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

  • 5,566
    views
  • 1,023
    downloads
  • 191
    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. Neuroscience
    Jun Sun, Francisca Rojo-Cortes ... Alicia Hidalgo
    Research Article

    Experience shapes the brain as neural circuits can be modified by neural stimulation or the lack of it. The molecular mechanisms underlying structural circuit plasticity and how plasticity modifies behaviour are poorly understood. Subjective experience requires dopamine, a neuromodulator that assigns a value to stimuli, and it also controls behaviour, including locomotion, learning, and memory. In Drosophila, Toll receptors are ideally placed to translate experience into structural brain change. Toll-6 is expressed in dopaminergic neurons (DANs), raising the intriguing possibility that Toll-6 could regulate structural plasticity in dopaminergic circuits. Drosophila neurotrophin-2 (DNT-2) is the ligand for Toll-6 and Kek-6, but whether it is required for circuit structural plasticity was unknown. Here, we show that DNT-2-expressing neurons connect with DANs, and they modulate each other. Loss of function for DNT-2 or its receptors Toll-6 and kinase-less Trk-like kek-6 caused DAN and synapse loss, impaired dendrite growth and connectivity, decreased synaptic sites, and caused locomotion deficits. In contrast, over-expressed DNT-2 increased DAN cell number, dendrite complexity, and promoted synaptogenesis. Neuronal activity modified DNT-2, increased synaptogenesis in DNT-2-positive neurons and DANs, and over-expression of DNT-2 did too. Altering the levels of DNT-2 or Toll-6 also modified dopamine-dependent behaviours, including locomotion and long-term memory. To conclude, a feedback loop involving dopamine and DNT-2 highlighted the circuits engaged, and DNT-2 with Toll-6 and Kek-6 induced structural plasticity in this circuit modifying brain function and behaviour.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Showkat Ahmad Dar, Sulochan Malla ... Manolis Maragkakis
    Research Article

    Cells react to stress by triggering response pathways, leading to extensive alterations in the transcriptome to restore cellular homeostasis. The role of RNA metabolism in shaping the cellular response to stress is vital, yet the global changes in RNA stability under these conditions remain unclear. In this work, we employ direct RNA sequencing with nanopores, enhanced by 5ʹ end adapter ligation, to comprehensively interrogate the human transcriptome at single-molecule and -nucleotide resolution. By developing a statistical framework to identify robust RNA length variations in nanopore data, we find that cellular stress induces prevalent 5ʹ end RNA decay that is coupled to translation and ribosome occupancy. Unlike typical RNA decay models in normal conditions, we show that stress-induced RNA decay is dependent on XRN1 but does not depend on deadenylation or decapping. We observed that RNAs undergoing decay are predominantly enriched in the stress granule transcriptome while inhibition of stress granule formation via genetic ablation of G3BP1 and G3BP2 rescues RNA length. Our findings reveal RNA decay as a key component of RNA metabolism upon cellular stress that is dependent on stress granule formation.