Single-cell analysis uncovers that metabolic reprogramming by ErbB2 signaling is essential for cardiomyocyte proliferation in the regenerating heart

  1. Hessel Honkoop
  2. Dennis EM de Bakker
  3. Alla Aharonov
  4. Fabian Kruse
  5. Avraham Shakked
  6. Phong D Nguyen
  7. Cecilia de Heus
  8. Laurence Garric
  9. Mauro J Muraro
  10. Adam Shoffner
  11. Federico Tessadori
  12. Joshua Craiger Peterson
  13. Wendy Noort
  14. Alberto Bertozzi
  15. Gilbert Weidinger
  16. George Posthuma
  17. Dominic Grun
  18. Willem J van der Laarse
  19. Judith Klumperman
  20. Richard T Jaspers
  21. Kenneth D Poss
  22. Alexander van Oudenaarden
  23. Eldad Tzahor
  24. Jeroen Bakkers  Is a corresponding author
  1. Hubrecht Institute, Netherlands
  2. Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
  3. University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands
  4. Duke University Medical Center, United States
  5. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands
  6. Ulm University, Germany
  7. Max Planck Institute for Immunbiology and Epigenetics, Germany
  8. VU University Medical Center, Netherlands

Abstract

While the heart regenerates poorly in mammals, efficient heart regeneration occurs in zebrafish. Studies in zebrafish have resulted in a model in which preexisting cardiomyocytes dedifferentiate and reinitiate proliferation to replace the lost myocardium. To identify which processes occur in proliferating cardiomyocytes we have used a single-cell RNA-sequencing approach. We uncovered that proliferating border zone cardiomyocytes have very distinct transcriptomes compared to the nonproliferating remote cardiomyocytes and that they resemble embryonic cardiomyocytes. Moreover, these cells have reduced expression of mitochondrial genes and reduced mitochondrial activity, while glycolysis gene expression and glucose uptake are increased, indicative for metabolic reprogramming. Furthermore, we find that the metabolic reprogramming of border zone cardiomyocytes is induced by Nrg1/ErbB2 signaling and is important for their proliferation. This mechanism is conserved in murine hearts in which cardiomyocyte proliferation is induced by activating ErbB2 signaling. Together these results demonstrate that glycolysis regulates cardiomyocyte proliferation during heart regeneration.

Data availability

Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO under accession code GSE139218Other data generated during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hessel Honkoop

    Cardiac Development and Genetics, Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Dennis EM de Bakker

    Cardiac Development and Genetics, Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Alla Aharonov

    Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Fabian Kruse

    Cardiac Development and Genetics, Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Avraham Shakked

    Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Phong D Nguyen

    Cardiac Development and Genetics, Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Cecilia de Heus

    Department of Cell Biology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Laurence Garric

    Cardiac Development and Genetics, Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Mauro J Muraro

    Hubrecht Institute, Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Adam Shoffner

    Department of Cell Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Federico Tessadori

    Cardiac Development and Genetics, Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Joshua Craiger Peterson

    Department of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Wendy Noort

    Department of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Alberto Bertozzi

    Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Gilbert Weidinger

    Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3599-6760
  16. George Posthuma

    Department of Cell Biology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Dominic Grun

    Max Planck Institute for Immunbiology and Epigenetics, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Willem J van der Laarse

    Department of Physiology, Institute for Cardiovascular Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Judith Klumperman

    Department of Cell Biology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Richard T Jaspers

    Department of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6951-0952
  21. Kenneth D Poss

    Regeneration Next, Department of Cell Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Alexander van Oudenaarden

    Hubrecht Institute, Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Eldad Tzahor

    Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5212-9426
  24. Jeroen Bakkers

    Cardiac Development and Genetics, Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    j.bakkers@hubrecht.eu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9418-0422

Funding

ERA-CVD (JCT2016-40-080)

  • Gilbert Weidinger
  • Eldad Tzahor
  • Jeroen Bakkers

NIH Clinical Center (R01 HL131319)

  • Kenneth D Poss

NIH Clinical Center (R01 HL136182)

  • Kenneth D Poss

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (251293561)

  • Gilbert Weidinger

Netherlands Heart Foundation NHS/CVON (Cobra3)

  • Jeroen Bakkers

European Molecular Biology Organization (ALTF1129-2015)

  • Phong D Nguyen

Human Frontier Science Program (LT001404/2017-L)

  • Phong D Nguyen

Dutch Research Council (016.186.017-3)

  • Phong D Nguyen

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (316249678)

  • Gilbert Weidinger

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (414077062)

  • Gilbert Weidinger

NIH Clinical Center (RO1 HL081674)

  • Kenneth D Poss

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Marianne E Bronner, California Institute of Technology, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments were conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines. Animal experiments were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (AVD801002016404), the state of Baden-Württemberg and the animal protection representative of Ulm University (Tierversuch 1352), Duke University (A057-18-02) and the Weizmann Institute (13240419-3).

Version history

  1. Received: July 12, 2019
  2. Accepted: December 4, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 23, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 4, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Honkoop 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

  • 12,233
    views
  • 1,763
    downloads
  • 158
    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. Hessel Honkoop
  2. Dennis EM de Bakker
  3. Alla Aharonov
  4. Fabian Kruse
  5. Avraham Shakked
  6. Phong D Nguyen
  7. Cecilia de Heus
  8. Laurence Garric
  9. Mauro J Muraro
  10. Adam Shoffner
  11. Federico Tessadori
  12. Joshua Craiger Peterson
  13. Wendy Noort
  14. Alberto Bertozzi
  15. Gilbert Weidinger
  16. George Posthuma
  17. Dominic Grun
  18. Willem J van der Laarse
  19. Judith Klumperman
  20. Richard T Jaspers
  21. Kenneth D Poss
  22. Alexander van Oudenaarden
  23. Eldad Tzahor
  24. Jeroen Bakkers
(2019)
Single-cell analysis uncovers that metabolic reprogramming by ErbB2 signaling is essential for cardiomyocyte proliferation in the regenerating heart
eLife 8:e50163.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50163

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50163

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Megan L Martik
    Insight

    Experiments in zebrafish have shed new light on the relationship between development and regeneration in the heart.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Sanjay Kumar Sukumar, Vimala Antonydhason ... Ruth H Palmer
    Research Article

    Numerous roles for the Alk receptor tyrosine kinase have been described in Drosophila, including functions in the central nervous system (CNS), however the molecular details are poorly understood. To gain mechanistic insight, we employed Targeted DamID (TaDa) transcriptional profiling to identify targets of Alk signaling in the larval CNS. TaDa was employed in larval CNS tissues, while genetically manipulating Alk signaling output. The resulting TaDa data were analyzed together with larval CNS scRNA-seq datasets performed under similar conditions, identifying a role for Alk in the transcriptional regulation of neuroendocrine gene expression. Further integration with bulk and scRNA-seq datasets from larval brains in which Alk signaling was manipulated identified a previously uncharacterized Drosophila neuropeptide precursor encoded by CG4577 as an Alk signaling transcriptional target. CG4577, which we named Sparkly (Spar), is expressed in a subset of Alk-positive neuroendocrine cells in the developing larval CNS, including circadian clock neurons. In agreement with our TaDa analysis, overexpression of the Drosophila Alk ligand Jeb resulted in increased levels of Spar protein in the larval CNS. We show that Spar protein is expressed in circadian (clock) neurons, and flies lacking Spar exhibit defects in sleep and circadian activity control. In summary, we report a novel activity regulating neuropeptide precursor gene that is regulated by Alk signaling in the Drosophila CNS.