| Literature DB >> 28539832 |
Jung Woo Park1, Li Yan1, Chris Stoddard2, Xiaofang Wang2, Zhichao Yue3, Leann Crandall2, Tiwanna Robinson2, Yuxiao Chang3, Kyle Denton2, Enqin Li1, Bin Jiang1, Zhenwu Zhang1, Kristen Martins-Taylor2, Siu-Pok Yee2, Hong Nie4, Feng Gu5, Wei Si6, Ting Xie7, Lixia Yue8, Ren-He Xu1,2.
Abstract
Marfan syndrome (MFS) is a connective tissue disorder caused by mutations in FBN1 gene, which encodes a key extracellular matrix protein FIBRILLIN-1. The haplosufficiency of FBN1 has been implicated in pathogenesis of MFS with manifestations primarily in cardiovascular, muscular, and ocular tissues. Due to limitations in animal models to study the late-onset diseases, human pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) offer a homogeneic tool for dissection of cellular and molecular pathogenic mechanism for MFS in vitro. Here, we first derived induced PSCs (iPSCs) from a MFS patient with a FBN1 mutation and corrected the mutation, thereby generating an isogenic "gain-of-function" control cells for the parental MFS iPSCs. Reversely, we knocked out FBN1 in both alleles in a wild-type (WT) human embryonic stem cell (ESC) line, which served as a loss-of-function model for MFS with the WT cells as an isogenic control. Mesenchymal stem cells derived from both FBN1-mutant iPSCs and -ESCs demonstrated reduced osteogenic differentiation and microfibril formation. We further demonstrated that vascular smooth muscle cells derived from FBN1-mutant iPSCs showed less sensitivity to carbachol as demonstrated by contractility and Ca2+ influx assay, compared to the isogenic controls cells. These findings were further supported by transcriptomic anaylsis of the cells. Therefore, this study based on both gain- and loss-of-function approaches confirmed the pathogenetic role of FBN1 mutations in these MFS-related phenotypic changes.Entities:
Keywords: Marfan syndrome; disease modeling; genome editing; human pluripotent stem cells; osteogenesis; smooth muscle.
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28539832 PMCID: PMC5441176 DOI: 10.7150/ijbs.19517
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Biol Sci ISSN: 1449-2288 Impact factor: 6.580
Figure 1Derivation of iPSCs from skin fibroblasts of a MFS patient. (A) Immunocytochemistry of iPSCs derived from the patient (MFS-iPSCs) for pluripotency markers with nuclei counterstained by DAPI. Scale bars, 100 μm. (B) PluriTest® of MFS-iPSCs. (C) Karyotype of MFS-iPSCs at passage 11. (D) MFS-iPSCs formed teratoma with tissues derived from the three germ layers. Scale bars, 200 μm. (E) Validation of the FBN1 mutation in both fibroblasts from the patient (MFS-Fib) and MFS-iPSCs. (F) Luciferase assay to report TGFβ signaling level in MFS-Fib and WT control fibroblasts (HDFα), *P < 0.01 and **P < 0.001.
Figure 2Correction of FBN1 mutation in the MFS-iPSC line. (A) A schematic of the genome targeting strategy for correcting the FBN1 mutation (marked with a red asterisk) in exon 22. Red lines denote the endogenous sequences after targeting. Primers used to validate the targeting and removal of the residual cassette are shown on the map. (B) Correct targeting was found in four of nine selected clones as verified through PCR. Amplicons from each clone were sequenced forward and reversely, which confirmed the correction of the mutation (2581C>T). Clone 2 is a representative positive clone and clone 8 a representative incorrectly targeted clone. (C) The removal of the cassette by transient transfection of a Cre-recombinase expression vector and validation PCR to show the removal of the cassette from the clones with asterisk above.
Figure 3Characterization of the MFS- and mcMFS-MSCs. (A) Western analysis to detect FBN1 in MFS- and mcMFS-MSCs. (B) Immunocytochemistry for FBN1 and ELASTIN to detect microfibrils formation by MFS- and mcMFS-MSCs. Scale bars, 100 μM. (C) Western analysis to detect phosphorylated SMAD2 in MFS- and mcMFS-MSCs.
Figure 4Characterization of SMCs differentiated from MFS- and mcMFS-iPSCs. (A) A schematic of the differentiation protocol and morphologies of embryoid bodies (EB), hemangioblasts (HB), and SMCs. Scale bars, 100 μm. (B) Immunocytochemistry for SMA in SMCs and calponin upon network formation by SMCs and endothelial cells. Scale bars in B, 50 μm for SMA, 100 μm for the other proteins. (C and D) RT-PCR (C) and flow cytometry (D) for expression of SMC markers.
Figure 5Functional characterization of MFS- and mcMFS-SMCs. (A) Percentage of contractile cells, *P < 0.01. SB stands for SB431542, and YK26 for SMCs differentiated from a WT human iPSC line YK26. (B) Changes of normalized F340/F380 Ca2+ signal elicited by CCh (left panel). Average changes (mean ± SEM) of the Ca2+ signal in mcMFS-SMCs (n = 21), MFS-SMCs (two clones with n = 15 for both), and WT (YK-26) SMCs (n = 20), *P < 0.01 (right panel). (C) Osteogenic differentiation from WT, MFS-, and mcMFS-iPSCs, followed by staining with Alizarin Red. Scale bars, 200 μm.
Figure 6Transcriptomic analysis of MFS- and mcMFS-SMCs. (A) Heat-map of unsupervised data from microarray on the two groups (two clones per group). (b-c) Heat-map of differentially expressed genes associated to cell adhesion (B) and inflammation (C). (D) Expression of some of the genes was confirmed via RT-PCR (left panel) and qPCR (right panel). (E) Heat-map showing differential expression of contractile and synthetic SMC markers.
Figure 7Knockout of (A) Schematic for CRISPR/Cas9n-assisted knockout of FBN1 in hESCs. (B) Immunostaining for ELASTIN and FBN1 in MSCs differentiated from ENVY hESCs with (C1) or without (WT) FBN1 knockout. (C) Alizarin red and alcian blue staining for osteogenic and chondrogenic differentiation, respectively, of the ENVY-WT- and ENVY-C1-MSCs. Scale bars, 100 μM.