Muscle cells in the heart contract in regular rhythms to pump blood around the body. In humans, rats and other mammals, the vast majority of heart muscle cells lose the ability to divide shortly after birth. Therefore, the heart is unable to replace cells that are lost over the life of the individual, for example, during a heart attack. If too many of these cells are lost, the heart will be unable to pump effectively, which can lead to heart failure. Currently, the only treatment option in humans with heart failure is to perform a heart transplant.

Some animals, such as newts and zebrafish, are able to replace lost heart muscle cells throughout their lifetimes. Thus, these species are able to fully regenerate their hearts even after 20% has been removed. This suggests that it might be possible to manipulate human heart muscle cells to make them divide and regenerate the heart. Recent research has suggested that structures called centrosomes, known to be required to separate copies of the DNA during cell division, are used as a hub to integrate the initial signals that determine whether a cell should divide or not.

Here, Zebrowski et al. studied the centrosomes of heart muscle cells in rats, newts and zebrafish. The experiments show that the centrosomes in rat heart muscle cells are dissembled shortly after birth. Centrosomes are made of several proteins and, in the rat cells, these proteins moved to the membrane that surrounded the nucleus. On the other hand, the centrosomes in the heart muscle cells of the adult newts and zebrafish remained intact.

Further experiments found that that breaking apart the centrosomes of heart muscle cells taken from newborn rats stops these cells from dividing. Zebrowski et al.'s findings suggest that the loss of centrosomes after birth is a possible reason why the hearts of adult humans and other mammals are unable to regenerate after injury. In the future, these findings may aid the development of methods to regenerate human heart muscle and new treatments that may limit division of cancer cells.

The adult mammalian heart is considered to be a post-mitotic organ, as mammalian cardiomyocytes lose their ability to proliferate shortly after birth (Li et al., 1996; Soonpaa et al., 1996; Zebrowski and Engel, 2013). This is supported by the limited regenerative capacity of the adult mammalian heart (Senyo et al., 2014) and the fact that primary adult cardiomyocyte-born tumors are extremely rare, if they exist at all (Dell'Amore et al., 2011). Understanding the underlying mechanisms governing the post-mitotic state of adult mammalian cardiomyocytes may clarify whether it is possible to induce cardiac regeneration based on cardiomyocyte proliferation as seen in zebrafish and newts (Poss et al., 2002; Bettencourt-Dias et al., 2003; Gamba et al., 2014). Tremendous efforts have been invested to induce postnatal mammalian cardiomyocyte proliferation. However, besides the fact that cell cycle promoting factors (e.g., Cyclins) are downregulated around birth, while cell cycle inhibitors (e.g., Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors) are induced (Ikenishi et al., 2012), little is known about the mechanisms that induce cell cycle exit or establish the post-mitotic state in mammalian cardiomyocytes (van Amerongen and Engel, 2008).

The centrosome is a solitary, juxtanuclear organelle in metazoan cell-types. It consists of a pair of tubulin-based structures, called centrioles, encased in a dense, non-membranous, multi-protein cloud called the pericentriolar matrix (PCM), which is further surrounded by a dispersed array of proteins termed centriolar satellites (Bettencourt-Dias, 2013). Traditionally, the centrosome is known as the microtubule organizing center (MTOC) of the cell, and is required for primary cilium formation (Kim and Dynlacht, 2013). Recently, the centrosome has emerged as a critical signaling hub for the cell cycle regulatory machinery (Doxsey et al., 2005). For instance, centrosome localization of Cyclin E and Cyclin A is required for G1/S cell cycle progression (Pascreau et al., 2011). Consistent with this role, increasing evidence supports the requirement of a functional centrosome for proliferative potential in mammalian cell-types (Doxsey et al., 2005). For instance, cells undergo G0/G1 arrest when (i) centrosomes are removed via laser ablation, (ii) centrosome integrity is disrupted via knockdown of centrosome proteins, or (iii) centriole biogenesis is blocked via a chemical inhibitor (Hinchcliffe et al., 2001; Khodjakov and Rieder, 2001; Srsen et al., 2006; Mikule et al., 2007; Wong et al., 2015).

To date, the role of centrosome integrity in cell proliferation has always been studied in the context of centrosome component mutants. Here, we show that centrosome integrity is developmentally regulated in mammalian cardiomyocytes, revealing a novel mechanism that renders cells post-mitotic. Our findings might have important implications for efforts to induce therapeutic cardiomyocyte proliferation in adult mammalian hearts.

A normal diploid cell in G0/G1-phase contains one centrosome with two paired centrioles. During S-phase the centrosome duplicates whereby the two parental centrioles form daughter centrioles. Around the transition from G2-phase to mitosis, parental centrioles ‘split’ (loss of cohesion) resulting in two separated centrosomes that become part of the spindle poles during mitosis (Doxsey et al., 2005). When centrosome integrity is compromised during G0/G1-phase, centrioles can lose cohesion (i.e., become unpaired) adopting a premature ‘split’ configuration, defined as a distance > 2 µm between centrioles (Graser et al., 2007). To determine if centrosome integrity changes in cardiomyocytes during development, we analyzed centriole configuration using antibodies against γ-tubulin, a marker of both the centriole and the PCM (Sonnen et al., 2012). Centrioles were observed to be in a typical paired configuration in the majority of cultured cardiomyocytes isolated from embryonic day (E) 15, E18, and postnatal day (P) 0 rat hearts (Figure 1A,B) as well as in cardiomyocytes from E15 and P0 rat heart sections (Figure 1—figure supplement 1A,B). In contrast, shortly after birth, centrioles were split in the vast majority of P3 and P5 cardiomyocytes in vitro (Figure 1A,B) and in vivo (Figure 1—figure supplement 1A,B). Analysis of mother and daughter centriole markers (Odf2 and Centrobin, respectively) in isolated rat cardiomyocytes verified that each γ-tubulin signal represented a single centriole (Figure 1—figure supplement 1C). As an internal control, cardiac non-myocytes from the same cultures and tissue sections were examined. The majority of non-myocytes in the heart are fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and smooth muscle cells that all have the ability to proliferate. At all examined developmental stages, non-myocytes showed a typical paired-centriole configuration indicating that the split-centriole phenotype was cardiomyocyte-specific (Figure 1B and Figure 1—figure supplement 1A,B). Collectively, these data demonstrate that centriole cohesion, and thus centrosome integrity, is lost in mammalian cardiomyocytes shortly after birth.

Figure 1 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

To identify an underlying cause of the split-centriole phenotype, the cellular localization of various centrosome proteins was assessed in isolated cardiomyocytes from different developmental stages. The PCM proteins Pericentrin and Cdk5Rap2 have previously been shown to be required for centriole-cohesion (Graser et al., 2007; Matsuo et al., 2010). Consistent with this function, both PCM proteins localized to the centrosome in E15-isolated cardiomyocytes (Figure 1C,D and Figure 1—figure supplement 1D,E). In contrast, both proteins were localized to the nuclear envelope in P3-isolated cardiomyocytes (Figure 1C,D and Figure 1—figure supplement 1D,E). Although remnants of Pericentrin and Cdk5Rap2 could be observed at the centriole in P3-isolated cardiomyocytes (Figure 1C,D and Figure 1—figure supplement 1D,E), their presence was significantly reduced when centrioles were split (Figure 1E and Figure 1—figure supplement 1F). Pcnt siRNA-mediated knockdown in P0-isolated cardiomyocytes resulted in an increase of split-centrioles (Figure 1F,G), confirming that Pericentrin is required for centriole-cohesion in cardiomyocytes. In contrast to PCM proteins, the centriole-associated proteins CEP135, Odf2, and Centrobin were not observed at the nuclear envelope in P3-isolated cardiomyocytes (Figure 1C and Figure 1—figure supplement 1C,D). Collectively, these results indicate that loss of centriole cohesion is accompanied by redistribution of centrosome proteins to the nuclear envelope.

Centrosome localization of Pericentrin is dependent on the centriole satellite protein PCM1 (Dammermann and Merdes, 2002; Barenz et al., 2011). Consistent with this, PCM1 localized at the centrosome and the nuclear envelope in E15- and P3-isolated cardiomyocytes, respectively (Figure 1C,H and Figure 1—figure supplement 1D). Further, nuclear envelope localization of PCM1 occurred by P0 (Figure 1H), prior to that of Pericentrin (Figure 1D). Occasionally, PCM1 was observed in a semi-belt pattern at the nuclear envelope proximal to the centrosome in E15-isolated cardiomyocytes (Figure 1—figure supplement 1G), indicating a transitional state. These data suggest that in cardiomyocytes, PCM1 is also required for the localization of Pericentrin to the centrosome. To test this, we overexpressed the major isoform of Pericentrin associated with the centrosome, Pericentrin B, in E15-, P0-, and P3-isolated cardiomyocytes and non-myocytes. Pericentrin B-GFP localized to centrioles in non-myocytes as well as E15-isolated cardiomyocytes (Figure 1—figure supplement 2A,B). In contrast, Pericentrin B-GFP did not localize to the centrioles in the vast majority of P0- and P3-isolated cardiomyocytes but rather created cellular aggregates which were not observed in E15 cardiomyocytes or non-myocytes. These data indicate that the machinery required for centrosome integrity is lost in postnatal cardiomyocytes.

To determine if relocalization of centrosome proteins to the nuclear envelope and loss of centriole-cohesion is caused by cell autonomous mechanisms, long-term culturing experiments were performed. Long-term culturing of E15-isolated and P0-isolated cardiomyocytes resulted in PCM1 and Pericentrin relocalization to the nuclear envelope (Figure 1I) and loss of paired-centrioles (Figure 1J), respectively. Further, mouse iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes had split-centrioles and the centrosome proteins PCM1 and Pericentrin localized to the nuclear envelope (Figure 1—figure supplement 2C). These results indicate that loss of centrosome integrity begins during fetal development and progresses in a cell autonomous manner.

Previously, it has been demonstrated that Pcnt is alternatively spliced (Miyoshi et al., 2006), resulting in two isoforms; Pericentrin B which resembles the human Pericentrin Kendrin, and Pericentrin S, which lacks an N-terminus region. Pericentrin B is ubiquitously expressed at all developmental stages. In contrast, expression of Pericentrin S starts late in fetal development and was found to be specific for adult heart and skeletal muscle (Miyoshi et al., 2006). Therefore, we speculated that expression of the Pericentrin S isoform may coincide with changes in centrosome integrity during the development of cardiomyocytes. RT-PCR analysis revealed the appearance of Pcnt S expression shortly before birth in the heart (Figure 1K). Antibodies specific for the Pericentrin B isoform indicated that Pericentrin S, and not Pericentrin B, was the predominant Pericentrin isoform at the nuclear envelope in P3-isolated cardiomyocytes (Figure 1L). These results indicate that Pcnt is alternatively spliced during perinatal heart development and this change is related to its relocalization to the nuclear envelope.

Loss of centrosome integrity in postnatal cardiomyocytes suggested that centrosome function might be compromised as well. Nearly all cell-types studied to date are capable of forming a primary cilium when arrested in G0/G1-phase (Bowser and Wheatley, 2000, Nigg and Stearns, 2011). This suggests that cardiomyocytes, which are arrested shortly after birth in G0/G1 phase (Takeuchi, 2014), should be capable of ciliogenesis. Yet, given that PCM1, which is required for ciliogenesis (Kim et al., 2008), is lost from the centrosome during development, we speculated that ciliogenesis is suppressed in cardiomyocytes. Induction of ciliogenesis via serum starvation resulted in the formation of a primary cilium in E15-isolated cardiomyocytes and non-myocytes (Figure 2A). However, the frequency of cardiomyocytes capable of ciliogenesis decreased with heart development (Figure 2B) with less than 1% of isolated postnatal cardiomyocytes, which were arrested in G1/G0 as confirmed by lack of Ki67 expression and FACS analysis (Figure 2—figure supplement 1A–D), forming a primary cilium. Further, no postnatal binucleated cardiomyocytes were observed to be capable of ciliogenesis (Figure 2A). In contrast to cardiomyocytes, the frequency of cardiac non-myocytes capable of ciliogenesis was high at all developmental stages investigated (Figure 2B).

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Pericentrin and Cdk5Rap2 are required for the centrosome to function as the cellular MTOC (Takahashi et al., 2002; Choi et al., 2010). As these proteins localize to the nuclear envelope during neonatal development, we hypothesized that the cellular MTOC is transferred from the centrosome to the nuclear envelope. In accordance with this hypothesis, microtubules were found to predominantly emanate from the centrosome in E15-isolated cardiomyocytes as also observed in non-myocytes. In contrast, in P3-isolated cardiomyocytes microtubules were found to predominantly emanate from the nuclear envelope (Figure 2C). The local shift of the MTOC during development was confirmed by a MTOC-regrowth assay (Figure 2D and Figure 2—figure supplement 1E,F), which further demonstrated that microtubules do not emanate from centrioles in P3-isolated cardiomyocytes (Figure 2E and Figure 2—figure supplement 1G,H). Finally, siRNA-mediated knockdown of Pcnt in P3-isolated cardiomyocytes demonstrated that Pericentrin is required for a functional MTOC at the nuclear envelope (Figure 2F and Figure 2—figure supplement 1I). Collectively, these results indicate that, in addition to centrosome integrity, centrosome function is progressively compromised in cardiomyocytes during development.

Given that traditional centrosome functions of ciliogenesis and microtubule organization are lost in postnatal cardiomyocytes, we hypothesized that there would be a relationship between centrosome integrity and proliferative potential. To test this, the cell cycle marker Ki67 was assessed in cardiomyocytes from different developmental stages. Cardiomyocyte proliferative potential decreased with neonatal development (Figure 3A). Moreover, P3-isolated cardiomyocytes with paired-centrioles exhibited greater proliferative potential than those with split centrioles (Figure 3B,C) at a frequency similar to that of E15- and P0-isolated cardiomyocytes (Figure 3A,C)—of which the vast majority have paired-centrioles (Figure 1B). In contrast, cardiac non-myocyte proliferative potential, as well as the percentage of non-myocytes with paired centrioles, did not decrease during neonatal development (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A). Subsequently, we tested whether centrosome integrity is required for cardiomyocyte proliferative potential. Centrosome integrity was disrupted by either siRNA-mediated knockdown of Pcnt, or overexpression of a RFP-tagged dominant negative C-terminal Pericentrin (RFP-Peri^CT), which displaces endogenous Pericentrin localization (Gillingham and Munro, 2000; Mikule et al., 2007). Immunofluorescence analysis confirmed that RFP-Peri^CT localizes to the centrioles in P0-isolated cardiomyocytes (Figure 3—figure supplement 1B). Both methods used to disrupt centrosome integrity suppressed P0-isolated cardiomyocyte proliferative potential (Figure 3D–F). Taken together, these data indicate that loss of centrosome integrity promotes G0/G1 cell cycle arrest in mammalian cardiomyocytes.

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Disruption of centrosome integrity promotes p38MAP kinase (p38)-mediated G1/S cell cycle arrest (Mikule et al., 2007; Pascreau et al., 2011). Previously, it has been demonstrated that p38 inhibition (p38i) allows postnatal cardiomyocyte proliferation (Engel et al., 2005). This raised the question whether p38i can over-ride post-mitotic arrest in cardiomyocytes with split-centrioles. p38i enhanced the proliferative potential of P3-isolated cardiomyocytes with split-centrioles (Figure 3C). These results indicate that suppression of the p38-mediated stress-activated pathway can promote cell cycle progression in cardiomyocytes that lack centriole-cohesion.

A bipolar mitotic spindle is required for high fidelity chromosome segregation (Pihan, 2013). Thus, we determined if the observed changes in centrosome integrity affects spindle pole number during mitosis in postnatal cardiomyocytes when cell cycle progression is induced. In response to serum stimulation, P0- and P3-isolated cardiomyocytes exhibited a typical metaphase consisting of two γ-tubulin foci (Figure 3G,H). p38i had no effect on the number of γ-tubulin foci in P0-isolated cardiomyocytes during metaphase (Figure 3H). In contrast, p38i resulted in a significant increase in metaphases containing multiple γ-tubulin foci in P3-isolated cardiomyocytes (Figure 3G,H). Similarly, adult-isolated cardiomyocytes induced to re-enter the cell cycle by p38i + FGF1 also exhibited multiple γ-tubulin foci during metaphase (Figure 3I). These data indicate that over-riding cell cycle arrest in cardiomyocytes results in multiple spindle poles.

In contrast to mammals, adult newts and zebrafish can regenerate their heart through cardiomyocyte proliferation (Poss et al., 2002; Bettencourt-Dias et al., 2003). This suggests that they either do not establish a post-mitotic state by disassembling their centrosomes or they are able to reverse this mechanism upon injury. To test which scenario occurs in these species, we analyzed their centrosomes. Paired centrioles could readily be identified in adult newt and zebrafish cardiomyocyte nuclei (Figure 4A). Further, the frequency of newt and zebrafish cardiomyocyte nuclei with intact centrosomes was similar to that of non-myocyte nuclei (Figure 4B). In addition, MTOC-regrowth assays demonstrated that centrosomes in zebrafish and newt cardiomyocytes are functional (Figure 4C and Figure 4—figure supplement 1A,B). Collectively, these results suggest that, unlike mammalian cardiomyocytes, newt and zebrafish cardiomyocytes maintain centrosome integrity throughout adulthood.

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

We then sought to determine if zebrafish cells require centrosome integrity for proliferation in vivo. To determine this, we injected RNA encoding RFP-tagged dominant negative C-terminal Pericentrin (RFP-Peri^CT) into one-cell stage zebrafish embryos. Compared to control embryos (RFP RNA-injected), a significantly larger number of RFP-Peri^CT RNA-injected embryos showed developmental delay at 24 hr post fertilization (hpf) and a significantly reduced number of H3P-positive cells (Figure 4—figure supplement 1C–F). Since RFP-Peri^CT RNA did not cause necrosis or lethality, it is plausible that the observed developmental delay was caused, at least partly, by reduced proliferation of RFP-Peri^CT-expressing cells. To further test an effect on proliferation, we injected DNA constructs driving RFP or dominant negative Pericentrin (RFP-Peri^CT) expression from the CMV promoter into one-cell stage embryos and analyzed the size of RFP-positive clones of cells at 20 hpf. Embryos were sorted into four classes according to the size of the clones, namely no visible clones (class I), few scattered cells (class II), medium-sized clones (class III), and large clones (class IV). RFP DNA-injected controls exhibited comparable numbers of embryos displaying no clones (class 1), scattered (class II), medium-sized (class III), and larger clones (class IV). In contrast, the majority of RFP-Peri^CT DNA-injected embryos contained either no clones (class I) or few scattered clones (class II), while larger clones (class III and IV) were rarely seen (Figure 4—figure supplement 1G,H). This suggests that clonal expansion of RFP-Peri^CT expressing cells is reduced, which substantiates the hypothesis that expression of RFP-Peri^CT reduces cell proliferative potential. These results suggest that zebrafish cells require centrosome integrity for proliferation in vivo.

Increasing evidence supports the requirement of a functional centrosome for cellular proliferative potential (Doxsey et al., 2005). For instance, somatic cell-types arrest in G0/G1 when centrosomes are removed or disrupted (Hinchcliffe et al., 2001; Khodjakov and Rieder, 2001; Srsen et al., 2006; Mikule et al., 2007; Wong et al., 2015). Further, centrosome degradation occurs during female meiosis—a process believed to inhibit parthenogenesis—with mitotic cycles restored upon fertilization when the sperm donates a centrosome during zygote formation (Klotz et al., 1990; Clift and Schuh, 2013). Moreover, relocalization of the MTOC to non-centrosomal loci has been described for several post-mitotic, highly differentiated, cell-types (Bartolini and Gundersen, 2006). This body of literature coupled with our results suggests that centrosome integrity can be developmentally regulated to achieve a post-mitotic state.

Centrosome disassembly appears to be a very effective way to achieve a post-mitotic state. But why do cardiomyocytes disassemble their centrosomes? Upon birth, the neonatal heart, and the cardiomyocytes therein, undergo increased hemodynamic stress. Effective cardiomyocyte function in response to increased hemodynamic stress may require a cytoskeletal architecture more conducive to handling postnatal physical stresses (e.g., a nuclear envelope-based MTOC). Thus, centrosome disassembly may be a result of cytoskeletal reorganization. In this scenario, proliferative potential might be sacrificed for postnatal function.

It has long been considered that skeletal myoblasts and cardiomyocytes have distinct molecular mechanisms to control their proliferative growth. This theory has been primarily based on the observation that proliferation and differentiation (contraction) are mutually exclusive in skeletal muscle but occur in parallel in cardiomyocytes (Ueno et al., 1988). However, our results together with others (Tassin et al., 1985; Bugnard et al., 2005; Srsen et al., 2006; Fant et al., 2009; Zaal et al., 2011) challenges this dogma, as establishment of a post-mitotic state in both muscle cell-types coincides with MTOC relocalization to the nuclear envelope and centrosome disassembly.

The observation that p38i promotes cardiomyocyte proliferative potential in the absence of a functional centrosome provides some optimism for heart regeneration via proliferation of endogenous cardiomyocytes. However, we observe that an absence of centrosome integrity correlates with multiple spindle poles. Although multiple spindle poles are generally resolved into a semi-clustered/pseudo-bipolar conformation, this process is nevertheless highly prone to the formation of merotelic spindle-kinetochore attachments, which can promote chromosome missegregation (Ganem et al., 2009). Indeed, postnatal cardiomyocytes induced to proliferate exhibit chromosome segregation abnormalities (Engel et al., 2006). While cell viability can exist when aneuploidy is limited (e.g., as seen in Down Syndrome), aneuploidy is generally not well tolerated (Torres et al., 2008). Therefore, proliferation of adult cardiomyocytes may not necessarily result in viable daughter cells. Thus, in the absence of a functional centrosome, whether a particular manipulation induces aneuploidy, and to what degree, may be a critical factor in determining its regenerative therapeutic potential.

The origin of multiple spindle poles (i.e., multiple γ-tubulin foci) during cardiomyocyte mitosis is not entirely clear. Interestingly, in addition to centriole-cohesion, Pericentrin and Cdk5Rap2 are also required for centriole-engagement (Barrera et al., 2010; Lee and Rhee, 2012). During S-phase, centrioles are duplicated, with each mother centriole forming a daughter centriole, which remains closely attached (i.e., engaged) until mid-anaphase (Kuriyama and Borisy, 1981; Sluder, 2013). When mother-daughter centrioles are engaged, only the mother centriole exhibits a strong γ-tubulin signal (Wang et al., 2011). Thus, one speculation is that when cells that lack centriole-cohesion enter mitosis, they have an increased likelihood of premature loss of centriole-engagement, thus accounting for the four γ-tubulin signals observed at metaphase. However, it has to be considered that induction of mitosis in bi-nucleated cardiomyocytes, which increasingly appear after birth, results in four γ-tubulin signals in metaphase corresponding to four duplicated centrioles.

The ability of zebrafish and newts to regenerate their heart has gained extensive interest in recent years. One major question is what distinguishes mammalian cardiomyocytes from those of zebrafish and newts with regards to their proliferative potential. Our data demonstrate that the state of cellular differentiation of cardiomyocytes from various species is not evolutionary conserved. The fact that adult zebrafish and newt cardiomyocytes maintain their centrosome integrity indicates that factors promoting adult zebrafish cardiomyocyte proliferation might not necessarily induce adult mammalian cardiomyocyte proliferation.

Recently, it has been shown that planarians can develop and regenerate in the absence of centrosomes (Azimzadeh et al., 2012). This has questioned the requirement of a centrosome for cell proliferation during development and regeneration. However, there are significant differences between planarians and vertebrates in cell cycle control. For example, planarians express only one single repressive E2F, whereas mammals and zebrafish express several repressive and activating E2Fs. In addition, planarians do not have Cyclin E or Cyclin A homologs. Further, cyclin-dependent kinase CDK2 (to which Cyclin E/A usually binds) is expressed at such low levels in planarians that it is considered functionally dead (Zhu and Pearson, 2013). This is important as in mammals centrosome localization of Cyclin E and Cyclin A is required for G1/S cell cycle progression (Pascreau et al., 2011). Thus, at least in the case of Cyclin E and Cyclin A, planarians lack centrosome-regulated cell cycle factors. In addition, our data indicate that centrosome integrity is required for proliferation during zebrafish development. This is in agreement with the recent observation that plk4 depletion in zebrafish impairs centriolar biogenesis during development and increases premature cell cycle exit (independent of ciliogenesis defects) resulting in reduced zebrafish size (Martin et al., 2014). Other examples of centriole-associated genes whose depletion causes cell cycle defects resulting in impaired development are stil (Pfaff et al., 2007; Vulprecht et al., 2012; Sun et al., 2014) and cetn2 (Delaval et al., 2011). While there is no evidence for the requirement of functional centrosomes in cardiac regeneration in zebrafish, there are data that indirectly suggest that centrosome function might be required for cardiac regeneration. For example it has been shown that inhibition of mps1 and plk1, factors implicated in centrosome assembly and maturation (Pike and Fisk, 2011; Joukov et al., 2014; Kong et al., 2014), impairs cardiac regeneration in zebrafish after apex resection (Poss et al., 2002; Jopling et al., 2010). Thus, it will be interesting in the future to test if destruction of centrosome integrity will indeed abolish the ability of zebrafish to regenerate their heart.

Taken together, this study suggests that relocalization of the MTOC disrupts centrosome integrity which, in turn, promotes a post-mitotic state in mammalian cardiomyocytes. Given the increasing role of the centrosome in cell cycle control, understanding how centrosome integrity is regulated during development may reveal new mechanisms to regulate cell proliferation with implications for regeneration and cancer.

1. 1. Azimzadeh J
   2. Wong ML
   3. Downhour DM
   4. Sanchez Alvarado A
   5. Marshall WF

   (2012) Centrosome loss in the evolution of planarians

   Science 335:461–463.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1214457

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Barenz F
   2. Mayilo D
   3. Gruss OJ

   (2011) Centriolar satellites: busy orbits around the centrosome

   European Journal of Cell Biology 90:983–989.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcb.2011.07.007

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Barrera JA
   2. Kao LR
   3. Hammer RE
   4. Seemann J
   5. Fuchs JL
   6. Megraw TL

   (2010) CDK5RAP2 regulates centriole engagement and cohesion in mice

   Developmental Cell 18:913–926.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2010.05.017

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bartolini F
   2. Gundersen GG

   (2006) Generation of noncentrosomal microtubule arrays

   Journal of Cell Science 119:4155–4163.

   https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.03227

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bettencourt-Dias M
   2. Mittnacht S
   3. Brockes JP

   (2003) Heterogeneous proliferative potential in regenerative adult newt cardiomyocytes

   Journal of Cell Science 116:4001–4009.

   https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.00698

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bettencourt-Dias M

   (2013) Q&A: who needs a centrosome?

   BMC Biology 11:28.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-11-28

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bowser S
   2. Wheatley D

   (2000) Where are primary Cilia found?

   Where are primary Cilia found?, http://www.bowserlab.org/primarycilia/cilialist.html.

   http://www.bowserlab.org/primarycilia/cilialist.html

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bugnard E
   2. Zaal KJ
   3. Ralston E

   (2005) Reorganization of microtubule nucleation during muscle differentiation

   Cell Motility Cytoskeleton 60:1–13.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/cm.20042

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Choi YK
   2. Liu P
   3. Sze SK
   4. Dai C
   5. Qi RZ

   (2010) CDK5RAP2 stimulates microtubule nucleation by the gamma-tubulin ring complex

   The Journal of Cell Biology 191:1089–1095.

   https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201007030

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Clift D
    2. Schuh M

    (2013) Restarting life: fertilization and the transition from meiosis to mitosis

    Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 14:549–562.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3643

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Dammermann A
    2. Merdes A

    (2002) Assembly of centrosomal proteins and microtubule organization depends on PCM-1

    The Journal of Cell Biology 159:255–266.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200204023

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Delaval B
    2. Covassin L
    3. Lawson ND
    4. Doxsey S

    (2011) Centrin depletion causes cyst formation and other ciliopathy-related phenotypes in zebrafish

    Cell Cycle 10:3964–3972.

    https://doi.org/10.4161/cc.10.22.18150

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Dell'Amore A
    2. Lanzanova G
    3. Silenzi A
    4. Lamarra M

    (2011) Hamartoma of mature cardiac myocytes: case report and review of the literature

    Heart, Lung & Circulation 20:336–340.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2011.01.015

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Doxsey S
    2. Zimmerman W
    3. Mikule K

    (2005) Centrosome control of the cell cycle

    Trends in Cell Biology 15:303–311.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2005.04.008

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Engel FB
    2. Schebesta M
    3. Duong MT
    4. Lu G
    5. Ren S
    6. Madwed JB
    7. Jiang H
    8. Wang Y
    9. Keating MT

    (2005) p38 MAP kinase inhibition enables proliferation of adult mammalian cardiomyocytes

    Genes & Development 19:1175–1187.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1306705

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Engel FB
    2. Schebesta M
    3. Keating MT

    (2006) Anillin localization defect in cardiomyocyte binucleation

    Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology 41:601–612.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjmcc.2006.06.012

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Fant X
    2. Srsen V
    3. Espigat-Georger A
    4. Merdes A

    (2009) Nuclei of non-muscle cells bind centrosome proteins upon fusion with differentiating myoblasts

    PLOS ONE 4:e8303.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008303

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Gamba L
    2. Harrison M
    3. Lien CL

    (2014) Cardiac regeneration in model organisms

    Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine 16:288.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-013-0288-8

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Ganem NJ
    2. Godinho SA
    3. Pellman D

    (2009) A mechanism linking extra centrosomes to chromosomal instability

    Nature 460:278–282.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08136

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Gillingham AK
    2. Munro S

    (2000) The PACT domain, a conserved centrosomal targeting motif in the coiled-coil proteins AKAP450 and pericentrin

    EMBO Reports 1:524–529.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/embo-reports/kvd105

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Graser S
    2. Stierhof YD
    3. Nigg EA

    (2007) Cep68 and Cep215 (Cdk5rap2) are required for centrosome cohesion

    Journal of Cell Science 120:4321–4331.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.020248

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Hinchcliffe EH
    2. Miller FJ
    3. Cham M
    4. Khodjakov A
    5. Sluder G

    (2001) Requirement of a centrosomal activity for cell cycle progression through G1 into S phase

    Science 291:1547–1550.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.291.5508.1547

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Ikenishi A
    2. Okayama H
    3. Iwamoto N
    4. Yoshitome S
    5. Tane S
    6. Nakamura K
    7. Obayashi T
    8. Hayashi T
    9. Takeuchi T

    (2012) Cell cycle regulation in mouse heart during embryonic and postnatal stages

    Development, Growth & Differentiation 54:731–738.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-169X.2012.01373.x

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Jopling C
    2. Sleep E
    3. Raya M
    4. Martí M
    5. Raya A
    6. Izpisúa Belmonte JC

    (2010) Zebrafish heart regeneration occurs by cardiomyocyte dedifferentiation and proliferation

    Nature 464:606–609.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08899

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Joukov V
    2. Walter JC
    3. De Nicolo A

    (2014) The Cep192-organized aurora A-Plk1 cascade is essential for centrosome cycle and bipolar spindle assembly

    Molecular Cell 55:578–591.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2014.06.016

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Khodjakov A
    2. Rieder CL

    (2001) Centrosomes enhance the fidelity of cytokinesis in vertebrates and are required for cell cycle progression

    The Journal of Cell Biology 153:237–242.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.153.1.237

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Kim S
    2. Dynlacht BD

    (2013) Assembling a primary cilium

    Current Opinion in Cell Biology 25:506–511.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2013.04.011

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Kim J
    2. Krishnaswami SR
    3. Gleeson JG

    (2008) CEP290 interacts with the centriolar satellite component PCM-1 and is required for Rab8 localization to the primary cilium

    Human Molecular Genetics 17:3796–3805.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddn277

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Klotz C
    2. Dabauvalle MC
    3. Paintrand M
    4. Weber T
    5. Bornens M
    6. Karsenti E

    (1990) Parthenogenesis in Xenopus eggs requires centrosomal integrity

    The Journal of Cell Biology 110:405–415.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.110.2.405

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Kong D
    2. Farmer V
    3. Shukla A
    4. James J
    5. Gruskin R
    6. Kiriyama S
    7. Loncarek J

    (2014) Centriole maturation requires regulated Plk1 activity during two consecutive cell cycles

    The Journal of Cell Biology 206:855–865.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201407087

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Kuriyama R
    2. Borisy GG

    (1981) Centriole cycle in Chinese hamster ovary cells as determined by whole-mount electron microscopy

    The Journal of Cell Biology 91:814–821.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.91.3.814

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Lee K
    2. Rhee K

    (2012) Separase-dependent cleavage of pericentrin B is necessary and sufficient for centriole disengagement during mitosis

    Cell Cycle 11:2476–2485.

    https://doi.org/10.4161/cc.20878

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Li F
    2. Wang X
    3. Capasso JM
    4. Gerdes AM

    (1996) Rapid transition of cardiac myocytes from hyperplasia to hypertrophy during postnatal development

    Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology 28:1737–1746.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmcc.1996.0163

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Martin CA
    2. Ahmad I
    3. Klingseisen A
    4. Hussain MS
    5. Bicknell LS
    6. Leitch A
    7. Nürnberg G
    8. Toliat MR
    9. Murray JE
    10. Hunt D
    11. Khan F
    12. Ali Z
    13. Tinschert S
    14. Ding J
    15. Keith C
    16. Harley ME
    17. Heyn P
    18. Müller R
    19. Hoffmann I
    20. Daire VC
    21. Dollfus H
    22. Dupuis L
    23. Bashamboo A
    24. McElreavey K
    25. Kariminejad A
    26. Mendoza-Londono R
    27. Moore AT
    28. Saggar A
    29. Schlechter C
    30. Weleber R
    31. Thiele H
    32. Altmüller J
    33. Höhne W
    34. Hurles ME
    35. Noegel AA
    36. Baig SM
    37. Nürnberg P
    38. Jackson AP

    (2014) Mutations in PLK4, encoding a master regulator of centriole biogenesis, cause microcephaly, growth failure and retinopathy

    Nature Genetics 46:1283–1292.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3122

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Matsuo K
    2. Nishimura T
    3. Hayakawa A
    4. Ono Y
    5. Takahashi M

    (2010) Involvement of a centrosomal protein kendrin in the maintenance of centrosome cohesion by modulating Nek2A kinase activity

    Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 398:217–223.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2010.06.063

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Mikule K
    2. Delaval B
    3. Kaldis P
    4. Jurcyzk A
    5. Hergert P
    6. Doxsey S

    (2007) Loss of centrosome integrity induces p38-p53-p21-dependent G1-S arrest

    Nature Cell Biology 9:160–170.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb1529

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Miyoshi K
    2. Asanuma M
    3. Miyazaki I
    4. Matsuzaki S
    5. Tohyama M
    6. Ogawa N

    (2006) Characterization of pericentrin isoforms in vivo

    Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 351:745–749.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2006.10.101

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Mühlhans J
    2. Brandstätter JH
    3. Gießl A

    (2011) The centrosomal protein Pericentrin identified at the basal body complex of the connecting cilium in mouse photoreceptors

    PLOS ONE 6:e26496.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026496

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Nigg EA
    2. Stearns T

    (2011) The centrosome cycle: centriole biogenesis, duplication and inherent asymmetries

    Nature Cell Biology 13:1154–1160.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb2345

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Pascreau G
    2. Churchill ME
    3. Maller JL

    (2011) Centrosomal localization of cyclins E and A: structural similarities and functional differences

    Cell Cycle 10:199–205.

    https://doi.org/10.4161/cc.10.2.14444

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Pfaff KL
    2. Straub CT
    3. Chiang K
    4. Bear DM
    5. Zhou Y
    6. Zon LI

    (2007) The zebra fish cassiopeia mutant reveals that SIL is required for mitotic spindle organization

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 27:5887–5897.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00175-07

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Pihan GA

    (2013) Centrosome dysfunction contributes to chromosome instability, chromoanagenesis, and genome reprograming in cancer

    Frontiers in Oncology 3:277.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2013.00277

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Pike AN
    2. Fisk HA

    (2011) Centriole assembly and the role of Mps1: defensible or dispensable?

    Cell Division 6:9.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-1028-6-9

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Poss KD
    2. Wilson LG
    3. Keating MT

    (2002) Heart regeneration in zebrafish

    Science 298:2188–2190.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1077857

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Sander V
    2. Sune G
    3. Jopling C
    4. Morera C
    5. Izpisua Belmonte JC

    (2013) Isolation and in vitro culture of primary cardiomyocytes from adult zebrafish hearts

    Nature Protocols 8:800–809.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2013.041

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Senyo SE
    2. Lee RT
    3. Kuhn B

    (2014) Cardiac regeneration based on mechanisms of cardiomyocyte proliferation and differentiation

    Stem Cell Research 13:532–541.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scr.2014.09.003

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Sluder G

    (2013) Centriole engagement: it's not just cohesin any more

    Current Biology 23:R659–R660.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.06.064

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Sonnen KF
    2. Schermelleh L
    3. Leonhardt H
    4. Nigg EA

    (2012) 3D-structured illumination microscopy provides novel insight into architecture of human centrosomes

    Biology Open 1:965–976.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.20122337

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Soonpaa MH
    2. Kim KK
    3. Pajak L
    4. Franklin M
    5. Field LJ

    (1996)

    Cardiomyocyte DNA synthesis and binucleation during murine development

    The American Journal of Physiology 271:H2183–H2189.

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Srsen V
    2. Gnadt N
    3. Dammermann A
    4. Merdes A

    (2006) Inhibition of centrosome protein assembly leads to p53-dependent exit from the cell cycle

    The Journal of Cell Biology 174:625–630.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200606051

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Sun L
    2. Li P
    3. Carr AL
    4. Gorsuch R
    5. Yarka C
    6. Li J
    7. Bartlett M
    8. Pfister D
    9. Hyde DR
    10. Li L

    (2014) Transcription of the SCL/TAL1 interrupting Locus (Stil) is required for cell proliferation in adult Zebrafish retinas

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 289:6934–6940.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M113.506295

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Takahashi M
    2. Yamagiwa A
    3. Nishimura T
    4. Mukai H
    5. Ono Y

    (2002) Centrosomal proteins CG-NAP and kendrin provide microtubule nucleation sites by anchoring gamma-tubulin ring complex

    Molecular Biology of the Cell 13:3235–3245.

    https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E02-02-0112

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Takeuchi JK
    2. Lou X
    3. Alexander JM
    4. Sugizaki H
    5. Delgado-Olguín P
    6. Holloway AK
    7. Mori AD
    8. Wylie JN
    9. Munson C
    10. Zhu Y
    11. Zhou YQ
    12. Yeh RF
    13. Henkelman RM
    14. Harvey RP
    15. Metzger D
    16. Chambon P
    17. Stainier DY
    18. Pollard KS
    19. Scott IC
    20. Bruneau BG

    (2011) Chromatin remodelling complex dosage modulates transcription factor function in heart development

    Nature Communications 2:187.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1187

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Takeuchi T

    (2014) Regulation of cardiomyocyte proliferation during development and regeneration

    Development, Growth & Differentiation 56:402–409.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/dgd.12134

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Tassin AM
    2. Maro B
    3. Bornens M

    (1985) Fate of microtubule-organizing centers during myogenesis in vitro

    The Journal of Cell Biology 100:35–46.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.100.1.35

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Torres EM
    2. Williams BR
    3. Amon A

    (2008) Aneuploidy: cells losing their balance

    Genetics 179:737–746.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.108.090878

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Ueno H
    2. Perryman MB
    3. Roberts R
    4. Schneider MD

    (1988) Differentiation of cardiac myocytes after mitogen withdrawal exhibits three sequential states of the ventricular growth response

    The Journal of Cell Biology 107:1911–1918.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.107.5.1911

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. van Amerongen MJ
    2. Engel FB

    (2008) Features of cardiomyocyte proliferation and its potential for cardiac regeneration

    Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine 12:2233–2244.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00439.x

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Vulprecht J
    2. David A
    3. Tibelius A
    4. Castiel A
    5. Konotop G
    6. Liu F
    7. Bestvater F
    8. Raab MS
    9. Zentgraf H
    10. Izraeli S
    11. Krämer A

    (2012) STIL is required for centriole duplication in human cells

    Journal of Cell Science 125:1353–1362.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.104109

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Wang WJ
    2. Soni RK
    3. Uryu K
    4. Tsou MF

    (2011) The conversion of centrioles to centrosomes: essential coupling of duplication with segregation

    The Journal of Cell Biology 193:727–739.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201101109

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Wong YL
    2. Anzola JV
    3. Davis RL
    4. Yoon M
    5. Motamedi A
    6. Kroll A
    7. Seo CP
    8. Hsia JE
    9. Kim SK
    10. Mitchell JW
    11. Mitchell BJ
    12. Desai A
    13. Gahman TC
    14. Shiau AK
    15. Oegema K

    (2015) Reversible centriole depletion with an inhibitor of Polo-like kinase 4

    Science 348:1155–1160.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa5111

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Zaal KJ
    2. Reid E
    3. Mousavi K
    4. Zhang T
    5. Mehta A
    6. Bugnard E
    7. Sartorelli V
    8. Ralston E

    (2011) Who needs microtubules? Myogenic reorganization of MTOC, Golgi complex and ER exit sites persists despite lack of normal microtubule tracks

    PLOS ONE 6:e29057.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029057

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Zebrowski DC
    2. Engel FB

    (2013) The cardiomyocyte cell cycle in hypertrophy, tissue homeostasis, and regeneration

    Reviews of Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology 165:67–96.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/112_2013_12

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Zhu SJ
    2. Pearson BJ

    (2013) The Retinoblastoma pathway regulates stem cell proliferation in freshwater planarians

    Developmental Biology 373:442–452.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2012.10.025

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. David C Zebrowski

   1. Experimental Renal and Cardiovascular Research, Department of Nephropathology, Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
   2. Department of Cardiac Development and Remodeling, Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Bad Nauheim, Germany

   Contribution

   DCZ, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   For correspondence

   david.zebrowski@gmail.com

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

2. Silvia Vergarajauregui

   Experimental Renal and Cardiovascular Research, Department of Nephropathology, Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

   Contribution

   SV, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

3. Chi-Chung Wu

   Institute for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany

   Contribution

   C-CW, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

4. Tanja Piatkowski

   Department of Cardiac Development and Remodeling, Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Bad Nauheim, Germany

   Contribution

   TP, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

5. Robert Becker

   Experimental Renal and Cardiovascular Research, Department of Nephropathology, Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

   Contribution

   RB, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

6. Marina Leone

   1. Experimental Renal and Cardiovascular Research, Department of Nephropathology, Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
   2. Department of Cardiac Development and Remodeling, Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Bad Nauheim, Germany

   Contribution

   ML, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

7. Sofia Hirth

   Department of Medicine II, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany

   Contribution

   SH, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

8. Filomena Ricciardi

   Department of Developmental Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Bad Nauheim, Germany

   Contribution

   FR, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

9. Nathalie Falk

   Department of Biology, Animal Physiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

   Contribution

   NF, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

10. Andreas Giessl

    Department of Biology, Animal Physiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Contribution

    AG, Analysis and interpretation of data, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

11. Steffen Just

    Department of Medicine II, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany

    Contribution

    SJ, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

12. Thomas Braun

    Department of Cardiac Development and Remodeling, Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Bad Nauheim, Germany

    Contribution

    TB, Analysis and interpretation of data, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

13. Gilbert Weidinger

    Institute for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany

    Contribution

    GW, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

14. Felix B Engel

    1. Experimental Renal and Cardiovascular Research, Department of Nephropathology, Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
    2. Department of Cardiac Development and Remodeling, Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Bad Nauheim, Germany

    Contribution

    FBE, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

    For correspondence

    felix.engel@uk-erlangen.de

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

• 6,792

  views

• 1,498

  downloads

• 103

  citations

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