Integrating Extrinsic and Intrinsic Cues into a Minimal Model of Lineage Commitment for Hematopoietic Progenitors

Autoregulation of transcription factors and cross-antagonism between lineage-specific transcription factors are a recurrent theme in cell differentiation. An equally prevalent event that is frequently overlooked in lineage commitment models is the upregulation of lineage-specific receptors, often through lineage-specific transcription factors. Here, we use a minimal model that combines cell-extrinsic and cell-intrinsic elements of regulation in order to understand how both instructive and stochastic events can inform cell commitment decisions in hematopoiesis. Our results suggest that cytokine-mediated positive receptor feedback can induce a “switch-like” response to external stimuli during multilineage differentiation by providing robustness to both bipotent and committed states while protecting progenitors from noise-induced differentiation or decommitment. Our model provides support to both the instructive and stochastic theories of commitment: cell fates are ultimately driven by lineage-specific transcription factors, but cytokine signaling can strongly bias lineage commitment by regulating these inherently noisy cell-fate decisions with complex, pertinent behaviors such as ligand-mediated ultrasensitivity and robust multistability. The simulations further suggest that the kinetics of differentiation to a mature cell state can depend on the starting progenitor state as well as on the route of commitment that is chosen. Lastly, our model shows good agreement with lineage-specific receptor expression kinetics from microarray experiments and provides a computational framework that can integrate both classical and alternative commitment paths in hematopoiesis that have been observed experimentally.

[1]  D. Tenen,et al.  The macrophage transcription factor PU.1 directs tissue-specific expression of the macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor , 1993, Molecular and cellular biology.

[2]  S. Orkin,et al.  Functional analysis and in vivo footprinting implicate the erythroid transcription factor GATA-1 as a positive regulator of its own promoter. , 1991, Genes & development.

[3]  K. Akashi,et al.  GATA-1 converts lymphoid and myelomonocytic progenitors into the megakaryocyte/erythrocyte lineages. , 2003, Immunity.

[4]  L. Robb,et al.  Cytokine receptors and hematopoietic differentiation , 2007, Oncogene.

[5]  P. Lásló,et al.  Multilineage Transcriptional Priming and Determination of Alternate Hematopoietic Cell Fates , 2006, Cell.

[6]  Sui Huang,et al.  Bifurcation dynamics in lineage-commitment in bipotent progenitor cells. , 2007, Developmental biology.

[7]  J. Ferrell Self-perpetuating states in signal transduction: positive feedback, double-negative feedback and bistability. , 2002, Current opinion in cell biology.

[8]  D. Gillespie Exact Stochastic Simulation of Coupled Chemical Reactions , 1977 .

[9]  Daniel G. Tenen,et al.  Transcription factors in myeloid development: balancing differentiation with transformation , 2007, Nature Reviews Immunology.

[10]  R. Flavell,et al.  The different faces of Notch in T-helper-cell differentiation , 2009, Nature Reviews Immunology.

[11]  Ingo Roeder,et al.  Towards an understanding of lineage specification in hematopoietic stem cells: a mathematical model for the interaction of transcription factors GATA-1 and PU.1. , 2006, Journal of theoretical biology.

[12]  Irving L Weissman,et al.  Biology of hematopoietic stem cells and progenitors: implications for clinical application. , 2003, Annual review of immunology.

[13]  Santhosh Palani,et al.  Positive receptor feedback during lineage commitment can generate ultrasensitivity to ligand and confer robustness to a bistable switch. , 2008, Biophysical journal.

[14]  D. Tenen,et al.  PU.1 (Spi-1) autoregulates its expression in myeloid cells. , 1995, Oncogene.

[15]  J Halloy,et al.  Deterministic Versus Stochastic Models for Circadian Rhythms , 2002, Journal of biological physics.

[16]  Peter Guttorp,et al.  Evidence that hematopoiesis may be a stochastic process in vivo , 1996, Nature Medicine.

[17]  T. Enver,et al.  Do stem cells play dice? , 1998, Blood.

[18]  Merlin Crossley,et al.  Molecular Analysis of the Interaction between the Hematopoietic Master Transcription Factors GATA-1 and PU.1* , 2006, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[19]  R. Callard,et al.  Immunology and mathematics: crossing the divide , 2005, Immunology.

[20]  I. Weissman,et al.  Identification of Clonogenic Common Lymphoid Progenitors in Mouse Bone Marrow , 1997, Cell.

[21]  Lina A. Thoren,et al.  Identification of Flt3+ Lympho-Myeloid Stem Cells Lacking Erythro-Megakaryocytic Potential A Revised Road Map for Adult Blood Lineage Commitment , 2005, Cell.

[22]  D. Tenen,et al.  PU.1 (Spi-1) and C/EBP alpha regulate expression of the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor alpha gene , 1995, Molecular and cellular biology.

[23]  D. Tenen,et al.  PU.1 (Spi-1) and C/EBP alpha regulate the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor receptor promoter in myeloid cells. , 1996, Blood.

[24]  Richard Dahl,et al.  Regulation of macrophage and neutrophil cell fates by the PU.1:C/EBPα ratio and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor , 2003, Nature Immunology.

[25]  A. Arkin,et al.  Stochastic amplification and signaling in enzymatic futile cycles through noise-induced bistability with oscillations. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Donald Metcalf,et al.  Hematopoietic cytokines. , 2008, Blood.

[27]  D. Metcalf Lineage commitment and maturation in hematopoietic cells: the case for extrinsic regulation. , 1998, Blood.

[28]  Y. Ikawa,et al.  GATA-1 transactivates erythropoietin receptor gene, and erythropoietin receptor-mediated signals enhance GATA-1 gene expression. , 1991, Nucleic acids research.

[29]  Fraser McBlane,et al.  Molecular Signatures of Self-Renewal, Differentiation, and Lineage Choice in Multipotential Hemopoietic Progenitor Cells In Vitro , 2004, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[30]  I. Weissman,et al.  A clonogenic common myeloid progenitor that gives rise to all myeloid lineages , 2000, Nature.

[31]  Catherine M. Verfaillie,et al.  The molecular repertoire of the 'almighty' stem cell , 2005, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[32]  B. Kholodenko,et al.  Signaling switches and bistability arising from multisite phosphorylation in protein kinase cascades , 2004, The Journal of cell biology.

[33]  James E. Ferrell,et al.  Bistability in cell signaling: How to make continuous processes discontinuous, and reversible processes irreversible. , 2001, Chaos.

[34]  Philipp S. Hoppe,et al.  Hematopoietic Cytokines Can Instruct Lineage Choice , 2009, Science.

[35]  H. Lodish,et al.  Erythropoietin stimulates phosphorylation and activation of GATA-1 via the PI3-kinase/AKT signaling pathway. , 2006, Blood.

[36]  Claude Desplan,et al.  Stochasticity and Cell Fate , 2008, Science.

[37]  A B Cantor,et al.  Hematopoietic development: a balancing act. , 2001, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[38]  D. A. Baxter,et al.  Dynamics of a minimal model of interlocked positive and negative feedback loops of transcriptional regulation by cAMP-response element binding proteins. , 2007, Biophysical journal.

[39]  Jing Wu,et al.  GATA-1-dependent transcriptional repression of GATA-2 via disruption of positive autoregulation and domain-wide chromatin remodeling , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[40]  Hannah H. Chang,et al.  Transcriptome-wide noise controls lineage choice in mammalian progenitor cells , 2008, Nature.