4.8 Article

Hyperactive FOXO1 results in lack of tip stalk identity and deficient microvascular regeneration during kidney injury

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 141, Issue -, Pages 314-329

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.07.010

Keywords

Vascular regeneration; VEGF; Angiogenesis; FOXO1; Microfluidics; Vascular rarefaction

Funding

  1. Biogen, Cambridge, MA
  2. National Institutes of Health [DK093493, DK094768]
  3. American Heart Association [12040023]
  4. Daiiko-Sanchyo to study as a visiting Scientist at the University of Washington

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Loss of the microvascular (MV) network results in tissue ischemia, loss of tissue function, and is a hallmark of chronic diseases. The incorporation of a functional vascular network with that of the host remains a challenge to utilizing engineered tissues in clinically relevant therapies. We showed that vascular-bed-specific endothelial cells (ECs) exhibit differing angiogenic capacities, with kidney micro vascular endothelial cells (MVECs) being the most deficient, and sought to explore the underlying mechanism. Constitutive activation of the phosphatase PTEN in kidney MVECs resulted in impaired Pl3K/AKT activity in response to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Suppression of PTEN in vivo resulted in microvascular regeneration, but was insufficient to improve tissue function. Promoter analysis of the differentially regulated genes in KMVECs suggests that the transcription factor FOXO1 is highly active and RNAseq analysis revealed that hyperactive FOXO1 inhibits VEGF-Notch-dependent tip-cell formation by direct and indirect inhibition of DLL4 expression in response to VEGF. Inhibition of FOXO1 enhanced angiogenesis in human bio-engineered capillaries, and resulted in microvascular regeneration and improved function in mouse models of injury-repair. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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