4.6 Article

Wnt4 Enhances Murine Hematopoietic Progenitor Cell Expansion Through a Planar Cell Polarity-Like Pathway

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019279

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) [MOP42384]
  2. Terry Fox Foundation
  3. Canadian Center of Excellence in Commercialization and Research
  4. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  5. Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: While the role of canonical (beta-catenin-mediated) Wnt signaling in hematolymphopoiesis has been studied extensively, little is known of the potential importance of non-canonical Wnt signals in hematopoietic cells. Wnt4 is one of the Wnt proteins that can elicit non-canonical pathways. We have previously shown that retroviral overexpression of Wnt4 by hematopoietic cells increased thymic cellularity as well as the frequency of early thymic progenitors and bone marrow hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs). However, the molecular pathways responsible for its effect in HPCs are not known. Methodology/Principal Findings: Here we report that Wnt4 stimulation resulted in the activation of the small GTPase Rac1 as well as Jnk kinases in an HPC cell line. Jnk activity was necessary, while beta-catenin was dispensable, for the Wnt4-mediated expansion of primary fetal liver HPCs in culture. Furthermore, Jnk2-deficient and Wnt4 hemizygous mice presented lower numbers of HPCs in their bone marrow, and Jnk2-deficient HPCs showed increased rates of apoptosis. Wnt4 also improved HPC activity in a competitive reconstitution model in a cell-autonomous, Jnk2-dependent manner. Lastly, we identified Fz6 as a receptor for Wnt4 in immature HPCs and showed that the absence of Wnt4 led to a decreased expression of four polarity complex genes. Conclusions/Significance: Our results establish a functional role for non-canonical Wnt signaling in hematopoiesis through a pathway involving Wnt4, Fz6, Rac1 and Jnk kinases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据