3.8 Review

Hand Factors as Regulators of Cardiac Morphogenesis and Implications for Congenital Heart Defects

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bdra.20796

关键词

basic helix-loop-helix; HAND1; HAND2; dimerization; Transcription; DNA-binding; cardiogenesis; heart development; congenital heart defect

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [RO1HL061677-11 1P01HL085098-04, AHA 0815426G]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Almost 15 years of careful study have established the related basic Helix-Loop-Helix (bHLH) transcription factors Hand1 and Hand2 as critical for heart development across evolution. Hand factors make broad contributions, revealed through animal models, to the development of multiple cellular lineages that ultimately contribute to the heart. They perform critical roles in ventricular cardiomyocyte growth, differentiation, morphogenesis, and conduction. They are also important for the proper development of the cardiac outflow tract, epicardium, and endocardium. Molecularly, they function both through DNA binding and through protein-protein interactions, which are regulated transcriptionally, posttranscriptionally by microRNAs, and posttranslationally through phosphoregulation. Although direct Hand factor transcriptional targets are progressively being identified, confirmed direct targets of Hand factor transcriptional activity in the heart are limited. Identification of these targets will be critical to model the mechanisms by which Hand factor bHLH interactions affect developmental pathways. Improved understanding of Hand factor-mediated transcriptional cascades will be necessary to determine how Hand factor dysregulation translates to human disease phenotypes. This review summarizes the insight that animal models have provided into the regulation and function of these factors during heart development, in addition to the recent findings that suggest roles for HAND1 and HAND2 in human congenital heart disease. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 91:485-494, 2011. (C) 2011Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

3.8
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