1. Computational and Systems Biology
  2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
Download icon

A protein phosphatase network controls the temporal and spatial dynamics of differentiation commitment in human epidermis

  1. Ajay Mishra
  2. Benedicte Oules
  3. Angela Oliveira Pisco
  4. Tony Ly
  5. Kifayathullah Liakath-Ali
  6. Gernot Walko
  7. Priyalakshmi Viswanathan
  8. Matthieu Tihy
  9. Jagdeesh Nijjher
  10. Sara-Jane Dunn
  11. Angus I Lamond
  12. Fiona M Watt  Is a corresponding author
  1. King's College London, United Kingdom
  2. University of Dundee, United Kingdom
  3. Microsoft Research, United Kingdom
Research Article
  • Cited 22
  • Views 3,012
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2017;6:e27356 doi: 10.7554/eLife.27356

Abstract

Epidermal homeostasis depends on a balance between stem cell renewal and terminal differentiation. The transition between the two cell states, termed commitment, is poorly understood. Here we characterise commitment by integrating transcriptomic and proteomic data from disaggregated primary human keratinocytes held in suspension to induce differentiation. Cell detachment induces several protein phosphatases, five of which - DUSP6, PPTC7, PTPN1, PTPN13 and PPP3CA - promote differentiation by negatively regulating ERK MAPK and positively regulating AP1 transcription factors. Conversely, DUSP10 expression antagonises commitment. The phosphatases form a dynamic network of transient positive and negative interactions that change over time, with DUSP6 predominating at commitment. Boolean network modelling identifies a mandatory switch between two stable states (stem and differentiated) via an unstable (committed) state. Phosphatase expression is also spatially regulated in vivo and in vitro. We conclude that an auto-regulatory phosphatase network maintains epidermal homeostasis by controlling the onset and duration of commitment.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ajay Mishra

    Centre for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  2. Benedicte Oules

    Centre for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  3. Angela Oliveira Pisco

    Centre for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  4. Tony Ly

    Centre for Gene Regulation and Expression, School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  5. Kifayathullah Liakath-Ali

    Centre for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  6. Gernot Walko

    Centre for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  7. Priyalakshmi Viswanathan

    Centre for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  8. Matthieu Tihy

    Centre for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9314-4657

  9. Jagdeesh Nijjher

    Centre for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  10. Sara-Jane Dunn

    Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  11. Angus I Lamond

    Centre for Gene Regulation and Expression, School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6204-6045

  12. Fiona M Watt

    Centre for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    fiona.watt@kcl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    Fiona M Watt, Deputy editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9151-5154

Funding

Wellcome Trust (096540/Z/11/Z)

  • Benedicte Oules
  • Kifayathullah Liakath-Ali
  • Gernot Walko
  • Priyalakshmi Viswanathan
  • Jagdeesh Nijjher
  • Sara-Jane Dunn
  • Angus I Lamond
  • Fiona M Watt

Medical Research Council (G1100073)

  • Angela Oliveira Pisco

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Valerie Horsley, Yale University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: April 1, 2017
  2. Accepted: October 10, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 18, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: November 2, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2017, Mishra 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

  • 3,012
    Page views
  • 626
    Downloads
  • 22
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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)

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

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

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics

    Author-sourced capture of pathway knowledge in computable form using Biofactoid

    Jeffrey V Wong et al.
    Feature Article

    Making the knowledge contained in scientific papers machine-readable and formally computable would allow researchers to take full advantage of this information by enabling integration with other knowledge sources to support data analysis and interpretation. Here we describe Biofactoid, a web-based platform that allows scientists to specify networks of interactions between genes, their products, and chemical compounds, and then translates this information into a representation suitable for computational analysis, search and discovery. We also report the results of a pilot study to encourage the wide adoption of Biofactoid by the scientific community.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Medicine

    Topological network analysis of patient similarity for precision management of acute blood pressure in spinal cord injury

    Abel Torres-Espín et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Background:

    Predicting neurological recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI) is challenging. Using topological data analysis, we have previously shown that mean arterial pressure (MAP) during SCI surgery predicts long-term functional recovery in rodent models, motivating the present multicenter study in patients.

    Methods:

    Intra-operative monitoring records and neurological outcome data were extracted (n = 118 patients). We built a similarity network of patients from a low-dimensional space embedded using a non-linear algorithm, Isomap, and ensured topological extraction using persistent homology metrics. Confirmatory analysis was conducted through regression methods.

    Results:

    Network analysis suggested that time outside of an optimum MAP range (hypotension or hypertension) during surgery was associated with lower likelihood of neurological recovery at hospital discharge. Logistic and LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression confirmed these findings, revealing an optimal MAP range of 76–[104-117] mmHg associated with neurological recovery.

    Conclusions:

    We show that deviation from this optimal MAP range during SCI surgery predicts lower probability of neurological recovery and suggest new targets for therapeutic intervention.

    Funding:

    NIH/NINDS: R01NS088475 (ARF); R01NS122888 (ARF); UH3NS106899 (ARF); Department of Veterans Affairs: 1I01RX002245 (ARF), I01RX002787 (ARF); Wings for Life Foundation (ATE, ARF); Craig H. Neilsen Foundation (ARF); and DOD: SC150198 (MSB); SC190233 (MSB); DOE: DE-AC02-05CH11231 (DM).

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Markov state models of proton- and pore-dependent activation in a pentameric ligand-gated ion channel

    Cathrine Bergh et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Ligand-gated ion channels conduct currents in response to chemical stimuli, mediating electrochemical signaling in neurons and other excitable cells. For many channels, the details of gating remain unclear, partly due to limited structural data and simulation timescales. Here, we used enhanced sampling to simulate the pH-gated channel GLIC, and construct Markov state models (MSMs) of gating. Consistent with new functional recordings, we report in oocytes, our analysis revealed differential effects of protonation and mutation on free-energy wells. Clustering of closed- versus open-like states enabled estimation of open probabilities and transition rates, while higher-order clustering affirmed conformational trends in gating. Furthermore, our models uncovered state- and protonation-dependent symmetrization. This demonstrates the applicability of MSMs to map energetic and conformational transitions between ion-channel functional states, and how they reproduce shifts upon activation or mutation, with implications for modeling neuronal function and developing state-selective drugs.