4.7 Article

Per1/Per2-Igf2 axis-mediated circadian regulation of myogenic differentiation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELL BIOLOGY
卷 220, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1083/jcb.202101057

关键词

-

资金

  1. Minnesota Stem Cell Institute
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01AR062142, R21AR070319, R01GM137603, R21AR076167]
  3. Regenerative Medicine Minnesota [RMM 101617 DS 004]
  4. University of Minnesota [291987]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates that the circadian master regulators Per1 and Per2 play essential roles in regulating myoblast differentiation and muscle regeneration by controlling the activation of Igf2 and key genes in the differentiation process. The circadian epigenetic priming creates a preferred time window for initiating myoblast differentiation, with muscle regeneration being faster when initiated at night due to higher expression of Per1, Per2, and Igf2 compared to morning.
Circadian rhythms regulate cell proliferation and differentiation, but circadian control of tissue regeneration remains elusive at the molecular level. Here, we show that proper myoblast differentiation and muscle regeneration are regulated by the circadian master regulators Per1 and Per2. Depletion of Per1 or Per2 suppressed myoblast differentiation in vitro and muscle regeneration in vivo, demonstrating their nonredundant functions. Both Per1 and Per2 were required for the activation of Igf2, an autocrine promoter of myoblast differentiation, accompanied by Per-dependent recruitment of RNA polymerase II, dynamic histone modifications at the Igf2 promoter and enhancer, and the promoter-enhancer interaction. This circadian epigenetic priming created a preferred time window for initiating myoblast differentiation. Consistently, muscle regeneration was faster if initiated at night, when Per1, Per2, and Igf2 were highly expressed compared with morning. This study reveals the circadian timing as a significant factor for effective muscle cell differentiation and regeneration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据