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

  • 5,557
    views
  • 1,018
    downloads
  • 192
    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
    Fabian Link, Sisco Jung ... Brooke Morriswood
    Research Article

    The actin cytoskeleton is a ubiquitous feature of eukaryotic cells, yet its complexity varies across different taxa. In the parasitic protist Trypanosoma brucei, a rudimentary actomyosin system consisting of one actin gene and two myosin genes has been retained despite significant investment in the microtubule cytoskeleton. The functions of this highly simplified actomyosin system remain unclear, but appear to centre on the endomembrane system. Here, advanced light and electron microscopy imaging techniques, together with biochemical and biophysical assays, were used to explore the relationship between the actomyosin and endomembrane systems. The class I myosin (TbMyo1) had a large cytosolic pool and its ability to translocate actin filaments in vitro was shown here for the first time. TbMyo1 exhibited strong association with the endosomal system and was additionally found on glycosomes. At the endosomal membranes, TbMyo1 colocalised with markers for early and late endosomes (TbRab5A and TbRab7, respectively), but not with the marker associated with recycling endosomes (TbRab11). Actin and myosin were simultaneously visualised for the first time in trypanosomes using an anti-actin chromobody. Disruption of the actomyosin system using the actin-depolymerising drug latrunculin A resulted in a delocalisation of both the actin chromobody signal and an endosomal marker, and was accompanied by a specific loss of endosomal structure. This suggests that the actomyosin system is required for maintaining endosomal integrity in T. brucei.

    1. Cell Biology
    Georgia Maria Sagia, Xenia Georgiou ... Sofia Dimou
    Research Article Updated

    Membrane proteins are sorted to the plasma membrane via Golgi-dependent trafficking. However, our recent studies challenged the essentiality of Golgi in the biogenesis of specific transporters. Here, we investigate the trafficking mechanisms of membrane proteins by following the localization of the polarized R-SNARE SynA versus the non-polarized transporter UapA, synchronously co-expressed in wild-type or isogenic genetic backgrounds repressible for conventional cargo secretion. In wild-type, the two cargoes dynamically label distinct secretory compartments, highlighted by the finding that, unlike SynA, UapA does not colocalize with the late-Golgi. In line with early partitioning into distinct secretory carriers, the two cargoes collapse in distinct ER-Exit Sites (ERES) in a sec31ts background. Trafficking via distinct cargo-specific carriers is further supported by showing that repression of proteins essential for conventional cargo secretion does not affect UapA trafficking, while blocking SynA secretion. Overall, this work establishes the existence of distinct, cargo-dependent, trafficking mechanisms, initiating at ERES and being differentially dependent on Golgi and SNARE interactions.