4.4 Article

leptin b and its regeneration enhancer illustrate the regenerative features of zebrafish hearts

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL DYNAMICS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dvdy.556

关键词

enhancer; heart; injury; leptin; regeneration; zebrafish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By studying the heterogeneity of noncardiomyocytes in regenerating zebrafish hearts, we identified cellular types and factors involved in cardiac regeneration, revealing regenerative features of the heart.
BackgroundZebrafish possess a remarkable regenerative capacity, which is mediated by the induction of various genes upon injury. Injury-dependent transcription is governed by the tissue regeneration enhancer elements (TREEs). Here, we utilized leptin b (lepb), an injury-specific factor, and its TREE to dissect heterogeneity of noncardiomyocytes (CMs) in regenerating hearts. ResultsOur single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis demonstrated that the endothelium/endocardium(EC) is activated to induce distinct subpopulations upon injury. We demonstrated that lepb can be utilized as a regeneration-specific marker to subset injury-activated ECs. lepb(+) ECs robustly induce pro-regenerative factors, implicating lepb(+) ECs as a signaling center to interact with other cardiac cells. Our scRNA-seq analysis identified that lepb is also produced by subpopulation of epicardium (Epi) and epicardium-derived cells (EPDCs). To determine whether lepb labels injury-emerging non-CM cells, we tested the activity of lepb-linked regeneration enhancer (LEN) with chromatin accessibility profiles and transgenic lines. While nondetectable in uninjured hearts, LEN directs EC and Epi/EPDC expression upon injury. The endogenous LEN activity was assessed using LEN deletion lines, demonstrating that LEN deletion abolished injury-dependent expression of lepb, but not other nearby genes. ConclusionsOur integrative analyses identify regeneration-emerging cell-types and factors, leading to the discovery of regenerative features of hearts.

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

4.4
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