4.8 Article

Endothelial deletion of PTBP1 disrupts ventricular chamber development

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-37409-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During heart development, the alternative splicing factor PTBP1 is involved in the regulation of ventricular chamber morphogenesis. The deletion of Ptbp1 reduces endothelial cell migration, disrupts cardiomyocyte proliferation, and ultimately leads to left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC). This study reveals the essential role of PTBP1 in ventricular chamber development.
The growth and maturation of the ventricular chamber require spatiotemporally precise synergy between diverse cell types. Alternative splicing deeply affects the processes. However, the functional properties of alternative splicing in cardiac development are largely unknown. Our study reveals that an alternative splicing factor polypyrimidine tract-binding protein 1 (PTBP1) plays a key role in ventricular chamber morphogenesis. During heart development, PTBP1 colocalizes with endothelial cells but is almost undetectable in cardiomyocytes. The endothelial-specific knockout of Ptbp1, in either endocardial cells or pan-endothelial cells, leads to a typical phenotype of left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC). Mechanistically, the deletion of Ptbp1 reduces the migration of endothelial cells, disrupting cardiomyocyte proliferation and ultimately leading to the LVNC. Further study shows that Ptbp1 deficiency changes the alternative splicing of beta-arrestin-1 (Arrb1), which affects endothelial cell migration. In conclusion, as an alternative splicing factor, PTBP1 is essential during ventricular chamber development, and its deficiency can lead to congenital heart disease. Alternative splicing crucially affects various biological processes, however, its function in heart development is largely unknown. Here, the authors show an essential role of alternative splicing factor PTBP1 in ventricular chamber development.

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