Vascular remodeling is governed by a VEGFR3-dependent fluid shear stress set point

  1. Nicolas Baeyens
  2. Stefania Nicoli
  3. Brian G Coon
  4. Tyler D Ross
  5. Koen Van den Dries
  6. Jinah Han
  7. Holly M Lauridsen
  8. Cecile O Mejean
  9. Anne Eichmann
  10. Jean-Leon Thomas
  11. Jay D Humphrey
  12. Martin A Schwartz  Is a corresponding author
  1. Yale University School of Medicine, United States
  2. Yale University School of Engineering and Applied Science, United States

Abstract

Vascular remodeling under conditions of growth or exercise, or during recovery from arterial restriction or blockage is essential for health, but mechanisms are poorly understood. It has been proposed that endothelial cells have a preferred level of fluid shear stress, or 'set point,' that determines remodeling. We show that human umbilical vein endothelial cells respond optimally within a range of fluid shear stress that approximate physiological shear. Lymphatic endothelial cells, which experience much lower flow in vivo, show similar effects but at lower value of shear stress. VEGFR3 levels, a component of a junctional mechanosensory complex, mediate these differences. Experiments in mice and zebrafish demonstrate that changing levels of VEGFR3/Flt4 modulates aortic lumen diameter consistent with flow-dependent remodeling. These data provide direct evidence for a fluid shear stress set point, identify a mechanism for varying the set point, and demonstrate its relevance to vessel remodeling in vivo.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nicolas Baeyens

    Department of Internal Medicine, Yale Cardiovascular Research Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Stefania Nicoli

    Department of Internal Medicine, Yale Cardiovascular Research Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Brian G Coon

    Department of Internal Medicine, Yale Cardiovascular Research Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Tyler D Ross

    Department of Internal Medicine, Yale Cardiovascular Research Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Koen Van den Dries

    Department of Internal Medicine, Yale Cardiovascular Research Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jinah Han

    Department of Internal Medicine, Yale Cardiovascular Research Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Holly M Lauridsen

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Yale University School of Engineering and Applied Science, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Cecile O Mejean

    Department of Internal Medicine, Yale Cardiovascular Research Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Anne Eichmann

    Department of Internal Medicine, Yale Cardiovascular Research Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Jean-Leon Thomas

    Department of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Jay D Humphrey

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Yale University School of Engineering and Applied Science, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Martin A Schwartz

    Department of Internal Medicine, Yale Cardiovascular Research Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    For correspondence
    martin.schwartz@yale.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal experiments were performed in accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health and approved by the Institutional Care and Use Committee of Yale University (protocol #11406).

Copyright

© 2015, Baeyens et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,571
    views
  • 1,029
    downloads
  • 198
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Nicolas Baeyens
  2. Stefania Nicoli
  3. Brian G Coon
  4. Tyler D Ross
  5. Koen Van den Dries
  6. Jinah Han
  7. Holly M Lauridsen
  8. Cecile O Mejean
  9. Anne Eichmann
  10. Jean-Leon Thomas
  11. Jay D Humphrey
  12. Martin A Schwartz
(2015)
Vascular remodeling is governed by a VEGFR3-dependent fluid shear stress set point
eLife 4:e04645.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04645

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04645

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Tomoharu Kanie, Roy Ng ... Peter K Jackson
    Research Article

    The primary cilium is a microtubule-based organelle that cycles through assembly and disassembly. In many cell types, formation of the cilium is initiated by recruitment of ciliary vesicles to the distal appendage of the mother centriole. However, the distal appendage mechanism that directly captures ciliary vesicles is yet to be identified. In an accompanying paper, we show that the distal appendage protein, CEP89, is important for the ciliary vesicle recruitment, but not for other steps of cilium formation (Tomoharu Kanie, Love, Fisher, Gustavsson, & Jackson, 2023). The lack of a membrane binding motif in CEP89 suggests that it may indirectly recruit ciliary vesicles via another binding partner. Here, we identify Neuronal Calcium Sensor-1 (NCS1) as a stoichiometric interactor of CEP89. NCS1 localizes to the position between CEP89 and a ciliary vesicle marker, RAB34, at the distal appendage. This localization was completely abolished in CEP89 knockouts, suggesting that CEP89 recruits NCS1 to the distal appendage. Similarly to CEP89 knockouts, ciliary vesicle recruitment as well as subsequent cilium formation was perturbed in NCS1 knockout cells. The ability of NCS1 to recruit the ciliary vesicle is dependent on its myristoylation motif and NCS1 knockout cells expressing a myristoylation defective mutant failed to rescue the vesicle recruitment defect despite localizing properly to the centriole. In sum, our analysis reveals the first known mechanism for how the distal appendage recruits the ciliary vesicles.

    1. Cell Biology
    Ling Cheng, Ian Meliala ... Mikael Björklund
    Research Article

    Mitochondrial dysfunction is involved in numerous diseases and the aging process. The integrated stress response (ISR) serves as a critical adaptation mechanism to a variety of stresses, including those originating from mitochondria. By utilizing mass spectrometry-based cellular thermal shift assay (MS-CETSA), we uncovered that phosphatidylethanolamine-binding protein 1 (PEBP1), also known as Raf kinase inhibitory protein (RKIP), is thermally stabilized by stresses which induce mitochondrial ISR. Depletion of PEBP1 impaired mitochondrial ISR activation by reducing eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2α (eIF2α) phosphorylation and subsequent ISR gene expression, which was independent of PEBP1’s role in inhibiting the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. Consistently, overexpression of PEBP1 potentiated ISR activation by heme-regulated inhibitor (HRI) kinase, the principal eIF2α kinase in the mitochondrial ISR pathway. Real-time interaction analysis using luminescence complementation in live cells revealed an interaction between PEBP1 and eIF2α, which was disrupted by eIF2α S51 phosphorylation. These findings suggest a role for PEBP1 in amplifying mitochondrial stress signals, thereby facilitating an effective cellular response to mitochondrial dysfunction. Therefore, PEBP1 may be a potential therapeutic target for diseases associated with mitochondrial dysfunction.