Eya2 promotes cell cycle progression by regulating DNA damage response during vertebrate limb regeneration

  1. Konstantinos Sousounis
  2. Donald M Bryant
  3. Jose Martinez Fernandez
  4. Samuel S Eddy
  5. Stephanie L Tsai
  6. Gregory C Gundberg
  7. Jihee Han
  8. Katharine Courtemanche
  9. Michael Levin
  10. Jessica L Whited  Is a corresponding author
  1. Harvard University, United States
  2. Brigham & Women's Hospital, United States
  3. Tufts University, United States
  4. Harvard Medical School, United States

Abstract

How salamanders accomplish progenitor cell proliferation while faithfully maintaining genomic integrity and regenerative potential remains elusive. Here we found an innate DNA damage response mechanism that is evident during blastema proliferation (early- to late-bud) and studied its role during tissue regeneration by ablating the function of one of its components, Eyes absent 2. In eya2 mutant axolotls, we found that DNA damage signaling through the H2AX histone variant was deregulated, especially within the proliferating progenitors during limb regeneration. Ultimately, cell cycle progression was impaired at the G1/S and G2/M transitions and regeneration rate was reduced. Similar data were acquired using acute pharmacological inhibition of the Eya2 phosphatase activity and the DNA damage checkpoint kinases Chk1 and Chk2 in wild-type axolotls. Together, our data indicate that highly-regenerative animals employ a robust DNA damage response pathway which involves regulation of H2AX phosphorylation via Eya2 to facilitate proper cell cycle progression upon injury.

Data availability

Raw data can be accessed in the NIH Sequence Read Archive: SUB6297224.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Konstantinos Sousounis

    Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Donald M Bryant

    Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jose Martinez Fernandez

    Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Samuel S Eddy

    Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Stephanie L Tsai

    Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7549-3418
  6. Gregory C Gundberg

    Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jihee Han

    Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Katharine Courtemanche

    Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Michael Levin

    The Allen Discovery Center, Tufts University, Medford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7292-8084
  10. Jessica L Whited

    Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    jwhited@partners.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3709-6515

Funding

Sara Elizabeth O'Brien Trust (Postdoctoral fellowship)

  • Konstantinos Sousounis

National Institutes of Health (K99EY029361)

  • Konstantinos Sousounis

Paul G. Allen Family Foundation (Allen Discovery Center at Tufts)

  • Michael Levin
  • Jessica L Whited

National Institutes of Health (1DP2HD087953)

  • Jessica L Whited

National Institutes of Health (1R01HD095494)

  • Jessica L Whited

Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HIP)

  • Jose Martinez Fernandez

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Gilliam Fellowship)

  • Donald M Bryant

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Stephen Randal Voss, University of Kentucky

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments involving animals were performed according to IACUC protocol #2016N000369 at Brigham and Women's Hospital. All surgeries were performed while animals were anesthetized in tricaine. All experiments were planned and executed in manners that minimized animal suffering.

Version history

  1. Received: August 20, 2019
  2. Accepted: March 5, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 6, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 24, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Sousounis 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

  • 3,498
    views
  • 464
    downloads
  • 19
    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. Konstantinos Sousounis
  2. Donald M Bryant
  3. Jose Martinez Fernandez
  4. Samuel S Eddy
  5. Stephanie L Tsai
  6. Gregory C Gundberg
  7. Jihee Han
  8. Katharine Courtemanche
  9. Michael Levin
  10. Jessica L Whited
(2020)
Eya2 promotes cell cycle progression by regulating DNA damage response during vertebrate limb regeneration
eLife 9:e51217.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.51217

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.51217

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Edgar M Pera, Josefine Nilsson-De Moura ... Ivana Milas
    Research Article

    We previously showed that SerpinE2 and the serine protease HtrA1 modulate fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signaling in germ layer specification and head-to-tail development of Xenopus embryos. Here, we present an extracellular proteolytic mechanism involving this serpin-protease system in the developing neural crest (NC). Knockdown of SerpinE2 by injected antisense morpholino oligonucleotides did not affect the specification of NC progenitors but instead inhibited the migration of NC cells, causing defects in dorsal fin, melanocyte, and craniofacial cartilage formation. Similarly, overexpression of the HtrA1 protease impaired NC cell migration and the formation of NC-derived structures. The phenotype of SerpinE2 knockdown was overcome by concomitant downregulation of HtrA1, indicating that SerpinE2 stimulates NC migration by inhibiting endogenous HtrA1 activity. SerpinE2 binds to HtrA1, and the HtrA1 protease triggers degradation of the cell surface proteoglycan Syndecan-4 (Sdc4). Microinjection of Sdc4 mRNA partially rescued NC migration defects induced by both HtrA1 upregulation and SerpinE2 downregulation. These epistatic experiments suggest a proteolytic pathway by a double inhibition mechanism:

    SerpinE2 ┤HtrA1 protease ┤Syndecan-4 → NC cell migration.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Kristine B Walhovd, Stine K Krogsrud ... Didac Vidal-Pineiro
    Research Article

    Human fetal development has been associated with brain health at later stages. It is unknown whether growth in utero, as indexed by birth weight (BW), relates consistently to lifespan brain characteristics and changes, and to what extent these influences are of a genetic or environmental nature. Here we show remarkably stable and lifelong positive associations between BW and cortical surface area and volume across and within developmental, aging and lifespan longitudinal samples (N = 5794, 4–82 y of age, w/386 monozygotic twins, followed for up to 8.3 y w/12,088 brain MRIs). In contrast, no consistent effect of BW on brain changes was observed. Partly environmental effects were indicated by analysis of twin BW discordance. In conclusion, the influence of prenatal growth on cortical topography is stable and reliable through the lifespan. This early-life factor appears to influence the brain by association of brain reserve, rather than brain maintenance. Thus, fetal influences appear omnipresent in the spacetime of the human brain throughout the human lifespan. Optimizing fetal growth may increase brain reserve for life, also in aging.