Back

Transcriptomic Landscape and Immune Microenvironment AroundWound Bed Define Regenerative versus Non-regenerative Outcomesin Mouse Digit Amputation

Prabahar, A.; Chamberlain, C.; Vanderby, R.; Murphy, W.; Dangelo, W.; Mangesh, K.; Brown, B.; Mazumder, B.; Badylak, S.; Jiang, P.

2024-12-09 developmental biology
10.1101/2024.12.04.626910 bioRxiv
Show abstract

In the mouse distal terminal phalanx (P3), it remains unclear why amputation at less than 33% of the digit results in regeneration, while amputation exceeding 67% leads to non-regeneration. Unraveling the molecular mechanisms underlying this disparity could provide crucial insights for regenerative medicine. In this study, we aim to investigate the tissues within the wound bed to understand the tissue microenvironment associated with regenerative versus non-regenerative outcomes. We employed a P3-specific amputation model in mice, integrated with time-series RNA-seq and a macrophage assay challenged with pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, to explore these mechanisms. Our findings revealed that non-regenerative digits exhibit a greater intense early transcriptional response in the wound bed compared to regenerative ones. Furthermore, early macrophage phenotypes differ distinctly between regenerative and non-regenerative outcomes. Regenerative digits also display unique co-expression modules related to Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 (BMP2). The differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between regenerative and non-regenerative digits are enriched in targets of several transcription factors, such as HOXA11 and HOXD11 from the HOX gene family, showing a time-dependent pattern of enrichment. These transcription factors, known for their roles in bone regeneration, skeletal patterning, osteoblast activity, fracture healing, angiogenesis, and key signaling pathways, may act as master regulators of the regenerative gene signatures. Additionally, we developed a deep learning AI model capable of predicting post-amputation time and level from RNA-seq data, with potential applications in personalized treatment strategies and assessing the impact of interventions on regenerative outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Regenerative Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.8%
2
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 4%
15.3%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 3%
12.1%
4
Developmental Biology
150 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
11.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
Development
497 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.4%
6
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.3%
7
Disease Models & Mechanisms
119 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.4%
8
The FASEB Journal
194 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
9
Developmental Dynamics
56 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
10
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.7%
11
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
233 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
12
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.4%
13
Bone
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
14
The Journal of Physiology
150 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
15
Biology Open
156 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
16
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
17
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
18
Matrix Biology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
19
Differentiation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
20
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 40%
0.9%
21
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 56%
0.9%
22
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
23
Stem Cells
31 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
24
Developmental Cell
196 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%