endothelial cell cycle state determines propensity for arterial-venous fate

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-33324-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [T32 HL007224, T32 HL007284, R01 HL142650, R01 HL141256, R01 HL146056, UH3EB025765]
  2. AHA [19POST34400065]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Different endothelial cell cycle states provide distinct windows of opportunity for the molecular induction of arterial vs. venous fate during blood vessel development.
During blood vessel development, endothelial cells become specified toward arterial or venous fates. Chavkin et al find that distinct endothelial cell cycle states provide windows of opportunity for the molecular induction of arterial or venous fate. During blood vessel development, endothelial cells become specified toward arterial or venous fates to generate a circulatory network that provides nutrients and oxygen to, and removes metabolic waste from, all tissues. Arterial-venous specification occurs in conjunction with suppression of endothelial cell cycle progression; however, the mechanistic role of cell cycle state is unknown. Herein, using Cdh5-CreER(T2);R26FUCCI2aR reporter mice, we find that venous endothelial cells are enriched for the FUCCI-Negative state (early G1) and BMP signaling, while arterial endothelial cells are enriched for the FUCCI-Red state (late G1) and TGF-beta signaling. Furthermore, early G1 state is essential for BMP4-induced venous gene expression, whereas late G1 state is essential for TGF-beta 1-induced arterial gene expression. Pharmacologically induced cell cycle arrest prevents arterial-venous specification defects in mice with endothelial hyperproliferation. Collectively, our results show that distinct endothelial cell cycle states provide distinct windows of opportunity for the molecular induction of arterial vs. venous fate.

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