Transcriptional Profiling of Quiescent Muscle Stem Cells In Vivo

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages (April 2017)
Advertisements

Volume 21, Issue 7, Pages (November 2017)
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages (December 2017)
Volume 2, Issue 3, Pages (March 2016)
Volume 20, Issue 13, Pages (September 2017)
A Single-Cell Transcriptome Atlas of the Human Pancreas
Volume 21, Issue 12, Pages (December 2017)
Volume 2, Issue 4, Pages (April 2008)
Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages (June 2015)
Volume 21, Issue 7, Pages (November 2017)
Volume 23, Issue 7, Pages (May 2018)
Discovery and Characterization of piRNAs in the Human Fetal Ovary
C. -H. Chou, M. T. M. Lee, I. -W. Song, L. -S. Lu, H. -C. Shen, C. -H
Volume 83, Issue 6, Pages (June 2013)
Kobe C. Yuen, Baoshan Xu, Ian D. Krantz, Jennifer L. Gerton 
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages (January 2015)
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages (November 2015)
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages (June 2018)
Volume 19, Issue 11, Pages (June 2017)
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages e4 (July 2017)
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages (April 2018)
Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages (October 2015)
Widespread Inhibition of Posttranscriptional Splicing Shapes the Cellular Transcriptome following Heat Shock  Reut Shalgi, Jessica A. Hurt, Susan Lindquist,
Volume 15, Issue 8, Pages (May 2016)
Dynamic Gene Regulatory Networks of Human Myeloid Differentiation
Volume 8, Issue 5, Pages (May 2017)
RNA-Stabilized Whole Blood Samples but Not Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells Can Be Stored for Prolonged Time Periods Prior to Transcriptome Analysis 
Volume 11, Pages (January 2019)
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages (November 2017)
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages (April 2017)
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages (August 2017)
Volume 24, Issue 11, Pages e3 (September 2018)
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages (December 2017)
An RpaA-Dependent Sigma Factor Cascade Sets the Timing of Circadian Transcriptional Rhythms in Synechococcus elongatus  Kathleen E. Fleming, Erin K. O’Shea 
Michal Levin, Tamar Hashimshony, Florian Wagner, Itai Yanai 
Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages (December 2015)
SUMO-2 Orchestrates Chromatin Modifiers in Response to DNA Damage
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages (May 2018)
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages e4 (October 2017)
Ex Vivo Expansion and In Vivo Self-Renewal of Human Muscle Stem Cells
Volume 16, Issue 11, Pages (September 2016)
Volume 21, Issue 13, Pages (December 2017)
Wei Jiang, Yuting Liu, Rui Liu, Kun Zhang, Yi Zhang  Cell Reports 
RNA Sequencing of Stentor Cell Fragments Reveals Transcriptional Changes during Cellular Regeneration  Henning Onsbring, Mahwash Jamy, Thijs J.G. Ettema 
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages (August 2017)
Volume 136, Issue 2, Pages (January 2009)
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages (November 2014)
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages e12 (September 2018)
Volume 23, Issue 10, Pages (June 2018)
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages (January 2018)
SUMO-2 Orchestrates Chromatin Modifiers in Response to DNA Damage
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages e4 (October 2017)
Alterations in mRNA 3′ UTR Isoform Abundance Accompany Gene Expression Changes in Human Huntington’s Disease Brains  Lindsay Romo, Ami Ashar-Patel, Edith.
Global Hypertranscription in the Mouse Embryonic Germline
Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages e3 (March 2017)
Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages (June 2015)
R.H. Brophy, B. Zhang, L. Cai, R.W. Wright, L.J. Sandell, M.F. Rai 
Nur Hayati Jaafar Marican, Sara B. Cruz-Migoni, Anne-Gaëlle Borycki 
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages (August 2011)
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages e4 (July 2017)
Differential protein, mRNA, lncRNA and miRNA regulation by p53.
Brandon Ho, Anastasia Baryshnikova, Grant W. Brown  Cell Systems 
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages (November 2017)
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages (August 2018)
Transcriptomic changes in strains PAK and PAKpmrB6 in response to polymyxin B (PMB). Transcriptomic changes in strains PAK and PAKpmrB6 in response to.
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages (April 2019)
Volume 12, Issue 12, Pages (September 2015)
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages (September 2019)
Transcriptome profiling of PD-L1 antibody–treated macrophages showed inflammatory phenotype, increased survival and proliferation, and decreased apoptosis.
Fig. 3 Gene expression analysis in 48-plex drug treatment experiments.
Presentation transcript:

Transcriptional Profiling of Quiescent Muscle Stem Cells In Vivo Cindy T.J. van Velthoven, Antoine de Morree, Ingrid M. Egner, Jamie O. Brett, Thomas A. Rando  Cell Reports  Volume 21, Issue 7, Pages 1994-2004 (November 2017) DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.10.037 Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Cell Reports 2017 21, 1994-2004DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.10.037) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Labeling Nascent RNA in Quiescent MuSCs In Vivo (A) Scatterplot comparing the expression level of 4tU-labeled transcripts to total RNA from muscle. The average expression from four biological replicates is shown for each gene. Eleven transcripts whose protein products are often used to identify MuSCs are highlighted. The seven that are indicated in light blue are enriched, whereas the four that are indicated in dark blue are not. (B) Venn diagram of the 500 most highly expressed transcripts, based on FPKM value, in MuSCs and the 6-hr 4tU-labeled transcriptome. (C) PCA of 4tU-labeled transcriptomes with labeling times of 6 hr, 1 day, and 4 days (four biological replicates each). Pearson’s r correlation is depicted by the gray bars. (D) Hierarchical clustering of 3,542 genes that were differentially expressed across the three different labeling groups, i.e., 6 hr, 1 day, and 4 day labeling with 4tU, revealed two major gene clusters (false discovery rate [FDR] < 0.01 and log2 fold change ±1). (E and F) Plots displaying gene ontology term enrichment. The clustered genes from (D) were subjected to gene ontology enrichment, and the scatterplot shows the GO terms after redundancy reduction using ReViGO, representing functional clusters. GO terms are clustered in the semantic space by functional similarity, without intrinsic meaning of semantic space units. Enriched GO terms for genes with higher transcript levels in the 6 hr 4tU-labeling group (E) and for genes with higher transcript levels in the 1- and 4-day 4tU-labeling group (F) are shown. Cell Reports 2017 21, 1994-2004DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.10.037) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Changes in Nascent Transcription during the Isolation of MuSCs (A) Differentially expressed genes between in vivo and ex vivo 4tU-labeling of MuSCs. Represented in green are genes that are more highly expressed in the ex vivo-labeled transcriptome, whereas represented in red are genes that are significantly higher in the in vivo-labeled transcriptome (FDR < 0.01). (B) Volcano plot comparing in vivo- and ex vivo-labeled MuSC transcriptomes. Each dot represents a gene. Green dots represent genes that are more highly expressed in the ex vivo-labeled transcriptome, while red dots represent genes that are significantly higher in the in vivo-labeled transcriptome (FDR < 0.01 and log2 fold change ±2). (C and D) Plots displaying gene ontology term enrichment. The scatterplot shows the terms after redundancy reduction using ReViGO, representing functional clusters. GO terms are clustered in the semantic space by functional similarity, without intrinsic meaning of semantic space units. GO term enrichment of the most highly expressed genes in the ex vivo transcriptome (C) and in vivo transcriptome (D) is shown. (E) Heatmap of differentially expressed transcription factor-encoding genes between the in vivo- and ex vivo-labeled transcriptomes (FDR < 0.01 and log2 fold change ±1). Colors show row Z scores. Cell Reports 2017 21, 1994-2004DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.10.037) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Transcription Inhibition during MuSC Purification (A) PCA comparing in vivo- and ex vivo-labeled transcriptomes to total RNA transcriptome from isolated MuSCs (four biological replicates per condition). Pearson’s r correlation is depicted by the gray bars. (B) Scatterplot comparing the transcriptomes of MuSCs with or without exposure to the transcription inhibitor α-amanitin (αAM). Red dots represent 2,312 genes that are significantly decreased after treatment with αAM, while green dots represent 590 genes that are more highly expressed (FDR < 0.01 and log2 fold change ±1). (C) PCA comparing the gene expression profiles of αAM-treated MuSCs, untreated MuSCs, the in vivo 4tU-labeled transcriptome, and the ex vivo 4tU-labeled transcriptome. Pearson’s r correlation is depicted by the gray bars. (D) Venn diagram comparing the 1,247 genes that were more highly expressed in the ex vivo-labeled transcriptome than in the in vivo-labeled transcriptome (FDR < 0.01 and log2 fold change ±2) (yellow circle) to the 2,312 genes that were decreased after treatment with αΑM (FDR < 0.01 and log2 fold change ±1) (green circle). Cell Reports 2017 21, 1994-2004DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.10.037) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Analysis of In Vivo-Fixed MuSCs (A) Venn diagram comparing gene expression between in vivo-fixed MuSCs (red circle) and freshly isolated MuSCs prepared per the in vivo-fixed MuSCs protocol (orange circle). Overlap between the two conditions indicates genes with no change (FDR < 0.01 and log2 fold change ±1). (B) In vivo-fixed MuSCs from uninjured mice (quiescent) and from mice 3 days post-injury (activated) were hybridized with probe libraries directed against Myod1, Pax7, Myh4, Plect, or Pygm, and the number of smFISH quanta per cell was determined. Small dots represent single cells, and larger colored circles represent mean of all cells per biological replicate. Data are represented as mean ± SEM. (C) Representative images of Myod1 and Pax7 smFISH quanta in freshly isolated MuSCs, freshly isolated MuSCs from MyoD−/− mice, in vivo-fixed quiescent MuSCs, and in vivo-fixed activated MuSCs. Scale bar, 5 μm. (D) PCA comparing the in vivo nascent transcriptomes of MuSCs (TU 6h in vivo, TU 1d in vivo, and TU 4d in vivo), freshly isolated MuSCs (MuSCs), α-amanitin-treated MuSCs (MuSCs + αAM), control MuSCs prepared per the in vivo-fixed MuSCs protocol (Fixed Control), and transcriptome of in vivo-fixed MuSCs (Fixed MuSCs) (three to four biological replicates per condition). Cell Reports 2017 21, 1994-2004DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.10.037) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions