4.5 Article

Loss of miR-17∼92 results in dysregulation of Cftr in nephron progenitors

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-RENAL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 316, 期 5, 页码 F993-F1005

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajprenal.00450.2018

关键词

cell cycle; cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator; differentiation; nephron progenitors; self-renewal

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) [R00-DK-087922, R01-DK-103776]
  2. March of Dimes Basil O'Connor Starter Scholar Award
  3. NIDDK Diabetic Complications Consortium [DK-076169]
  4. American Society of Nephrology Ben J. Lipps Research Fellowship Program
  5. Research Advisory Committee of Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
  6. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [GM-115836]
  7. NIDDK [DK-102843, T32-DK-061296]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously demonstrated that loss of miR-17 similar to 92 in nephron progenitors in a mouse model results in renal hypodysplasia and chronic kidney disease. Clinically, decreased congenital nephron endowment because of renal hypodysplasia is associated with an increased risk of hypertension and chronic kidney disease, and this is at least partly dependent on the self-renewal of nephron progenitors. Here, we present evidence for a novel molecular mechanism regulating the self-renewal of nephron progenitors and congenital nephron endowment by the highly conserved miR-17 similar to 92 cluster. Whole transcriptome sequencing revealed that nephron progenitors lacking this cluster demonstrated increased Cftr expression. We showed that one member of the cluster, miR-19b, is sufficient to repress Cftr expression in vitro and that perturbation of Cftr activity in nephron progenitors results in impaired proliferation. Together. these data suggest that miR-19b regulates Cftr expression in nephron progenitors, with this interaction playing a role in appropriate nephron progenitor self-renewal during kidney development to generate normal nephron endowment.

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

4.5
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