| Literature DB >> 35562782 |
Teppei Nishino1,2, Masaharu Yoshihara3,4,5, Takahiro Nakayama6, Takaho Tsuchiya7,8, Saeko Tahara6, Haruka Ozaki7,8, Satoru Takahashi1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Portal mesenchymal cells induce the epithelial differentiation of the bile ducts in the developing liver via one of the Delta-Notch signaling components, JAGGED1. Although this differential induction is crucial for normal liver physiology as its genetic disorder (Alagille syndrome) causes jaundice, the molecular mechanism behind JAGGED1 expression remains unknown. Here, we searched for upstream regulatory transcription factors of JAGGED1 using an integrated bioinformatics method.Entities:
Keywords: Delta-Notch signaling pathway; DoRothEA; EGR1; Intrahepatic biliary development; Regulon evaluations; SLUG; SOX2; Single-cell RNA-seq; Smooth muscle actin; Transcription factors
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35562782 PMCID: PMC9102744 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-06058-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Fig. 1Identification of portal mesenchymal cells in human fetal liver single-cell RNA-seq data. a UMAP plot of CS20 human fetal liver single-cell RNA-seq data. b Cluster #6 in a was enriched for ACTA2 and contained portal mesenchymal cells (arrowhead). c Cluster #6 contained JAGGED1-expressing cells (arrowhead). d UMAP plot of CS23 human fetal liver single-cell RNA-seq data. e Cluster #15 in d was enriched for ACTA2 and contained portal mesenchymal cells (arrowhead). f Cluster #15 contained JAGGED1-expressing cells (arrowhead)
Fig. 2Examination of enrichment of potential regulators in portal mesenchymal cells. a SLUG was enriched in cluster #6 of the CS20 dataset (FDR-adjusted p value = 2.08 × 10–51). b SOX2 was not enriched in cluster #6 of the CS20 dataset (FDR-adjusted p value = 1.00). c EGR1 was enriched in cluster #6 of the CS20 dataset (FDR-adjusted p value = 5.91 × 10–22). d Comparison of JAGGED1 or SLUG expression in the cells of cluster #6 of the CS20 dataset as evaluated by Fisher’s exact test. Note that the percentage of SLUG-expressing cells was significantly higher in JAGGED1-expressing cells than in JAGGED1-nonexpressing cells (p = 1.95 × 10–4). e Comparison of JAGGED1 or EGR1 expression in the cells of cluster #6 of the CS20 dataset as evaluated by Fisher’s exact test. Note that the percentage of EGR1-expressing cells was significantly higher in JAGGED1-expressing cells than in JAGGED1-nonexpressing cells (p = 6.37 × 10–4). f SLUG was enriched in cluster #15 of the CS23 dataset (FDR-adjusted p value = 2.29 × 10–13). g SOX2 was not enriched in cluster #15 of the CS23 dataset (FDR-adjusted p value = 1). h EGR1 was enriched in cluster #15 of the CS23 dataset (FDR-adjusted p value = 9.51 × 10–6). i Comparison of JAGGED1 or SLUG expression in the cells of cluster #15 of the CS23 dataset as evaluated by Fisher’s exact test. Note that the percentage of SLUG-expressing cells was higher in JAGGED1-expressing cells than in JAGGED1-nonexpressing cells, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.150). j Comparison of JAGGED1 or EGR1 expression in the cells in cluster #15 of the CS23 dataset as evaluated by Fisher’s exact test. Note that the percentage of EGR1-expressing cells was lower in JAGGED1-expressing cells than in JAGGED1-nonexpressing cells, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 1.00)