4.7 Article

An exquisite cross-control mechanism among endothelial cell fate regulators directs the plasticity and heterogeneity of lymphatic endothelial cells

期刊

BLOOD
卷 116, 期 1, 页码 140-150

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-11-252270

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute [CA69184, CA92644]
  2. American Cancer Society
  3. American Heart Association
  4. March of Dimes Foundation
  5. National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  6. [1R21HL082643]
  7. [1R01HD059762]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Arteriovenous-lymphatic endothelial cell fates are specified by the master regulators, namely, Notch, COUP-TFII, and Prox1. Whereas Notch is expressed in the arteries and COUP-TFII in the veins, the lymphatics express all 3 cell fate regulators. Previous studies show that lymphatic endothelial cell (LEC) fate is highly plastic and reversible, raising a new concept that all 3 endothelial cell fates may coreside in LECs and a subtle alteration can result in a reprogramming of LEC fate. We provide a molecular basis verifying this concept by identifying a cross-control mechanism among these cell fate regulators. We found that Notch signal down-regulates Prox1 and COUP-TFII through Hey1 and Hey2 and that activated Notch receptor suppresses the lymphatic phenotypes and induces the arterial cell fate. On the contrary, Prox1 and COUP-TFII attenuate vascular endothelial growth factor signaling, known to induce Notch, by repressing vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 and neuropilin-1. We show that previously reported podoplanin-based LEC heterogeneity is associated with differential expression of Notch1 in human cutaneous lymphatics. We propose that the expression of the 3 cell fate regulators is controlled by an exquisite feedback mechanism working in LECs and that LEC fate is a consequence of the Prox1-directed lymphatic equilibrium among the cell fate regulators. (Blood. 2010; 116(1): 140-150)

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

4.7
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