| Literature DB >> 31382511 |
Jiayi Pei1,2,3, Rio Juni4, Magdalena Harakalova2,5, Dirk J Duncker6, Folkert W Asselbergs2,7,8, Pieter Koolwijk4, Victor van Hinsbergh4, Marianne C Verhaar1,3, Michal Mokry3,9,10, Caroline Cheng11,12.
Abstract
Indoxyl sulfate (IS) is an accumulative protein-bound uremic toxin found in patients with kidney disease. It is reported that IS impairs the vascular endothelium, but a comprehensive overview of all mechanisms active in IS-injury currently remains lacking. Here we performed RNA sequencing in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) after IS or control medium treatment and identified 1293 genes that were affected in a IS-induced response. Gene enrichment analysis highlighted pathways involved in altered vascular formation and cell metabolism. We confirmed these transcriptome profiles at the functional level by demonstrating decreased viability and increased cell senescence in response to IS treatment. In line with the additional pathways highlighted by the transcriptome analysis, we further could demonstrate that IS exposure of HUVECs promoted tubule formation as shown by the increase in total tubule length in a 3D HUVECs/pericytes co-culture assay. Notably, the pro-angiogenic response of IS and increased ROS production were abolished when CYP1B1, one of the main target genes that was highly upregulated by IS, was silenced. This observation indicates IS-induced ROS in endothelial cells is CYP1B1-dependent. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that IS promotes angiogenesis and CYP1B1 is an important factor in IS-activated angiogenic response.Entities:
Keywords: CYP1B1; angiogenesis; chronic kidney disease; indoxyl sulfate; reactive oxygen species
Year: 2019 PMID: 31382511 PMCID: PMC6723868 DOI: 10.3390/toxins11080454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 4.546
Figure 1Comparison of the transcriptome profile of HUVECs treated with IS to KCl treated control groups. (A) Heatmap depicting clustering of samples based on all differentially expressed genes between two groups. (B) Volcano plot presenting fold change (x-axis) and p value (y-axis) of all genes in log 2 scale. Differentially expressed genes are shown in red. (C) Top five enriched biological processes (green) and pathways (orange) based on IS upregulated genes. (D) Top five enriched biological processes (green) and pathways (orange) based on IS downregulated genes.
Top 10 genes that were significantly up- or down-regulated in IS-treated HUVECs when compared to the KCl treated control.
| Category | Ensembl ID | Gene Symbol | Gene Name | Angiogenic Function † | Fold Change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Up-regulation | ENSG00000138061 |
| Cytochrome P450 Family 1 Subfamily B Member 1 | Promote angiogenesis | 1.434 | 1.390 × 10−38 |
| ENSG00000114812 |
| Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide Receptor 1 | Not known | 1.321 | 1.072 × 10−36 | |
| ENSG00000137809 |
| Integrin Subunit Alpha 11 | Not known | 1.272 | 4.190 × 10−32 | |
| ENSG00000178695 |
| Potassium Channel Tetramerization Domain Containing 12 | Not known | 0.883 | 3.247 × 10−17 | |
| ENSG00000063438 |
| Aryl-Hydrocarbon Receptor Repressor | Not known | 0.872 | 4.144 × 10−15 | |
| ENSG00000007908 |
| Selectin E | Not known | 0.746 | 1.240 × 10−13 | |
| ENSG00000137331 |
| Immediate Early Response 3 | Not known | 0.736 | 5.396 × 10−19 | |
| ENSG00000163659 |
| TCDD Inducible Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase | Not known | 0.734 | 8.865 × 10−20 | |
| ENSG00000144476 |
| Atypical Chemokine Receptor 3 | Promote angiogenesis | 0.695 | 1.596 × 10−13 | |
| ENSG00000144802 |
| NFKB Inhibitor Zeta | Not known | 0.663 | 3.022 × 10−10 | |
| Down-regulation | ENSG00000117724 |
| Centromere Protein F | Not known | −0.586 | 1.114 × 10−14 |
| ENSG00000143476 |
| Denticleless E3 Ubiquitin Protein Ligase Homolog | Not known | −0.554 | 8.619 × 10−8 | |
| ENSG00000163808 |
| Kinesin Family Member 15 | Not known | −0.510 | 1.195 × 10−6 | |
| ENSG00000138778 |
| Centromere Protein E | Not known | −0.490 | 1.912 × 10−8 | |
| ENSG00000137812 |
| Kinetochore Scaffold 1 | Not known | −0.483 | 8.198 × 10−8 | |
| ENSG00000184661 |
| Cell Division Cycle Associated 2 | Not known | −0.482 | 2.314 × 10−6 | |
| ENSG00000066279 |
| Abnormal Spindle Microtubule Assembly | Not known | −0.473 | 7.741 × 10−10 | |
| ENSG00000156802 |
| ATPase Family AAA Domain Containing 2 | Inhibit angiogenesis | −0.470 | 9.314 × 10−9 | |
| ENSG00000196549 |
| Membrane Metalloendopeptidase | Not known | −0.465 | 9.572 × 10−8 | |
| ENSG00000132646 |
| Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen | Not known | −0.461 | 3.809 × 10−9 |
†: Established biological function of each gene in relation to angiogenesis was collected from NCBI Gene (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene).
Figure 2Functional examination of the identified IS related processes: Assessment of cell viability, senescence and migration in response to IS. (A) Cell viability was studied using a MTT assay. IS diminished viability of HUVECs when compared to the control at three difference concentrations (n = 4). (B) A representative image of X-gal activity in HUVECs treated with 250 μM IS or KCl control buffer, at 10× magnification. More X-gal positive cells (blue) were observed in IS group when compared to the control. (C) RT-qPCR results showed a higher expression level of cell senescence marker CDKN1A and a lower expression level of cell proliferation marker KI67 in HUVECs after exposing to 250 μM IS when compared to the KCl control (n ≥ 5). (D) An invasive wound healing assay was performed to study the influence of IS on cell migration ability. No difference on the migration distances of HUVECs was shown between two groups at three difference concentrations (n = 3). (E) Examples of migrated HUVECs after exposure to 250 μM IS or KCl control after 24 h in the wound healing assay, at 4× magnification. (F) A non-invasive plug assay was also performed to study the influence of IS on cell migration ability. No difference on the migrated HUVECs into the cell-free area was shown between two groups at three difference concentrations (n = 6). (G) Examples of migrated HUVECs after exposure to 250 μM IS or KCl control after 24 h in the plug assay. 2× magnification was used. All values are presented as mean ± SEM and they are shown in arbitrary units (AU), # p value < 0.1, * p value < 0.05. White lines indicate migration area in wound healing and plug assay.
Figure 3Examination of IS affected angiogenic responses. (A) A 3D co-culture model, in which HUVECs-GFP cells and pericytes-DsRED were cultured together in type I collagen, was used to study the influence of IS on angiogenesis at 250 μM. No difference on the number of branches, the number of tubules, and the total tubule length was detected between the two groups at 24 h after incubation. After 3 days, IS showed a tendency to promote angiogenesis by increasing all three parameters when compared to the KCl control (n ≥ 25). (B) Confocal images showing representative examples of vascular formation at day 3 post 250 μM IS or KCl control stimulation. Images shown in the upper row were taken at 20× magnification and zoomed-in views are shown in the lower row. In red are shown DsRED marked pericytes. In green are shown GFP marked HUVECs. All values are mean ± SEM, # p value < 0.1, * p value < 0.05.
Figure 4Investigation of increased CYP1B1 expression in IS influenced angiogenic responses. (A) Bar graphs show results of RT-qPCR evaluation of CYP1B1 expression level in HUVECs treated with 250 μM IS compared to the KCl controls (n = 6). (B) Bar graphs show results of RT-qPCR evaluation of CYP1B1 expression level in CYP1B1 silenced HUVECs when compared to siSham transfected cells at day 3 post transfection (n = 4). (C) Bar graphs show the number of branches, the number of tubules, and the total tubule length in CYP1B1 targeting siRNA transfected HUVECs (siCYP1B1) compared to sham transfected HUVECs (siSham) 3 days and 4 days after 250 μM IS stimulation (n ≥ 3). (D) Examples of vascular formation at day 3 post 250 μM IS in siSham and siCYP1B1 treated HUVECs. In red are shown DsRED marked pericytes. In green are shown GFP marked HUVECs. 20× magnification was used. All values are presented as mean ± SEM and they are shown in arbitrary units (AU), * p value < 0.05, ** p value < 0.01, *** p value < 0.001.
Figure 5Detection of intracellular ROS production and the involvement of CYP1B1 in IS influenced ROS level. (A) IS or control treated HUVECs were loaded with CM-H2DCFDA, a fluorescent indicator for ROS. Bargraphs show detected fluorescent signal representing ROS production in IS group when compared to the KCl control at three difference concentrations (n = 4). (B) Confocal figures showing representative examples of ROS signals in HUVECs treated with 250 μM IS compared to the KCl controls. (C) ROS signal measured in HUVECs treated with siRNA targeting CYP1B1 (siCYP1B1) versus non-targeting siRNA shams (siSham) with different doses of IS or equivalent doses of KCl control stimulation. (n ≥ 9 for each group). (D) Confocal figures showing typical examples of ROS signals in siSham or siCYP1B1 treated HUVECs at 24 h after exposure to 250 μM IS or KCl control. 20× magnification was used. (E) ROS signal measured in CMECs treated with siCYP1B1 versus siSham (n = 3) with or without 250 μM IS stimulation. All values are mean ± SEM and they are shown in arbitrary units (AU), * p value < 0.05, ** p value < 0.01.