4.8 Article

Hippo pathway effector Yap promotes cardiac regeneration

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1313192110

关键词

cell cycle; cardiomyopathy; cardiac fibrosis

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HL-077439, HL-111665, HL093039, U01-HL-100401]
  2. American Heart Association-Jon Holden DeHaan Foundation [0970518N]
  3. Foundation Leducq Networks of Excellence
  4. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas
  5. Robert A. Welch Foundation [1-0025]
  6. American Heart Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The adult mammalian heart has limited potential for regeneration. Thus, after injury, cardiomyocytes are permanently lost, and contractility is diminished. In contrast, the neonatal heart can regenerate owing to sustained cardiomyocyte proliferation. Identification of critical regulators of cardiomyocyte proliferation and quiescence represents an important step toward potential regenerative therapies. Yes-associated protein (Yap), a transcriptional co-factor in the Hippo signaling pathway, promotes proliferation of embryonic cardiomyocytes by activating the insulin-like growth factor and Wnt signaling pathways. Here we report that mice bearing mutant alleles of Yap and its paralog WW domain containing transcription regulator 1 (Taz) exhibit gene dosage-dependent cardiac phenotypes, suggesting redundant roles of these Hippo pathway effectors in establishing proper myocyte number and maintaining cardiac function. Cardiac-specific deletion of Yap impedes neonatal heart regeneration, resulting in a default fibrotic response. Conversely, forced expression of a constitutively active form of Yap in the adult heart stimulates cardiac regeneration and improves contractility after myocardial infarction. The regenerative activity of Yap is correlated with its activation of embryonic and proliferative gene programs in cardiomyocytes. These findings identify Yap as an important regulator of cardiac regeneration and provide an experimental entry point to enhance this process.

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

4.8
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