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

  • 5,582
    views
  • 1,031
    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
    2. Plant Biology
    Baihong Zhang, Shuqin Huang ... Wenli Chen
    Research Article

    Autophagy-related gene 6 (ATG6) plays a crucial role in plant immunity. Nonexpressor of pathogenesis-related genes 1 (NPR1) acts as a signaling hub of plant immunity. However, the relationship between ATG6 and NPR1 is unclear. Here, we find that ATG6 directly interacts with NPR1. ATG6 overexpression significantly increased nuclear accumulation of NPR1. Furthermore, we demonstrate that ATG6 increases NPR1 protein levels and improves its stability. Interestingly, ATG6 promotes the formation of SINCs (SA-induced NPR1 condensates)-like condensates. Additionally, ATG6 and NPR1 synergistically promote the expression of pathogenesis-related genes. Further results showed that silencing ATG6 in NPR1-GFP exacerbates Pst DC3000/avrRps4 infection, while double overexpression of ATG6 and NPR1 synergistically inhibits Pst DC3000/avrRps4 infection. In summary, our findings unveil an interplay of NPR1 with ATG6 and elucidate important molecular mechanisms for enhancing plant immunity.

    1. Cell Biology
    Chengfang Pan, Ying Liu ... Changlong Hu
    Research Article

    Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) is an endogenous inhibitor of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (GSIS) and plays an important role in pancreatic β-cell dysfunction in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study aimed to explore the underlying mechanism by which PGE2 inhibits GSIS. Our results showed that PGE2 inhibited Kv2.2 channels via increasing PKA activity in HEK293T cells overexpressed with Kv2.2 channels. Point mutation analysis demonstrated that S448 residue was responsible for the PKA-dependent modulation of Kv2.2. Furthermore, the inhibitory effect of PGE2 on Kv2.2 was blocked by EP2/4 receptor antagonists, while mimicked by EP2/4 receptor agonists. The immune fluorescence results showed that EP1–4 receptors are expressed in both mouse and human β-cells. In INS-1(832/13) β-cells, PGE2 inhibited voltage-gated potassium currents and electrical activity through EP2/4 receptors and Kv2.2 channels. Knockdown of Kcnb2 reduced the action potential firing frequency and alleviated the inhibition of PGE2 on GSIS in INS-1(832/13) β-cells. PGE2 impaired glucose tolerance in wild-type mice but did not alter glucose tolerance in Kcnb2 knockout mice. Knockout of Kcnb2 reduced electrical activity, GSIS and abrogated the inhibition of PGE2 on GSIS in mouse islets. In conclusion, we have demonstrated that PGE2 inhibits GSIS in pancreatic β-cells through the EP2/4-Kv2.2 signaling pathway. The findings highlight the significant role of Kv2.2 channels in the regulation of β-cell repetitive firing and insulin secretion, and contribute to the understanding of the molecular basis of β-cell dysfunction in diabetes.