1. Developmental Biology
  2. Neuroscience
Download icon

Transcriptomic and epigenetic regulation of hair cell regeneration in the mouse utricle and its potentiation by Atoh1

  1. Hsin-I Jen
  2. Matthew C Hill
  3. Litao Tao
  4. Kuanwei Sheng
  5. Wenjian Cao
  6. Hongyuan Zhang
  7. Haoze V Yu
  8. Juan Llamas
  9. Chenghang Zong
  10. James F Martin
  11. Neil Segil
  12. Andrew K Groves  Is a corresponding author
  1. Baylor College of Medicine, United States
  2. University of Southern California, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 21
  • Views 4,057
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2019;8:e44328 doi: 10.7554/eLife.44328

Abstract

The mammalian cochlea loses its ability to regenerate new hair cells prior to the onset of hearing. In contrast, the adult vestibular system can produce new hair cells in response to damage, or by reprogramming of supporting cells with the hair cell transcription factor Atoh1. We used RNA-seq and ATAC-seq to probe the transcriptional and epigenetic responses of utricle supporting cells to damage and Atoh1 transduction. We show that the improved regenerative response of the utricle correlates with a more accessible chromatin structure in utricle supporting cells compared to their cochlear counterparts. We also provide evidence that Atoh1 transduction of supporting cells is able to promote increased transcriptional accessibility of some hair cell genes. Our study offers a possible explanation for regenerative differences between sensory organs of the inner ear, but shows that additional factors to Atoh1 may be required for optimal reprogramming of hair cell fate.

Data availability

Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO under accession codes GSE122732 and GSE121610

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hsin-I Jen

    Program in Developmental Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Matthew C Hill

    Program in Developmental Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Litao Tao

    Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kuanwei Sheng

    Program Integrative Molecular and Biomedical Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Wenjian Cao

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Hongyuan Zhang

    Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Haoze V Yu

    Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Juan Llamas

    Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Chenghang Zong

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. James F Martin

    Program in Developmental Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Neil Segil

    Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Andrew K Groves

    Program in Developmental Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    For correspondence
    akgroves@bcm.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0784-7998

Funding

National Cancer Institute (CA125123)

  • Andrew K Groves

Vivian L Smith Foundation and MacDonald Research Fund Award (16RDM001)

  • James F Martin

Transatlantic Network of Excellence Award LeDucq Foundation Transatlantic Networks of Excellence in Cardiovascular Research (14CVD01)

  • James F Martin

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (RO1DC014832)

  • Andrew K Groves

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (RO1DC015829)

  • Neil Segil

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (RO1DE023177)

  • James F Martin

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (RO1HL127717)

  • James F Martin

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (RO1HL130804)

  • James F Martin

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (RO1HL118761)

  • James F Martin

National Institutes of Health (DP2EB020399)

  • Chenghang Zong

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (F31HL136065)

  • Matthew C Hill

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (AN-4956) of Baylor College of Medicine

Reviewing Editor

  1. Francois Guillemot, The Francis Crick Institute, United Kingdom

Publication history

  1. Received: December 12, 2018
  2. Accepted: April 28, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 29, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 7, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Jen 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

  • 4,057
    Page views
  • 571
    Downloads
  • 21
    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)

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Alessandro Bonfini et al.
    Research Article

    The gut is the primary interface between an animal and food, but how it adapts to qualitative dietary variation is poorly defined. We find that the Drosophila midgut plastically resizes following changes in dietary composition. A panel of nutrients collectively promote gut growth, which sugar opposes. Diet influences absolute and relative levels of enterocyte loss and stem cell proliferation, which together determine cell numbers. Diet also influences enterocyte size. A high sugar diet inhibits translation and uncouples ISC proliferation from expression of niche-derived signals but, surprisingly, rescuing these effects genetically was not sufficient to modify diet's impact on midgut size. However, when stem cell proliferation was deficient, diet's impact on enterocyte size was enhanced, and reducing enterocyte-autonomous TOR signaling was sufficient to attenuate diet-dependent midgut resizing. These data clarify the complex relationships between nutrition, epithelial dynamics, and cell size, and reveal a new mode of plastic, diet-dependent organ resizing.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Physics of Living Systems
    Yonghyun Song, Changbong Hyeon
    Research Article Updated

    Spatial boundaries formed during animal development originate from the pre-patterning of tissues by signaling molecules, called morphogens. The accuracy of boundary location is limited by the fluctuations of morphogen concentration that thresholds the expression level of target gene. Producing more morphogen molecules, which gives rise to smaller relative fluctuations, would better serve to shape more precise target boundaries; however, it incurs more thermodynamic cost. In the classical diffusion-depletion model of morphogen profile formation, the morphogen molecules synthesized from a local source display an exponentially decaying concentration profile with a characteristic length λ. Our theory suggests that in order to attain a precise profile with the minimal cost, λ should be roughly half the distance to the target boundary position from the source. Remarkably, we find that the profiles of morphogens that pattern the Drosophila embryo and wing imaginal disk are formed with nearly optimal λ. Our finding underscores the cost-effectiveness of precise morphogen profile formation in Drosophila development.