Europe PMC

This website requires cookies, and the limited processing of your personal data in order to function. By using the site you are agreeing to this as outlined in our privacy notice and cookie policy.

Abstract 


Vertebrate heart formation is a spatiotemporally regulated morphogenic process that initiates with bilaterally symmetric cardiac primordial cells migrating toward the midline to form a linear heart tube. The heart tube then elongates and undergoes a series of looping morphogenesis, followed by expansions of regions that are destined to become primitive heart chambers. During the cardiac morphogenesis, cells derived from the first heart field contribute to the primary heart tube, and cells from the secondary heart field, cardiac neural crest, and pro-epicardial organ are added to the heart tube in a precise spatiotemporal manner. The coordinated addition of these cells and the accompanying endocardial cushion morphogenesis yield the atrial, ventricular, and valvular septa, resulting in the formation of a four-chambered heart. Perturbation of progenitor cells' deployment and differentiation leads to a spectrum of congenital heart diseases. Two of the genes that were recently discovered to be involved in cardiac morphogenesis are Numb and Numblike. Numb, an intracellular adaptor protein, distinguishes sibling cell fates by its asymmetric distribution between the two daughter cells and its ability to inhibit Notch signaling. Numb regulates cardiac progenitor cell differentiation in Drosophila and controls heart tube laterality in Zebrafish. In mice, Numb and Numblike, the Numb family proteins (NFPs), function redundantly and have been shown to be essential for epicardial development, cardiac progenitor cell differentiation, outflow tract alignment, atrioventricular septum morphogenesis, myocardial trabeculation, and compaction. In this review, we will summarize the functions of NFPs in cardiac development and discuss potential mechanisms of NFPs in the regulation of cardiac development.

Free full text 


Logo of nihpaLink to Publisher's site
Biomol Concepts. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC4589147
NIHMSID: NIHMS722997
PMID: 25883210

Numb family proteins: novel players in cardiac morphogenesis and cardiac progenitor cell differentiation

M Wu1,* and J Li1

Abstract

Vertebrate heart formation is a spatiotemporally regulated morphogenic process that initiates with bilaterally symmetric cardiac primordial cells migrating toward the midline to form a linear heart tube. The heart tube then elongates and undergoes a series of looping morphogenesis, followed by expansions of regions that are destined to become primitive heart chambers. During the cardiac morphogenesis, cells derived from the first heart field contribute to the primary heart tube, and cells from the secondary heart field, cardiac neural crest, and pro-epicardial organ are added to the heart tube in a precise spatiotemporal manner. The coordinated addition of these cells and the accompanying endocardial cushion morphogenesis yield the atrial, ventricular, and valvular septa, resulting in the formation of a 4-chambered heart. Perturbation of progenitor cells’ deployment and differentiation leads to a spectrum of congenital heart diseases. Two of the genes that were recently discovered to be involved in cardiac morphogenesis are Numb and Numblike. Numb, an intracellular adaptor protein, distinguishes sibling cell fates by its asymmetric distribution between the two daughter cells and its ability to inhibit Notch signaling. Numb regulates cardiac progenitor cell differentiation in Drosophila, and controls heart tube laterality in Zebrafish. In mice, Numb and Numblike, the Numb Family Proteins (NFPs), function redundantly and have been shown to be essential for epicardial development, cardiac progenitor cell differentiation, outflow tract alignment, atrioventricular septum morphogenesis, myocardial trabeculation and compaction. In this review, we will summarize the functions of NFPs in cardiac development, and discuss potential mechanisms of NFPs in the regulation of cardiac development.

Keywords: Numb family proteins, cardiac morphogenesis, cardiac progenitor differentiation, congenital heart defects

Introduction: Numb and cardiac development

During the development of Drosophila peripheral nervous system, a single sensory organ precursor (SOP) cell undergoes several divisions to produce four cells that form an external sensory organ (Fig. 1A&B). In the first division of the SOP cell, Numb localizes asymmetrically at one pole of the mitotic cell cortex, so that only one daughter cell inherits the protein (Fig. 1C). As a result, this daughter becomes a pIIb cell, and the other becomes a pIIa cell (Fig. 1B&C) (1, 2). These two cells then divide to produce the different cell types of the sensory organ (Fig. 1A&B). Numb gain or loss of function results in two IIb cell or IIa cells, respectively, and it was discovered that Numb promotes IIb cell fate by inhibiting Notch signaling (1, 3, 4).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms722997f1.jpg
Numb is asymmetrically distributed during asymmetric cell division in different cell types

(A–B) The Drosophila sensory organ consists of four cells: hair, socket, sheath and neuron and is derived from the sensory organ precursor (SOP). (B–C) SOP divides asymmetrically in a stem cell-like fashion to generate the various cells of the sensory organ. The glial cell undergoes programmed cell death. (D) Eve positive mesoderm progenitor cell divides asymmetrically to generate DA1 founder and eve-expressing pericardial cells (EPC).

Since then, many more functions of Numb have been revealed. It functions as a component of the adherens junctions to regulate cell adhesion and cell migration (5), and controls the stability of p53 (6) and Gli1 (7) to regulate cancer initiation. Numb has also been reported to complex with β-catenin and to regulate neuroepithelial and epicardial development (8, 9). The functions of Numb specifying neural cell fate are conserved in vertebrates (1012) (2, 4, 12, 13).

Recently, Numb has been revealed to regulate cardiac progenitor cell differentiation and cardiac development in different species. In Drosophila, Numb is involved in specification of cardiac cell type via Notch signaling interference (14). In Zebrafish, Numb is required for heart left-right asymmetric morphogenesis via regulating Notch signaling (15). In mice, there are two homologs Numb and Numblike (16, 17). Numb is expressed in adult cardiac cKit cells and is asymmetrically distributed during their asymmetric cell divisions (18, 19). Furthermore, Numb and Numblike, the Numb Family Proteins (NFPs), are essential for cardiac morphogenesis and differentiation during development as evidenced by a variety of defects in cardiac morphogenesis and progenitor differentiation in the cardiac specific NFPs knockout embryos(20).

The vertebrates’ cardiac morphogenesis depends on the addition and differentiation of progenitor cells from four different sources (21) (Fig. 2A–C). At approximately embryonic day 7.5 (E7.5), cardiac mesodermal cells arising in the anterior primitive streak migrate to the anterior ventral aspect to form a bilaterally symmetric heart field called the cardiac crescent (Fig. 2A) (22) (23). The cardiac crescent, the source of the first two progenitor sources, consists of first heart field (FHF) and secondary heart field (SHF) with the SHF residing dorsomedially relative to FHF in the crescent (Fig. 2A). Cells from FHF of the cardiac crescent will fold toward the ventral midline to form a linear heart tube at about E8.0 (Fig. 2B). The SHF cells initially residing dorsomedially to FHF are subsequently located to the pharyngeal and splanchnic mesoderm, from which they migrate to the pre-existing scaffold of the linear heart tube. The SHF cells will contribute to the right ventricle, OFT myocardium and to some endocardium at E8.5-E10.25 (Fig. 2C) (2427). The cells derived from the SHF play an essential role in the orientation and patterning of the outflow tract (OFT) (28). Cardiac neural crest cells (CNCC), originating from postotic rhombomeres 6, 7 and 8, will migrate to the caudal pharynx and contribute significantly to the smooth muscle layer and endocardial cushion in the OFT (Fig. 2C). They are also involved in the formation of the aorticopulmonary septum, as demonstrated by lineage-tracing studies using neural crest-restricted Cre mouse lines (29, 30). CNCCs are essential for normal myocardial differentiation in the OFT and for the formation and remodeling of the great arteries (31, 32). The fourth population is the epicardial cells derived from the Pro-epicardial organ (PEO), which is located at the sinoatrial pole and atrioventricular junction at about E9.5 (Fig. 2C). This population contributes to fibroblast, smooth muscle cell and potentially other cardiac cell types (33). The epicardium regulates coronary vascular development, cardiac growth and morphogenesis.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms722997f2.jpg
Four different cell sources contribute to heart formation

(A) Ventral view of an E7.5 embryo. Red color highlights the cardiac progenitor cells of the first heart field (FHF) and green color highlights another subset of cardiac progenitor cells that form the secondary heart field (SHF), and is located posteriorly and medially to the FHF. (B) Ventral view of the embryo at E8.5. Cells from the FHF migrate and then merge in the midline to form the heart tube, which then elongates on both arterial and venous poles via the addition of progenitor cells from the SHF. (C) Right lateral view of an E9.5 mouse embryo. The cardiac neural crest cells (CNCC) at rhombomere 6–8 gives rise to cells (green) that migrate to and colonize the distal cardiac outflow tract (OFT) to contribute to OFT alignment and septation. Cells from pro-epicardial organ (PEO) will migrate, attach and then cover the whole heart to form epicardium. A SHF: anterior second heart field; P SHF: posterior second heart field.

In a delicate structure like the heart, abnormal cell migration/differentiation during morphogenesis will cause malformations or congenital heart defects (CHD), which is the number one cause of birth defects in the world. Understanding how the heart is assembled at the cellular and molecular level is an essential step toward improving diagnosis and potential treatments for CHD. The variety of defects resulting from NFPs deletions in different cardiac cell types indicates that NFPs are essential and novel factors involved in heart morphogenesis and progenitor differentiation.

NFPs function in cardiac cell specification and differentiation

Numb was identified as the first cell fate determinant in Drosophila (1) due to its ability to inhibit Notch signaling via endocytosis, and its functions are conserved during the specification of neural cell fate in mammals (1012) (2, 4, 12, 13). Numb’s function as a cell fate determinant for cardiac cell was initially studied in Drosophila. Cardiogenesis in Drosophila can be considered as a series of distinct developmental decisions. These include the sequential specification of mesoderm, dorsal mesoderm, and cardiac fate within the dorsal mesoderm, followed by the cell fate diversification of the cardioblast in each segment and the cardiac cell types in anterior-posterior heart tube (34). Numb mutant Drosophila is not defective in cardiac fate specification, but Numb is involved in the specification and differentiation of cardiac cell types such as pericardial cells at later stages of heart development. During the specification of pericardial cells, even skipped-expressing (Eve) myogenic progenitors divide asymmetrically and Numb is asymmetrically distributed with one daughter cell inheriting the majority of Numb (Fig. 1D). The presence of Numb inhibits Notch and Sanpodo signaling and causes this daughter cell to take the muscle founder cell fate (DA1). The other daughter cell that does not inherit Numb will take eve-expressing pericardial cell fate (Fig. 1D). Disruption of Numb results in more pericardial cells, while over-expressing Numb reduces the number of pericardial cells and induces more DA1 cells (35, 36). When Sanpodo, which is required for Notch signaling, is disrupted, the mutant displayed an opposite phenotype to the Numb mutant (36). Within individual segments of Drosophila heart, there are two nonidentical groups of cardiac cells: four pairs of cardioblasts express Tinman (Tin) and two pairs of cardioblasts alternating with the Tin expressing cells express Seven Up (Svp). The Tin expressing cells are generated by symmetric cell divisions from cardiac progenitor cells (37). The Svp expressing cells are generated by asymmetric cell divisions of heart progenitor cells in the mesoderm, with its sister cell becoming the Odd-pericardial cells (38). Numb promotes Svp-expressing cardiac cell at the expense of Odd-expressing pericardial cells. In the absence of Numb, Svp expressing cells are not observed, while the number of Tin expressing cells did not change (37), indicating that Numb is involved in cell specification only during asymmetric cell division (14).

In the mouse, NFPs global double knockout embryos die around E9.0 (12, 20, 39). Whether the knockout displays a cardiac progenitor specification defect is not clear. The early embryonic lethality of global double knockout prevents the studying of NFPs functions in later stages of cardiac development, but this can be overcome by conditional knockout technology. NFPs’ role in cardiac progenitor cell differentiation and renewal has been investigated with multiple Cre lines, which allow NFPs’ deletion at different stages. NFP deletion via the Mesp1-Cre, which is active in the mesoderm, disrupted cardiac progenitor renewal due to reduced proliferation, which results in hypoplastic OFT and right ventricle (40). The mechanism of how NFPs regulate cardiac progenitor self-renewal is not clear. NFPs regulate epicardial development and cardiac progenitor differentiation at later stages, and their disruptions at these stages cause various defects (9, 20, 41). In the following sections, we will discuss the functions of NFP in epicardial development, SHF progenitor cell differentiation, outflow tract morphogenesis, atrioventricular septation, and myocardial trabeculation.

NFPs are required for epicardial development by maintaining polarity

The epicardium, the outer cell layer of the heart, is composed of a single layer of epithelial cells that arises from the pro-epicardial organ (PEO) (Fig. 2C). Distinct compartments of PEO can be labeled by different molecular markers and contribute to different cardiac cell types (42). The pro-epicardial cells migrate from the PEO, attach and then spread to cover the whole heart beginning at E9.5 (33, 43). Signaling pathways that regulate epicardial cell detachment from the PEO are not clear, while pathways that regulate epicardial cell attachment to the heart and subsequent entry into the myocardium have been extensively studied. α4β1 integrin, which are expressed by epicardial cells (44), interact with fibronectin (45) and VCAM-1(4648) expressed by myocardial cells to promote epicardial cell adherence to cardiomyocytes and spreading to cover the heart (44, 49). After attaching to the heart, a subset of epicardial cells undergo an epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT), and migrate into the myocardium (5055). They subsequently differentiate into fibroblasts, smooth muscle cells, endocardial cells and potentially cardiomyocytes (42, 5664). Many signaling pathways, such as FGF (65, 66), PDGF (67), Wnt/β-catenin (52, 68), RXRα (51, 69, 70), TGFβ (55) and Notch (54, 71), play a role in these processes. Other proteins expressed by epicardial cells such as Par3 (72), GATA4 (73), WT1 (68, 7476), α4β1 integrin and podoplanin (77) are also required for proper epicardial development.

In epicardium, Numb localizes to the adherens junctions of epicardial cells at the G1 phase and to the basal domain at M phase (Fig. 3A) (9), similar to its localization in neuroepithelium (8). Polarity proteins such as Par3, Par6 and aPKC localize to the apical domain of epicardial cells (9, 72), indicating that epicardial cells are polarized in a manner similar to other epithelial cells (78). NFPs are required to maintain epicardial polarity (9). Although, multiple signaling pathways have been reported to regulate epicardial cell entry into the myocardium, the cellular mechanism is not clear. Time-lapse imaging and immunofluorescence staining enabled the discovery of epicardial cells that undergo parallel or perpendicular divisions with respect to the heart wall. The parallel divisions produce daughter cells to cover the heart, while a perpendicular division’s daughter cell invades the myocardium (Fig. 3) (9). NFPs are required for β-catenin to localize to adherens junctions. Conditional deletion of NFPs in epicardium results in disruption of epicardial adherens junction, epicardial polarity, and random mitotic spindle orientations, which might cause the observed epicardial EMT defects (9). The epicardial cell perpendicular division is an asymmetric cell division, as the daughter cell that enters into myocardium inherits more Numb and differentiates into a fibroblast or other cell types. The other daughter cell remaining within the epicardium maintains the epicardial cell fate. NFPs might play multiple roles in epicardial development. First, NFPs are required to stabilize adherens junctions, which are required to establish the mitotic spindle orientation. NFPs might regulate the stability of the components of adherens junctions such as β-catenin via endocytosis in epicardium. Secondly, Numb accumulation at the basal domain of the dividing epicardial cell beginning at the S-phase might also promote epicardial cell migration and differentiation. However, further experiments will be needed to determine whether and how NFPs regulate epicardial cell migration and differentiation.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms722997f3.jpg
Epicardial cells’ perpendicular division contributes to their entry into myocardium

(A) Numb localizes to adherens junctions of epicardial cells. (B) Numb accumulates at the basal domain of dividing epicardial cells. (C) One daughter cell from a perpendicular division will enter into the myocardium.

NFPs regulate second heart field progenitor cell differentiation

In 2001, three groups using various methods including viral infection tracing, vital dye lineage tracing, tissue ablation, and enhancer trap tracing demonstrated that cells in the splanchnic mesoderm migrated to the elongating cardiac linear tube and gave rise to the right ventricle and OFT. These observations led to the discovery of the SHF (7981) and changed our view of cardiogenesis. We now know the FHF gives rise to the left ventricle and part of the inflow region, while the right ventricle, OFT, interventricular septum, endocardium and part of the inflow region are derived from the SHF (26, 7983).

Perturbation of SHF deployment and progenitor differentiation leads to a spectrum of CHDs. Several signaling pathways including FGF (79, 84, 85), Wnt (8689), Hedgehog (90, 91), Notch (92), BMP (93) and retinoic acid (94) are involved in the deployment of Isl1 cells to the elongating linear heart tube and subsequent differentiation (24, 95, 96). FGF8 signaling functions upstream of Isl1 and deletion of Fgf8 specifically in SHF causes SHF morphogenesis defects (79, 84, 97). Type1 BMP receptor deletion and BMP4 deletion decrease the proliferation in SHF and results in OFT septation defects (93, 98, 99). Hedgehog is crucial for cardiac neural crest cell survival and is also required for OFT septation (90, 100, 101).

NFPs deletion via Nkx2.5Cre/+ displayed higher expression of progenitor markers such as Isl1, Tbx1, Fgf8 and Shox2 at E10.5. Isl1 expressional level in the knockout is significantly higher than that in the control littermates from E9.5 to E11.5. In addition, at E12.5 and E13.5, the knockouts displayed abnormal expressional levels of cardiomyocyte maturation/ differentiation markers such as MYH6, MYH11, BMP10, Irx3-5, indicating a role for NFP in cardiomyocyte differentiation from progenitor cells. Supporting this notion, overexpressing Numb in the pluripotent stem cells in an embryoid body culture system promotes cardiac progenitor differentiation and decreases Isl1 expression in an endocytosis dependent manner (20). Surprisingly, the differentiation defects in MDKO appear to be independent of Notch1, as Notch1 suppression in MDKO did not normalize the expression of these progenitor genes including Isl1. Instead, the up-regulation of Fgf8 in the MDKO might be responsible for the up-regulation of Isl1. Moreover, NFP regulation of Isl1 progenitor cells might be a stage or niche dependent manner. Mesp1-Cre, which is active earlier than Nkx2.5Cre/+, mediated NFPs deletion reduced the number of Isl1 cells, possibly due to different niches (40).

NFP regulate outflow tract morphogenesis

The OFT is a single vascular conduit that links the right ventricle to the aortic sac. The septation of OFT into the aorta and pulmonary artery ensures blood flow from the right ventricle to the lung, back to the heart and through the aorta to the whole body. Abnormal morphogenesis of the OFT, such as persistent truncus arteriosus (PTA), transposition of great arterial, double outlet right ventricle and tetralogy of Fallot, causes shunting of oxygenated and deoxygenated blood. Understanding the regulatory pathways that control SHF deployment and progenitor differentiation in the OFT is essential to the understanding of the etiology of these CHDs.

The OFT is formed by several developmentally distinct cell populations, including cardiomyocytes derived from SHF, vascular smooth muscle cells from CNCC and SHF, and endothelial cells from SHF (21). Progenitor cells from SHF migrate to the OFT and differentiate into cardiomyocytes and smooth muscle cells at the arterial pole (102). The SHF-derived myocardium gives rise to the conotruncal myocardium, which is dependent on CNCC and is critical for normal alignment of the two arteries with respect to the ventricles (27, 103). This dependence is evident when CNCC ablation results in PTA and failure of addition of SHF myocardium leads to malalignment of the arterial pole with the ventricles. The development of SHF and CNCCs are interdependent, as ablation of CNCCs results in changes in OFT length, where as loss of Fgf8 can affect both CNCC and SHF development (32, 84, 85, 103, 104).

NFP deletion via Nkx2.5Cre/+ results in OFT alignment defect, delayed OFT septation and AVSD. Wnt1-Cre, which is active in CNCC, mediated NFPs deletion, does not cause any cardiac morphogenetic defect, indicating that NFPs in CNCC are not essential for cardiac morphogenesis and are not responsible for cardiac defects in MDKO. NFPs’ deletion via Mef2c-Cre, which is active in SHF, recapitulates the morphogenetic defects in MDKO, indicating that NFPs in the SHF are essential for OFT alignment, OFT septation and atrioventricular septal morphogenesis. Cardiomyocytes in the Mef2c-Cre mediated NFPs knockouts fail to form a myocardial spike, indicating a differentiation defect (20). NFPs deletion with SM22-Cre, which is active in cardiomyocytes and smooth muscle cells at a later stage compared to Nkx2.5Cre/+, does not show defects in OFT alignment, OFT septation, or atrioventricular septal morphogenesis, which further support the notion that the morphogenesis defects in MDKO might be due to a cardiac progenitor cell differentiation defect in the SHF. SHF cells give rise to OFT myocardium and smooth muscle cells at the base of the aorta and pulmonary trunk to facilitate the separation of the aorta and pulmonary artery (26, 105). Whether NFPs are involved in the cell fate decision between cardiomyocytes and smooth muscle cells or biasing their fate during the OFT alignment/OFT septation is unknown.

NFP regulates atrioventricular septation via DMP formation

Atrioventricular septation is a complex morphogenetic process required for the formation of the four-chambered heart. There are five mesenchymal/muscular tissues involved in this atrioventricular septation: the superior and inferior atrioventricular endocardial cushions (AVC), the mesenchymal cap enveloped muscular atrial septum, the dorsal mesenchymal protrusion (DMP), and the interventricular muscular septum (Fig. 4A&B)(106). The superior and inferior AVCs derive their mesenchymal cells from the endocardium through EMT. The continued growth of this mesenchyme ensures their fusion at the AV canal to separate atria from ventricles, and divides the AV canal into mitral and tricuspid orifices. DMP derived cells proliferate and migrate through the dorsal mesocardium and bulge into the atrial chamber as a mesenchymal protrusion to reach other mesenchymal tissues (107). Simultaneously, the primary atrial septum grows from the atrial roof towards the AVC and merges with the AVC and DMP, anteriorly and posteriorly, respectively (Wessels et al., 1996; Schroeder et al., 2003; Wessels and Sedmera, 2003; Mommersteeg et al., 2006). The atrial muscular outgrowth partially septates the atrial chamber to left and right atria. Within the ventricular chamber, an interventricular muscular septum emerges between the primitive left and right ventricles from the apex and grows superiorly to fuse with AVC, dividing the ventricular chamber into left and right ventricles. These mesenchymal tissues are later muscularized to form sturdy septum, and eventually to septate the heart into a 4-chambered functional heart. The abnormal atrioventricular morphogenesis results in a variety of congenital heart defects. The AVSD in MDKO is not caused by the functions of NFP in the mesenchymal tissues, as endocardial and endothelial cell specific Tie2-Cre mediated NFPs knockouts do not display any abnormal heart morphogenesis. Instead, it might be caused by the abnormal differentiation and migration of posterior SHF progenitor cell.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms722997f4.jpg

Five mesenchymal /muscular tissues contribute to atrioventricular septation. (A&B) Different views of an E12–E13 heart. There are five mesenchymal /muscular tissues including the superior (sAVC) and inferior atrioventricular endocardial cushions (iAVC), lateral AV cushions (LAVC), the mesenchymal cap (MC) enveloped muscular atrial septum (AS), the dorsal mesenchymal protrusion (DMP), and the interventricular muscular septum (VS) that are involved in this atrioventricular septation (Fig. 4A&B).

The SHF gives rise to two spatially different populations: the anterior SHF, which is adjacent to the arterial pole, and the posterior SHF, which is adjacent to the venous pole (108). The posterior SHF contributes to the DMP, an essential structure for chamber septation (109). Abnormal differentiation and development of the posterior SHF has been associated with cardiac morphogenesis defects, such as atrial septal defect and atrioventricular septal defect (AVSD) (110) (107, 111). Nkx2.5Cre/+ and Mef2c-Cre mediated NFPs mutants lack the DMP, which is required for atrioventricular septation (112). Using lineage tracing and 3D imaging, we observed that cells derived from the SHF migrated to the AVC and formed the DMP in the control, but fewer or no cells were observed in the DMP in the knockout. NFPs have been reported to be involved in cell migration via recycling of different integrin subunits to the leading edge of migrating cells (113). This recycling might be involved in progenitor cell migration in the posterior SHF to form the DMP and the atrioventricular septum. Other possible mechanisms are either that NFPs regulate Isl1 cells to differentiate to the cardiac through Hedgehog signaling, etc., or NFPs maintain the cell-cell junctions via endocytosis to regulate the morphogenesis of DMP. However, more work will be needed to determine the detailed molecular mechanisms used by NFPs to regulate posterior SHF development.

NFPs regulation of trabeculation and compaction extends beyond Notch 1 signaling inhibition

Trabeculae are sheet-like structures extending from the myocardium to the heart lumen (114). A lack of trabeculation causes embryonic lethality in mice and excess trabeculation causes cardiomyopathy and heart failure in humans (115117). Trabecular morphogenesis is a multiple-step process including but not limited to trabecular initiation, trabecular proliferation/growth, trabecular differentiation, and trabecular compaction. Trabeculation initiates at E9.0-E9.5 (118, 119). Trabecular cardiomyocytes proliferate at a similar rate as cardiomyocytes in the compact zone at an early stage, then gradually at a lower rate during later stages. Trabecular cardiomyocytes become more differentiated than cells in the compact zone. Myocardial compaction occurs at about E14.5 and the failure of trabeculae to coalesce with the compact zone is defined as left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC, OMIM300183) (120). Disruptions of genes that code components of the sarcomere and the Z-disk cause noncompaction (121, 122). Adding a layer of complexity is the physical environment, as the hemodynamics are required for trabeculation (123).

Signaling between endocardium and myocardium such as Brg1/ADAMTS1 (124), NRG1/ErBb2,4 (125127), EphrinB2/EphB4 (128, 129), BMP10 (130), and Notch1 are required for trabeculation. Notch1 signaling activation in endocardium regulates trabeculation in an instructing manner (131). Global or endothelial specific Notch1 deletion causes ventricular hypoplasia and trabeculation defects (131). The observation that both Notch1 loss (131) and gain of function (132) in endocardial cells reduces trabeculation indicates that mechanisms of Notch1 regulation of trabeculation are not clear.

The mechanism that regulates myocardium compaction is much less clear. One of the potential pathways is Notch2 signaling. Notch2 intracellular domain (N2ICD) is detected throughout the myocardium before E11.5, while at a later stage, Notch2 activity is specifically down-regulated in the compact zone and is restricted to trabecular myocardium during ventricular compaction (41). This indicates that Notch2 might be involved in myocardial compaction. As further evidence, Notch2 global knockout displays ventricular hypoplasia (133) and its deletion in the heart via SM22-Cre results in cyanosis at birth due to narrowed arteries. Whether or not the knockout displayed a trabeculation defect was not reported (134).

Interestingly, MDKO displays defects in trabecular initiation, trabecular growth, differentiation, and compaction, indicating that NFPs are essential for trabeculation. MDKO hearts displays a higher level of Notch1 Intracellular Domain (N1ICD). N1ICD is detected in the myocardium of MDKO but not of the control. This suggests that NFPs inhibit N1ICD accumulation in cardiomyocytes. The up-regulation of Notch signaling in MDKO is further confirmed with the transgenic mouse line that bears the canonical Transgenic Notch Reporter (TNR). This is the first in vivo evidence that NFPs inhibit Notch signaling in mammalian system. While all cardiomyocytes display up-regulation of N1ICD, only some cardiomyocytes are TNR positive, indicating that NFP deletion up-regulates both canonical and non-canonical Notch signaling. Genetic epistasis showed that Notch1 up-regulation is responsible for decreased p57 expression and increased proliferative rate in trabeculae, and increased trabecular thickness. However, surprisingly, Notch1 suppression did not rescue the defects of trabecular initiation and non-compaction (20). Another target of NFPs is Notch2. In the control, N2ICD is only present in trabeculae from E11.5 on, while N2ICD continues to be present in compact zone of MDKO. N2ICD overexpression in cardiomyocytes mediated by αMHC-Cre results in hyper-trabeculation and non-compaction, indicating that Notch2 is involved in compaction and NFPs might inhibit Notch2 to regulate compaction (41). In summary, Notch1 and Notch2 might regulate different steps of trabecular morphogenesis. We speculate that NFPs inhibit Notch1 to regulate cardiomyocyte proliferation and trabecular growth/thickness, but not trabecular initiation and compaction, and that NFPs inhibit Notch2 to regulate compaction. However, many questions regarding the regulation of trabecular morphogenesis by NFPs remain. For instance knowing how NFPs inhibit the proliferation and promote differentiation of trabecular cardiomyocytes and knowing how NFPs regulate trabecular initiation will yield a deeper understanding of the relationship between NFP and trabeculation. A broad understanding of how the signaling pathways control cellular dynamics during trabecular initiation and morphogenesis, particularly in the mammalian heart, remains to be clarified.

Conclusions and future questions

In summary, Numb is required to diversify cardiac cell types in Drosophila. In mice, NFPs play essential roles during cardiac development and cardiac progenitor cell differentiation. NFPs are required to establish epicardial polarity and epicardial cell mitotic spindle orientation to regulate epicardial cell entry into the myocardium. NFPs regulate cardiac progenitor cell proliferation early in development and differentiation at late stages. NFPs are required for outflow tract alignment and atrioventricular septation via controlling cardiac progenitor cell differentiation and migration. NFPs also inhibit Notch1 to regulate trabecular growth, and inhibit Notch2 to regulate myocardial compaction. Despite their essential functions during cardiac development, many questions still remain and prevent us from fully understanding how NFPs regulate cardiac development. The molecular mechanisms illuminating how NFPs regulate different biological processes via endocytosis are limited to the in vitro cultured system, and whether these molecular mechanisms also apply to the in vivo system is not clear. An endocytosis defective Numb mouse model should be generated to answer this question. Also, NFPs interfere with signaling pathways at post-translational level via endocytosis and recycling. The direct target of NFPs in different tissues may be distinct, which explains the various phenotypes in different tissue-specific knockouts. A high throughput screening such as quantitative proteomics will be needed to determine the direct targets in each tissue.

Acknowledgments

We thank members of the Wu laboratory for discussions and advice. We thank Dr. John Schwarz for insight comments. We thank Ernest Spiotto and Thomas Myint for editing the manuscript.

Sources of Funding

Work in the Wu laboratory is supported by Albany Medical College start-up fund, the American Heart Association (13SDG16920099 to M.W), and National Institute of Health (HL121700 to M.W.).

Abbreviations

NFPsNumb Family Proteins
CHDsCongenital heart diseases
SOPsensory organ precursor
FHFfirst heart field
SHFsecondary heart field
OFToutflow tract
CNCCCardiac neural crest cells
PEOPro-epicardial organ
MDKONkx2.5Cre/+ mediated myocardium Numb and Numblike double knockout
AVSDatrioventricular septal defect
AVCatrioventricular endocardial cushions
DMPdorsal mesenchymal protrusion
EMTepithelial to mesenchymal transition
N1ICDNotch1 Intracellular Domain
N2ICDNotch2 intracellular domain
TNRTransgenic Notch Reporter

References

1. Rhyu MS, Jan LY, Jan YN. Asymmetric distribution of numb protein during division of the sensory organ precursor cell confers distinct fates to daughter cells. Cell. 1994 Feb 11;76(3):477–91. Epub 1994/02/11. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
2. Uemura T, Shepherd S, Ackerman L, Jan LY, Jan YN. numb, a gene required in determination of cell fate during sensory organ formation in Drosophila embryos. Cell. 1989 Jul 28;58(2):349–60. Epub 1989/07/28. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
3. Guo M, Jan LY, Jan YN. Control of daughter cell fates during asymmetric division: interaction of Numb and Notch. Neuron. 1996 Jul;17(1):27–41. Epub 1996/07/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
4. Spana EP, Doe CQ. Numb antagonizes Notch signaling to specify sibling neuron cell fates. Neuron. 1996 Jul;17(1):21–6. Epub 1996/07/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
5. Wang Z, Sandiford S, Wu C, Li SS. Numb regulates cell-cell adhesion and polarity in response to tyrosine kinase signalling. EMBO J. 2009 Aug 19;28(16):2360–73. Epub 2009/07/18. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
6. Colaluca IN, Tosoni D, Nuciforo P, Senic-Matuglia F, Galimberti V, Viale G, et al. NUMB controls p53 tumour suppressor activity. Nature. 2008 Jan 3;451(7174):76–80. Epub 2008/01/04. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
7. Di Marcotullio L, Ferretti E, Greco A, De Smaele E, Po A, Sico MA, et al. Numb is a suppressor of Hedgehog signalling and targets Gli1 for Itch-dependent ubiquitination. Nat Cell Biol. 2006 Dec;8(12):1415–23. Epub 2006/11/23. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
8. Rasin MR, Gazula VR, Breunig JJ, Kwan KY, Johnson MB, Liu-Chen S, et al. Numb and Numbl are required for maintenance of cadherin-based adhesion and polarity of neural progenitors. Nat Neurosci. 2007 Jul;10(7):819–27. Epub 2007/06/26. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
9. Wu M, Smith CL, Hall JA, Lee I, Luby-Phelps K, Tallquist MD. Epicardial spindle orientation controls cell entry into the myocardium. Dev Cell. 2010 Jul 20;19(1):114–25. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
10. Petersen PH, Zou K, Krauss S, Zhong W. Continuing role for mouse Numb and Numbl in maintaining progenitor cells during cortical neurogenesis. Nat Neurosci. 2004 Aug;7(8):803–11. Epub 2004/07/27. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
11. Li HS, Wang D, Shen Q, Schonemann MD, Gorski JA, Jones KR, et al. Inactivation of Numb and Numblike in embryonic dorsal forebrain impairs neurogenesis and disrupts cortical morphogenesis. Neuron. 2003 Dec 18;40(6):1105–18. Epub 2003/12/23. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
12. Petersen PH, Zou K, Hwang JK, Jan YN, Zhong W. Progenitor cell maintenance requires numb and numblike during mouse neurogenesis. Nature. 2002 Oct 31;419(6910):929–34. Epub 2002/11/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
13. Frise E, Knoblich JA, Younger-Shepherd S, Jan LY, Jan YN. The Drosophila Numb protein inhibits signaling of the Notch receptor during cell-cell interaction in sensory organ lineage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Oct 15;93(21):11925–32. Epub 1996/10/15. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
14. Han Z, Bodmer R. Myogenic cells fates are antagonized by Notch only in asymmetric lineages of the Drosophila heart, with or without cell division. Development. 2003 Jul;130(13):3039–51. Epub 2003/05/21. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
15. Niikura Y, Tabata Y, Tajima A, Inoue I, Arai K, Watanabe S. Zebrafish Numb homologue: phylogenetic evolution and involvement in regulation of left-right asymmetry. Mech Dev. 2006 May;123(5):407–14. Epub 2006/05/17. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
16. Zhong W, Feder JN, Jiang MM, Jan LY, Jan YN. Asymmetric localization of a mammalian numb homolog during mouse cortical neurogenesis. Neuron. 1996 Jul;17(1):43–53. Epub 1996/07/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
17. Verdi JM, Schmandt R, Bashirullah A, Jacob S, Salvino R, Craig CG, et al. Mammalian NUMB is an evolutionarily conserved signaling adapter protein that specifies cell fate. Curr Biol. 1996 Sep 1;6(9):1134–45. Epub 1996/09/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
18. Cottage CT, Bailey B, Fischer KM, Avitable D, Collins B, Tuck S, et al. Cardiac progenitor cell cycling stimulated by pim-1 kinase. Circ Res. 2010 Mar 19;106(5):891–901. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
19. Wu M, Meng F. Has the cardiac stem cell controversy settled down? Science China Life sciences. 2014 Sep;57(9):949–50. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
20. Zhao C, Guo H, Li J, Myint T, Pittman W, Yang L, et al. Numb family proteins are essential for cardiac morphogenesis and progenitor differentiation. Development. 2014 Jan;141(2):281–95. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
21. Vincent SD, Buckingham ME. How to make a heart: the origin and regulation of cardiac progenitor cells. Current topics in developmental biology. 2010;90:1–41. Epub 2010/08/10. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
22. Manasek FJ. Embryonic development of the heart. I. A light and electron microscopic study of myocardial development in the early chick embryo. Journal of morphology. 1968 Jul;125(3):329–65. Epub 1968/07/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
23. Van Mierop LH. Embryology of the univentricular heart. Herz. 1979 Apr;4(2):78–85. Epub 1979/04/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
24. Buckingham M, Meilhac S, Zaffran S. Building the mammalian heart from two sources of myocardial cells. Nat Rev Genet. 2005 Nov;6(11):826–35. Epub 2005/11/24. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
25. Kelly RG, Buckingham ME. The anterior heart-forming field: voyage to the arterial pole of the heart. Trends Genet. 2002 Apr;18(4):210–6. Epub 2002/04/05. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
26. Verzi MP, McCulley DJ, De Val S, Dodou E, Black BL. The right ventricle, outflow tract, and ventricular septum comprise a restricted expression domain within the secondary/anterior heart field. Dev Biol. 2005 Nov 1;287(1):134–45. Epub 2005/09/29. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
27. Ward C, Stadt H, Hutson M, Kirby ML. Ablation of the secondary heart field leads to tetralogy of Fallot and pulmonary atresia. Dev Biol. 2005 Aug 1;284(1):72–83. Epub 2005/06/14. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
28. Zhou W, Lin L, Majumdar A, Li X, Zhang X, Liu W, et al. Modulation of morphogenesis by noncanonical Wnt signaling requires ATF/CREB family-mediated transcriptional activation of TGFbeta2. Nat Genet. 2007 Oct;39(10):1225–34. Epub 2007/09/04. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
29. Echelard Y, Vassileva G, McMahon AP. Cis-acting regulatory sequences governing Wnt-1 expression in the developing mouse CNS. Development. 1994 Aug;120(8):2213–24. Epub 1994/08/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
30. Jiang X, Rowitch DH, Soriano P, McMahon AP, Sucov HM. Fate of the mammalian cardiac neural crest. Development. 2000 Apr;127(8):1607–16. Epub 2000/03/22. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
31. Kirby ML, Gale TF, Stewart DE. Neural crest cells contribute to normal aorticopulmonary septation. Science. 1983 Jun 3;220(4601):1059–61. Epub 1983/06/03. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
32. Waldo KL, Lo CW, Kirby ML. Connexin 43 expression reflects neural crest patterns during cardiovascular development. Dev Biol. 1999 Apr 15;208(2):307–23. Epub 1999/04/07. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
33. Viragh S, Challice CE. The origin of the epicardium and the embryonic myocardial circulation in the mouse. Anat Rec. 1981 Sep;201(1):157–68. Epub 1981/09/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
34. Bryantsev AL, Cripps RM. Cardiac gene regulatory networks in Drosophila. Biochimica et biophysica acta. 2009 Apr;1789(4):343–53. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
35. Carmena A, Murugasu-Oei B, Menon D, Jimenez F, Chia W. Inscuteable and numb mediate asymmetric muscle progenitor cell divisions during Drosophila myogenesis. Genes Dev. 1998 Feb 1;12(3):304–15. Epub 1998/02/28. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
36. Park M, Yaich LE, Bodmer R. Mesodermal cell fate decisions in Drosophila are under the control of the lineage genes numb, Notch, and sanpodo. Mech Dev. 1998 Jul;75(1–2):117–26. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
37. Gajewski K, Choi CY, Kim Y, Schulz RA. Genetically distinct cardial cells within the Drosophila heart. Genesis. 2000 Sep;28(1):36–43. Epub 2000/10/06. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
38. Ward EJ, Skeath JB. Characterization of a novel subset of cardiac cells and their progenitors in the Drosophila embryo. Development. 2000 Nov;127(22):4959–69. Epub 2000/10/25. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
39. Zhao C, Guo H, Li J, Myint T, Pittman W, Yang L, et al. Numb family proteins are essential for cardiac morphogenesis and progenitor differentiation. Development. 2013 Dec 11; [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
40. Shenje LT, Andersen P, Uosaki H, Fernandez L, Rainer PP, Cho GS, et al. Precardiac deletion of Numb and Numblike reveals renewal of cardiac progenitors. Elife (Cambridge) 2014;3:e02164. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
41. Yang J, Bucker S, Jungblut B, Bottger T, Cinnamon Y, Tchorz J, et al. Inhibition of Notch2 by Numb/Numblike controls myocardial compaction in the heart. Cardiovasc Res. 2012 Aug 3; Epub 2012/08/07. Eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
42. Katz TC, Singh MK, Degenhardt K, Rivera-Feliciano J, Johnson RL, Epstein JA, et al. Distinct compartments of the proepicardial organ give rise to coronary vascular endothelial cells. Dev Cell. 2012 Mar 13;22(3):639–50. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
43. Komiyama M, Ito K, Shimada Y. Origin and development of the epicardium in the mouse embryo. Anat Embryol (Berl) 1987;176(2):183–9. Epub 1987/01/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
44. Yang JT, Rayburn H, Hynes RO. Cell adhesion events mediated by alpha 4 integrins are essential in placental and cardiac development. Development. 1995 Feb;121(2):549–60. Epub 1995/02/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
45. Orgogozo V, Schweisguth F, Bellaiche Y. Binary cell death decision regulated by unequal partitioning of Numb at mitosis. Development. 2002 Oct;129(20):4677–84. Epub 2002/10/04. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
46. Hession C, Osborn L, Goff D, Chi-Rosso G, Vassallo C, Pasek M, et al. Endothelial leukocyte adhesion molecule 1: direct expression cloning and functional interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Mar;87(5):1673–7. Epub 1990/03/01. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
47. Osborn L, Hession C, Tizard R, Vassallo C, Luhowskyj S, Chi-Rosso G, et al. Direct expression cloning of vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, a cytokine-induced endothelial protein that binds to lymphocytes. Cell. 1989 Dec 22;59(6):1203–11. Epub 1989/12/22. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
48. Kwee L, Baldwin HS, Shen HM, Stewart CL, Buck C, Buck CA, et al. Defective development of the embryonic and extraembryonic circulatory systems in vascular cell adhesion molecule (VCAM-1) deficient mice. Development. 1995 Feb;121(2):489–503. Epub 1995/02/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
49. Sengbusch JK, He W, Pinco KA, Yang JT. Dual functions of [alpha]4[beta]1 integrin in epicardial development: initial migration and long-term attachment. J Cell Biol. 2002 May 27;157(5):873–82. Epub 2002/05/22. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
50. Perez-Pomares JM, Macias D, Garcia-Garrido L, Munoz-Chapuli R. Contribution of the primitive epicardium to the subepicardial mesenchyme in hamster and chick embryos. Dev Dyn. 1997 Oct;210(2):96–105. Epub 1997/10/23 22:37. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
51. Merki E, Zamora M, Raya A, Kawakami Y, Wang J, Zhang X, et al. Epicardial retinoid X receptor alpha is required for myocardial growth and coronary artery formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Dec 20;102(51):18455–60. Epub 2005/12/15. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
52. Zamora M, Manner J, Ruiz-Lozano P. Epicardium-derived progenitor cells require beta-catenin for coronary artery formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Nov 13;104(46):18109–14. Epub 2007/11/09. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
53. Huang X, Gao X, Diaz-Trelles R, Ruiz-Lozano P, Wang Z. Coronary development is regulated by ATP-dependent SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling component BAF180. Dev Biol. 2008 Jul 15;319(2):258–66. Epub 2008/05/30. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
54. Yang K, Doughman YQ, Karunamuni G, Gu S, Yang YC, Bader DM, et al. Expression of active Notch1 in avian coronary development. Dev Dyn. 2009 Jan;238(1):162–70. Epub 2008/12/20. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
55. Sridurongrit S, Larsson J, Schwartz R, Ruiz-Lozano P, Kaartinen V. Signaling via the Tgf-beta type I receptor Alk5 in heart development. Dev Biol. 2008 Oct 1;322(1):208–18. Epub 2008/08/23. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
56. Wada AM, Smith TK, Osler ME, Reese DE, Bader DM. Epicardial/Mesothelial cell line retains vasculogenic potential of embryonic epicardium. Circ Res. 2003 Mar 21;92(5):525–31. Epub 2003/02/26. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
57. Mikawa T, Gourdie RG. Pericardial mesoderm generates a population of coronary smooth muscle cells migrating into the heart along with ingrowth of the epicardial organ. Dev Biol. 1996 Mar 15;174(2):221–32. Epub 1996/03/15. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
58. Poelmann RE, Gittenberger-de Groot AC, Mentink MM, Bokenkamp R, Hogers B. Development of the cardiac coronary vascular endothelium, studied with antiendothelial antibodies, in chicken-quail chimeras. Circ Res. 1993 Sep;73(3):559–68. Epub 1993/09/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
59. Lepilina A, Coon AN, Kikuchi K, Holdway JE, Roberts RW, Burns CG, et al. A dynamic epicardial injury response supports progenitor cell activity during zebrafish heart regeneration. Cell. 2006 Nov 3;127(3):607–19. Epub 2006/11/04. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
60. Wessels A, Perez-Pomares JM. The epicardium and epicardially derived cells (EPDCs) as cardiac stem cells. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol. 2004 Jan;276(1):43–57. Epub 2003/12/31. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
61. Smart N, Risebro CA, Melville AA, Moses K, Schwartz RJ, Chien KR, et al. Thymosin beta4 induces adult epicardial progenitor mobilization and neovascularization. Nature. 2007 Jan 11;445(7124):177–82. Epub 2006/11/17. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
62. Gittenberger-de Groot AC, Vrancken Peeters MP, Mentink MM, Gourdie RG, Poelmann RE. Epicardium-derived cells contribute a novel population to the myocardial wall and the atrioventricular cushions. Circ Res. 1998 Jun 1;82(10):1043–52. Epub 1998/06/11. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
63. Zhou B, Ma Q, Rajagopal S, Wu SM, Domian I, Rivera-Feliciano J, et al. Epicardial progenitors contribute to the cardiomyocyte lineage in the developing heart. Nature. 2008 Jul 3;454(7200):109–13. Epub 2008/06/24. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
64. Cai CL, Martin JC, Sun Y, Cui L, Wang L, Ouyang K, et al. A myocardial lineage derives from Tbx18 epicardial cells. Nature. 2008 Jul 3;454(7200):104–8. Epub 2008/05/16. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
65. Lavine KJ, Long F, Choi K, Smith C, Ornitz DM. Hedgehog signaling to distinct cell types differentially regulates coronary artery and vein development. Development. 2008 Sep;135(18):3161–71. Epub 2008/08/30. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
66. Morabito CJ, Dettman RW, Kattan J, Collier JM, Bristow J. Positive and negative regulation of epicardial-mesenchymal transformation during avian heart development. Dev Biol. 2001 Jun 1;234(1):204–15. Epub 2001/05/18. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
67. Mellgren AM, Smith CL, Olsen GS, Eskiocak B, Zhou B, Kazi MN, et al. Platelet-Derived Growth Factor Receptor {beta} Signaling Is Required for Efficient Epicardial Cell Migration and Development of Two Distinct Coronary Vascular Smooth Muscle Cell Populations. Circ Res. 2008 Dec 5;103(12):1393–401. Epub 2008/10/25. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
68. von Gise A, Zhou B, Honor LB, Ma Q, Petryk A, Pu WT. WT1 regulates epicardial epithelial to mesenchymal transition through beta-catenin and retinoic acid signaling pathways. Dev Biol. 2011 May 30; Epub 2011/06/15. Eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
69. Chen TH, Chang TC, Kang JO, Choudhary B, Makita T, Tran CM, et al. Epicardial induction of fetal cardiomyocyte proliferation via a retinoic acid-inducible trophic factor. Dev Biol. 2002 Oct 1;250(1):198–207. Epub 2002/09/26. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
70. Sucov HM, Dyson E, Gumeringer CL, Price J, Chien KR, Evans RM. RXR alpha mutant mice establish a genetic basis for vitamin A signaling in heart morphogenesis. Genes Dev. 1994 May 1;8(9):1007–18. Epub 1994/05/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
71. del Monte G, Casanova JC, Guadix JA, MacGrogan D, Burch JB, Perez-Pomares JM, et al. Differential Notch signaling in the epicardium is required for cardiac inflow development and coronary vessel morphogenesis. Circ Res. 2011 Apr 1;108(7):824–36. Epub 2011/02/12. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
72. Hirose T, Karasawa M, Sugitani Y, Fujisawa M, Akimoto K, Ohno S, et al. PAR3 is essential for cyst-mediated epicardial development by establishing apical cortical domains. Development. 2006 Apr;133(7):1389–98. Epub 2006/03/03. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
73. Watt AJ, Battle MA, Li J, Duncan SA. GATA4 is essential for formation of the proepicardium and regulates cardiogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 24;101(34):12573–8. Epub 2004/08/18. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
74. Shao Y, Lu J, Zhang G, Liu C, Huang B. Histone acetyltransferase p300 promotes the activation of human WT1 promoter and intronic enhancer. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2005 Apr 1;436(1):62–8. Epub 2005/03/09. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
75. Moore AW, McInnes L, Kreidberg J, Hastie ND, Schedl A. YAC complementation shows a requirement for Wt1 in the development of epicardium, adrenal gland and throughout nephrogenesis. Development. 1999 May;126(9):1845–57. Epub 1999/04/02. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
76. Martinez-Estrada OM, Lettice LA, Essafi A, Guadix JA, Slight J, Velecela V, et al. Wt1 is required for cardiovascular progenitor cell formation through transcriptional control of Snail and E-cadherin. Nat Genet. 2009 Dec 20; Epub 2009/12/22. Eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
77. Mahtab EA, Wijffels MC, Van Den Akker NM, Hahurij ND, Lie-Venema H, Wisse LJ, et al. Cardiac malformations and myocardial abnormalities in podoplanin knockout mouse embryos: Correlation with abnormal epicardial development. Dev Dyn. 2008 Mar;237(3):847–57. Epub 2008/02/12. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
78. Lechler T, Fuchs E. Asymmetric cell divisions promote stratification and differentiation of mammalian skin. Nature. 2005 Sep 8;437(7056):275–80. Epub 2005/08/12. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
79. Kelly RG, Brown NA, Buckingham ME. The arterial pole of the mouse heart forms from Fgf10-expressing cells in pharyngeal mesoderm. Dev Cell. 2001 Sep;1(3):435–40. Epub 2001/11/13. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
80. Waldo KL, Kumiski DH, Wallis KT, Stadt HA, Hutson MR, Platt DH, et al. Conotruncal myocardium arises from a secondary heart field. Development. 2001 Aug;128(16):3179–88. Epub 2001/11/02. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
81. Mjaatvedt CH, Nakaoka T, Moreno-Rodriguez R, Norris RA, Kern MJ, Eisenberg CA, et al. The outflow tract of the heart is recruited from a novel heart-forming field. Dev Biol. 2001 Oct 1;238(1):97–109. Epub 2002/01/11. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
82. Zaffran S, Kelly RG, Meilhac SM, Buckingham ME, Brown NA. Right ventricular myocardium derives from the anterior heart field. Circ Res. 2004 Aug 6;95(3):261–8. Epub 2004/06/26. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
83. Meilhac SM, Esner M, Kelly RG, Nicolas JF, Buckingham ME. The clonal origin of myocardial cells in different regions of the embryonic mouse heart. Dev Cell. 2004 May;6(5):685–98. Epub 2004/05/08. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
84. Ilagan R, Abu-Issa R, Brown D, Yang YP, Jiao K, Schwartz RJ, et al. Fgf8 is required for anterior heart field development. Development. 2006 Jun;133(12):2435–45. Epub 2006/05/25. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
85. Park EJ, Ogden LA, Talbot A, Evans S, Cai CL, Black BL, et al. Required, tissue-specific roles for Fgf8 in outflow tract formation and remodeling. Development. 2006 Jun;133(12):2419–33. Epub 2006/05/25. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
86. Ueno S, Weidinger G, Osugi T, Kohn AD, Golob JL, Pabon L, et al. Biphasic role for Wnt/beta-catenin signaling in cardiac specification in zebrafish and embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jun 5;104(23):9685–90. Epub 2007/05/25. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
87. Kwon C, Arnold J, Hsiao EC, Taketo MM, Conklin BR, Srivastava D. Canonical Wnt signaling is a positive regulator of mammalian cardiac progenitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jun 26;104(26):10894–9. Epub 2007/06/20. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
88. Ai D, Fu X, Wang J, Lu MF, Chen L, Baldini A, et al. Canonical Wnt signaling functions in second heart field to promote right ventricular growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 29;104(22):9319–24. Epub 2007/05/24. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
89. Lin L, Cui L, Zhou W, Dufort D, Zhang X, Cai CL, et al. Beta-catenin directly regulates Islet1 expression in cardiovascular progenitors and is required for multiple aspects of cardiogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 29;104(22):9313–8. Epub 2007/05/24. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
90. Washington Smoak I, Byrd NA, Abu-Issa R, Goddeeris MM, Anderson R, Morris J, et al. Sonic hedgehog is required for cardiac outflow tract and neural crest cell development. Dev Biol. 2005 Jul 15;283(2):357–72. Epub 2005/06/07. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
91. Dyer LA, Kirby ML. Sonic hedgehog maintains proliferation in secondary heart field progenitors and is required for normal arterial pole formation. Dev Biol. 2009 Jun 15;330(2):305–17. Epub 2009/04/14. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
92. High FA, Jain R, Stoller JZ, Antonucci NB, Lu MM, Loomes KM, et al. Murine Jagged1/Notch signaling in the second heart field orchestrates Fgf8 expression and tissue-tissue interactions during outflow tract development. J Clin Invest. 2009 Jul;119(7):1986–96. Epub 2009/06/11. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
93. Liu W, Selever J, Wang D, Lu MF, Moses KA, Schwartz RJ, et al. Bmp4 signaling is required for outflow-tract septation and branchial-arch artery remodeling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Mar 30;101(13):4489–94. Epub 2004/04/09. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
94. Ryckebusch L, Wang Z, Bertrand N, Lin SC, Chi X, Schwartz R, et al. Retinoic acid deficiency alters second heart field formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Feb 26;105(8):2913–8. Epub 2008/02/22. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
95. Black BL. Transcriptional pathways in second heart field development. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2007 Feb;18(1):67–76. Epub 2007/02/06. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
96. Rochais F, Mesbah K, Kelly RG. Signaling pathways controlling second heart field development. Circ Res. 2009 Apr 24;104(8):933–42. Epub 2009/04/25. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
97. Park EJ, Watanabe Y, Smyth G, Miyagawa-Tomita S, Meyers E, Klingensmith J, et al. An FGF autocrine loop initiated in second heart field mesoderm regulates morphogenesis at the arterial pole of the heart. Development. 2008 Nov;135(21):3599–610. Epub 2008/10/04. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
98. Klaus A, Saga Y, Taketo MM, Tzahor E, Birchmeier W. Distinct roles of Wnt/beta-catenin and Bmp signaling during early cardiogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Nov 20;104(47):18531–6. Epub 2007/11/15. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
99. Yang L, Cai CL, Lin L, Qyang Y, Chung C, Monteiro RM, et al. Isl1Cre reveals a common Bmp pathway in heart and limb development. Development. 2006 Apr;133(8):1575–85. Epub 2006/03/25. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
100. Lin L, Bu L, Cai CL, Zhang X, Evans S. Isl1 is upstream of sonic hedgehog in a pathway required for cardiac morphogenesis. Dev Biol. 2006 Jul 15;295(2):756–63. Epub 2006/05/12. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
101. Goddeeris MM, Schwartz R, Klingensmith J, Meyers EN. Independent requirements for Hedgehog signaling by both the anterior heart field and neural crest cells for outflow tract development. Development. 2007 Apr;134(8):1593–604. Epub 2007/03/09. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
102. Waldo KL, Hutson MR, Ward CC, Zdanowicz M, Stadt HA, Kumiski D, et al. Secondary heart field contributes myocardium and smooth muscle to the arterial pole of the developing heart. Dev Biol. 2005 May 1;281(1):78–90. Epub 2005/04/26. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
103. Yelbuz TM, Waldo KL, Kumiski DH, Stadt HA, Wolfe RR, Leatherbury L, et al. Shortened outflow tract leads to altered cardiac looping after neural crest ablation. Circulation. 2002 Jul 23;106(4):504–10. Epub 2002/07/24. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
104. Hutson MR, Kirby ML. Neural crest and cardiovascular development: a 20-year perspective. Birth defects research Part C, Embryo today : reviews. 2003 Feb;69(1):2–13. Epub 2003/05/29. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
105. Cai CL, Liang X, Shi Y, Chu PH, Pfaff SL, Chen J, et al. Isl1 identifies a cardiac progenitor population that proliferates prior to differentiation and contributes a majority of cells to the heart. Dev Cell. 2003 Dec;5(6):877–89. Epub 2003/12/12. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
106. Lin CJ, Lin CY, Chen CH, Zhou B, Chang CP. Partitioning the heart: mechanisms of cardiac septation and valve development. Development. 2012 Sep;139(18):3277–99. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
107. Snarr BS, Wirrig EE, Phelps AL, Trusk TC, Wessels A. A spatiotemporal evaluation of the contribution of the dorsal mesenchymal protrusion to cardiac development. Dev Dyn. 2007 May;236(5):1287–94. Epub 2007/02/01. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
108. Francou A, Saint-Michel E, Mesbah K, Theveniau-Ruissy M, Rana MS, Christoffels VM, et al. Second heart field cardiac progenitor cells in the early mouse embryo. Biochimica et biophysica acta. 2013 Apr;1833(4):795–8. Epub 2012/10/12. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
109. Snarr BS, O’Neal JL, Chintalapudi MR, Wirrig EE, Phelps AL, Kubalak SW, et al. Isl1 expression at the venous pole identifies a novel role for the second heart field in cardiac development. Circ Res. 2007 Nov 9;101(10):971–4. Epub 2007/10/20. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
110. Briggs LE, Kakarla J, Wessels A. The pathogenesis of atrial and atrioventricular septal defects with special emphasis on the role of the dorsal mesenchymal protrusion. Differentiation; research in biological diversity. 2012 Jul;84(1):117–30. Epub 2012/06/20. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
111. Hoffmann AD, Peterson MA, Friedland-Little JM, Anderson SA, Moskowitz IP. sonic hedgehog is required in pulmonary endoderm for atrial septation. Development. 2009 May;136(10):1761–70. Epub 2009/04/17. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
112. Wan J, Zhao S, Cheng H, Lu M, Jiang S, Yin G, et al. Varied distributions of late gadolinium enhancement found among patients meeting cardiovascular magnetic resonance criteria for isolated left ventricular non-compaction. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15:20. Epub 2013/02/21. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
113. Nishimura T, Kaibuchi K. Numb controls integrin endocytosis for directional cell migration with aPKC and PAR-3. Dev Cell. 2007 Jul;13(1):15–28. Epub 2007/07/05. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
114. Sedmera D, Thomas PS. Trabeculation in the embryonic heart. Bioessays. 1996 Jul;18(7):607. Epub 1996/07/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
115. Jenni R, Rojas J, Oechslin E. Isolated noncompaction of the myocardium. N Engl J Med. 1999 Mar 25;340(12):966–7. Epub 1999/03/27. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
116. Breckenridge RA, Anderson RH, Elliott PM. Isolated left ventricular non-compaction: the case for abnormal myocardial development. Cardiol Young. 2007 Apr;17(2):124–9. Epub 2007/02/27. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
117. Weiford BC, Subbarao VD, Mulhern KM. Noncompaction of the ventricular myocardium. Circulation. 2004 Jun 22;109(24):2965–71. Epub 2004/06/24. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
118. Zhang W, Chen H, Qu X, Chang CP, Shou W. Molecular mechanism of ventricular trabeculation/compaction and the pathogenesis of the left ventricular noncompaction cardiomyopathy (LVNC) Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2013 Aug;163(3):144–56. Epub 2013/07/12. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
119. Samsa LA, Yang B, Liu J. Embryonic cardiac chamber maturation: Trabeculation, conduction, and cardiomyocyte proliferation. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2013 Aug;163(3):157–68. Epub 2013/05/31. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
120. Pignatelli RH, McMahon CJ, Dreyer WJ, Denfield SW, Price J, Belmont JW, et al. Clinical characterization of left ventricular noncompaction in children: a relatively common form of cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 2003 Nov 25;108(21):2672–8. Epub 2003/11/19. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
121. Teekakirikul P, Kelly MA, Rehm HL, Lakdawala NK, Funke BH. Inherited cardiomyopathies: molecular genetics and clinical genetic testing in the postgenomic era. The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD. 2013 Mar;15(2):158–70. Epub 2013/01/01. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
122. Finsterer J. Cardiogenetics, neurogenetics, and pathogenetics of left ventricular hypertrabeculation/noncompaction. Pediatr Cardiol. 2009 Jul;30(5):659–81. Epub 2009/02/03. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
123. Peshkovsky C, Totong R, Yelon D. Dependence of cardiac trabeculation on neuregulin signaling and blood flow in zebrafish. Dev Dyn. 2011 Feb;240(2):446–56. Epub 2011/01/20. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
124. Stankunas K, Hang CT, Tsun ZY, Chen H, Lee NV, Wu JI, et al. Endocardial Brg1 represses ADAMTS1 to maintain the microenvironment for myocardial morphogenesis. Dev Cell. 2008 Feb;14(2):298–311. Epub 2008/02/13. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
125. Lee KF, Simon H, Chen H, Bates B, Hung MC, Hauser C. Requirement for neuregulin receptor erbB2 in neural and cardiac development. Nature. 1995 Nov 23;378(6555):394–8. Epub 1995/11/23. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
126. Meyer D, Birchmeier C. Multiple essential functions of neuregulin in development. Nature. 1995 Nov 23;378(6555):386–90. Epub 1995/11/23. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
127. Gassmann M, Casagranda F, Orioli D, Simon H, Lai C, Klein R, et al. Aberrant neural and cardiac development in mice lacking the ErbB4 neuregulin receptor. Nature. 1995 Nov 23;378(6555):390–4. Epub 1995/11/23. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
128. Gerety SS, Wang HU, Chen ZF, Anderson DJ. Symmetrical mutant phenotypes of the receptor EphB4 and its specific transmembrane ligand ephrin-B2 in cardiovascular development. Mol Cell. 1999 Sep;4(3):403–14. Epub 1999/10/13. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
129. Wang HU, Chen ZF, Anderson DJ. Molecular distinction and angiogenic interaction between embryonic arteries and veins revealed by ephrin-B2 and its receptor Eph-B4. Cell. 1998 May 29;93(5):741–53. Epub 1998/06/18. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
130. Chen H, Shi S, Acosta L, Li W, Lu J, Bao S, et al. BMP10 is essential for maintaining cardiac growth during murine cardiogenesis. Development. 2004 May;131(9):2219–31. Epub 2004/04/10. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
131. Grego-Bessa J, Luna-Zurita L, del Monte G, Bolos V, Melgar P, Arandilla A, et al. Notch signaling is essential for ventricular chamber development. Dev Cell. 2007 Mar;12(3):415–29. Epub 2007/03/06. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
132. Venkatesh DA, Park KS, Harrington A, Miceli-Libby L, Yoon JK, Liaw L. Cardiovascular and hematopoietic defects associated with Notch1 activation in embryonic Tie2-expressing populations. Circ Res. 2008 Aug 15;103(4):423–31. Epub 2008/07/12. eng. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
133. McCright B, Gao X, Shen L, Lozier J, Lan Y, Maguire M, et al. Defects in development of the kidney, heart and eye vasculature in mice homozygous for a hypomorphic Notch2 mutation. Development. 2001 Feb;128(4):491–502. Epub 2001/02/15. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
134. Varadkar P, Kraman M, Despres D, Ma G, Lozier J, McCright B. Notch2 is required for the proliferation of cardiac neural crest-derived smooth muscle cells. Dev Dyn. 2008 Apr;237(4):1144–52. Epub 2008/03/12. eng. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]

Citations & impact 


Impact metrics

Jump to Citations

Citations of article over time

Alternative metrics

Altmetric item for https://www.altmetric.com/details/4026520
Altmetric
Discover the attention surrounding your research
https://www.altmetric.com/details/4026520

Article citations


Go to all (20) article citations

Similar Articles 


To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.

Funding 


Funders who supported this work.

NHLBI NIH HHS (2)