EMBO/SourceData huggingface dataset:
Figure 3(A) The mitochondrial membrane potential was measured in WT and Drp1-KO MEFs using a membrane potential-dependent dye (MitoLite NIR) and flow cytometry. (B) Drp1-KO MEFs carrying Su9-GFP were treated with DMSO (control) or 10 nM antimycin A or 10 ng/ml oligomycin for 1 h and viewed by laser scanning confocal microscopy for 30 min with 10-s intervals in the presence of TMRE. The arrows indicate mitochondria that showed flickering. Three frames from the time-lapse analysis are shown (please also see Movie EV1-EV4). Scale bar, 10 µm. The percentage of cells that showed flickering in 30 min. Values are average ± SD (n = 3 experiments). In each experiment, 25-89 cells were analyzed.The percentage of cells that showed flickering in 30 min. Values are average ± SD (n = 3 experiments). In each experiment, 25-89 cells were analyzed.The percentage of cells that showed flickering in 30 min. Values are average ± SD (n = 3 experiments). In each experiment, 25-89 cells were analyzed. (F) Drp1-KO MEFs were treated with DMSO or 10 nM antimycin A or 10 ng/ml oligomycin or 10 µM FCCP for 1 h. The mitochondrial membrane potential was analyzed using MitoLite NIR and flow cytometry.  (G) Drp1-KO MEFs expressing L2-HA (induced for 16 h) were treated with 10 nM antimycin A along with 10 µM FCCP. Western blotting was performed using the indicated antibodies. The asterisk indicates non-specific bands of anti-Oma1 antibodies. (H) Quantification of band intensity. Values are average ± SD (n = 3).  (I) Western blotting of Drp1-KO MEFs with or without 10 ng/ml oligomycin treatment. The asterisk indicates non-specific bands of anti-Oma1 antibodies. (J) Quantification of band intensity. Values are average ± SD (n = 3).  (K) WT MEFs carrying Su9-GFP were treated with DMSO or 10 ng/ml oligomycin for 1 h and viewed by laser scanning confocal microscopy for 30 min with 10-s intervals in the presence of TMRE. The arrows indicate mitochondria that showed flickering. Three frames from the time-lapse analysis are shown (please also see Movie EV1 and EV5). Scale bar, 10 µm.  (L) WT MEFs expressing L2-HA (induced for 16 h) were treated with 10 ng/ml oligomycin. Western blotting was performed using the indicated antibodies. The asterisk indicates non-specific bands of anti-Oma1 antibodies. (M) Quantification of band intensity. Values are average ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 4 (A) Western blotting of Drp1flox/floxOpa1flox/flox and Drp1Opa1-KO MEFs. The asterisk indicates non-specific bands of anti-Oma1 antibodies. (B) Quantification of band intensity. Values are average ± SD (n = 3).  (C) Drp1flox/floxOpa1flox/flox MEFs and Drp1Opa1-KO MEFs were transduced with the indicated Opa1 constructs. The cells were observed using laser scanning confocal microscopy for 30 min with 10-s intervals in the presence of TMRE. The percentage of cells that exhibited flickering is shown. Values are average ± SD (n = 3 experiments). In each experiment, 48-62 cells were analyzed.  (D) Drp1flox/floxOpa1flox/flox MEFs and Drp1Opa1-KO MEFs carrying the indicated Opa1 constructs were subjected to confocal immunofluorescence microscopy using anti-PDH antibodies. Scale bar, 10 µm.  (E) Quantification of mitochondrial morphology is shown (n = 3 experiments). In each experiment, 30 cells were analyzed.  (G) Western blotting of Drp1flox/floxOpa1flox/flox MEFs and Drp1Opa1-KO MEFs, both of which carry the indicated Opa1 constructs. The asterisk indicates non-specific bands of anti-Oma1 antibodies. (H) Quantification of band intensity. Values are average ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 5 (B) Three frames from the time-lapse analysis during artificial flickering are shown. The boxed regions are magnified. Scale bar, 5 µm.  (C) The fluorescence intensity of Su9-GFP and TMRE in mitochondria was quantified.  (D) Western blotting of WT MEFs after the indicated FCCP treatments. The asterisk indicates non-specific bands of anti-Oma1 antibodies. (E) Quantification of band intensity. Values are average ± SD (n = 3). Significance was calculated using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey: **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
Figure 6 (A) Western blotting of WT MEFs and Drp1-KO MEFs, both of which carry shRNAs (Oma1 or scramble) and/or ectopic Mfn1. The asterisk indicates non-specific bands of anti-Oma1 antibodies. (B) Quantification of band intensity is shown. Values are average ± SD (n = 3).  (C-F) WT MEFs (C and E) and Drp1-KO MEFs (D and F) were transduced with Su9-Eos, along with Oma1 shRNAs and ectopic Mfn1. Su9-Eos in the small region of mitochondria (indicated by the asterisks) was photoconverted using a 405-nm laser on confocal microscope. Within 1 s after photoconversion, images were obtained for both photoconverted and unconverted Su9-Eos signals. Images before the photoconversion were also taken to detect background signals. Scale bar, 10 µm. (E and F) To determine the connectivity of mitochondria, the area containing photoconverted Su9-Eos signals was divided by the area containing the photoconverted and unconverted Su9-Eos signals (total mitochondria). Values are average ± SD (n = 30 cells).
Figure 7 WT which carry shRNAs (Oma1 or scramble) and ectopic Mfn1, were stained with TMRE. The percentage of cells that maintained the membrane potential is shown. Values are average ± SD (n = 3). 100-150 cells were analyzed in each experiment.  Drp1-KO MEFs which carry shRNAs (Oma1 or scramble) and ectopic Mfn1, were stained with TMRE. The arrows indicate cells that lost the mitochondrial membrane potential in (C). Scale bar, 10 µm. The percentage of cells that maintained the membrane potential is shown. Values are average ± SD (n = 3). 100-150 cells were analyzed in each experiment.  OCRs were analyzed in the same set of MEFs. Quantification of the basal OCRs and respiratory capacity is shown. Values are average ± SD (n = 3).  OCRs were analyzed in the same set of MEFs. Quantification of the basal OCRs and respiratory capacity is shown. Values are average ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 8 (A) Western blotting of livers isolated from the indicated mice at 3 months of age using the indicated antibodies. (B) Quantification of band intensity. Values are average ± SD (n = 3 mice for each genotype). Significance was calculated using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
Figure 1(A) HEK293A cell lines stably expressing GFP, GFP-WIPI1a, and GFP-WIPI2b were incubated in full medium (F) or starvation medium (EBSS) (S) for 2 hr before being used for GFP-TRAP pull-down.(B) WIPI2 was immunoprecipitated from HEK293A cells treated with DSP, at the indicated concentrations, before immunoblotting.(C) WT or Atg16L1Δ/Δ MEFs in fed medium or starved for 2 hr in EBSS were fixed and labeled with an anti-WIPI2 antibody. Scale bars, 10 μm.(D) WIPI2 puncta in (C) were counted, and a statistical analysis of WIPI2 puncta was performed using an unpaired Student's t test. ∗p < 0.05. SEM for n = 3.(E-H) CLEM (correlative light and electron microscopy) of endogenous WIPI2 in Atg16L1Δ/Δ MEFs.(E) Merged phase and confocal section of Atg16L1Δ/Δ cells labeled with anti-WIPI2 antibody. Scale bar, 10 μm.(F) Low-magnification TEM of cell in (E). Scale bar 10μm.(G and H) High magnification of boxed regions in (E) and (F). Top box and bottom box indicate panels (G) and (H), respectively. Arrows indicate open phagophores. M, mitochondria; ER, endoplasmic reticulum. Scale bars, 1 μm (G) and 0.5 μm (H).(I and J) 2GL9 cells (GFP-LC3 HEK293 cells; Chan et al., 2007) were starved for 2 hr before visualization using indicated antibodies. Scale bars, 10 μm.(K) Live-cell imaging demonstrates that Atg16L1 translocates to WIPI2b-positive puncta in starvation. HEK293 cells expressing GFP-WIPI2b and mCherry-Atg16L1 were starved in EBSS and imaged every 2 s using a spinning disk microscope. See also Figure S1 and Movie S1.
Figure 2(B) Untransfected (UN) or FLAG-Atg16L1 full-length (FL), 79-623, or 1-265 constructs were expressed in HEK293A cells stably expressing GFP-WIPI2b and immunoprecipitated using GFP-TRAP. Tags were visualized by immunoblotting. I, input; UB, unbound.(C) GFP, CFP-Atg5, GFP-WIPI1a, and GFP-WIPI2b were transiently expressed in HEK293A cells. GFP-tagged proteins were isolated using GFP-TRAP and incubated with in vitro translated 35S-labeled FLAG-Atg16L1 constructs 1-265, 1-242, 1-230, and 1-207 before washing and analysis by autoradiography. Protein expression was validated by immunoblot (bottom panel).(D) Lysates from HEK293A cells transiently expressing GFP, GFP-WIPI1a, or GFP-WIPI2b were mixed with lysates from HEK293A cells transiently expressing FLAG-Atg16L1 or Atg16L2. Protein complexes were immunoprecipitated using GFP-TRAP, followed by immunoblot. See also Figure S2 and Table S1.
Figure 3(B) Lysates from HEK293A cells transfected with GFP-WIPI2b were mixed with lysates from HEK293A cells transfected with FLAG-Atg16L2, FLAG-Atg16L1, or Flag-Atg16L1 mutants, immunoprecipitated, and analyzed by immunoblotting.(C) Statistical analysis of FLAG-Atg16L1 binding in (B) was performed by Student's t test. SEM for n = 4. ∗p < 0.05.(D) Cell lysates from HEK293A cells transiently expressing FLAG-Atg16L2, FLAG-Atg16L1, or FLAG-Atg16L1 mutants were subjected to immunoprecipitation using FLAG M2 agarose beads. Protein complexes were analyzed using immunoblotting.(E) Statistical analysis of FIP200 binding in (D) was performed by Student's t test. SEM for n = 3. ∗p < 0.05.(F) WIPI2 was immunoprecipitated from lysates from WT or FIP200−/− MEFS after treatment with 0.5 mM DSP. Bound Atg16 and Atg12-5 were detected by immunoblotting.(G) HEK293 cells stably expressing GFP-WIPI2b were and transiently transfected either FLAG-Atg16L1 WT, E226R E230R (ERER), or D237R D239R (DRDR). Bound and input (bottom) were analyzed by immunoblotting.
Figure 4(A) Lysates from HEK293A cells transiently expressing GFP, GFP-WIPI1a, GFP-WIPI2a, GFP-WIPI2b, or GFP-WIPI2b FTTG mutant were used for GFP-Trap. Endogenous Atg16L1 binding was analyzed by immunoblot.(B) Statistical analysis of (A) was performed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey's posttest. SEM for n = 3. ∗p < 0.05.(D) GFP-Trap from HEK293A cells transiently expressing GFP, GFP-WIPI1a, GFP-WIPI2b, GFP-WIPI2b R108E, GFP-WIPI2b R125E, or GFP-WIPI2b R108E R125E was mixed with in vitro translated 35S-labeled FLAG-Atg16L1 and analyzed by autoradiography.(E) Lysates from HEK293A cells transiently expressing GFP, GFP-WIPI2b, GFP-WIPI2b ΔCT, GFP-WIPI2a, GFP-WIPI1a, or GFP-WIPI1a ΔCT were used for GFP-Trap. Endogenous Atg16L1 binding was analyzed by immunoblot.(F) Statistical analysis of (E) was performed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey's posttest. SEM for n = 2. ∗p < 0.05.(G) Lysates from HEK293A cells transiently expressing GFP-WIPI2b WT, GFP-WIPI2b R108E, R125E, or R108E R125E were mixed with lysates from HEK293A cells transiently expressing FLAG-Atg16L1 WT, E226R, E230R, or E226R E230R in all possible permutations. Protein complexes from mixed lysates were immunoprecipitated using GFP-Trap, followed by immunoblot analysis.(H) Statistical analysis of (G) was performed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey's posttest. SEM from n = 3. ∗p < 0.05.(I) CLEM analysis of HEK293 cells treated with siRNA to WIPI2 were transfected with GFP-WIPI2b RERE and starved in EBSS. Bright-field image (top), GFP-WIPI2 RERE signal (middle), TEM of selected cell (bottom). Boxed area shown in (J). Scale bars represent 10 μM for bright-field and confocal and 5 μM for TEM.(J) High-magnification TEM of boxed area in (I). Arrows indicate open phagophores in the vicinity of ER and mitochondria (M), which contain GFP-WIPI2b RERE. See also Figures S4 and S5 and Table S1.
Figure 5(A) GFP, siRNA-resistant GFP-WIPI2b, or GFP-WIPI2b RERE was expressed in HEK293A cells treated for 72 hr with either RISC-free (RF) or WIPI2 siRNA. Cells were left in full medium (F) or starved for 2 hr with EBSS (S) or EBSS with BafA (B) before immunoblot analysis.(B) Statistical analysis of (A). SEM for n = 3. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey's posttest. ∗p < 0.05.(C) GFP, siRNA-resistant GFP-WIPI2b, GFP-WIPI2b RERE, GFP-WIPI2b FTTG, or GFP-WIPI2b FTTG RERE was expressed in HEK293A cells treated for 72 hr with WIPI2 siRNA. Cells were left in full medium (F) or starved for 2 hr with EBSS (S) or EBSS with BafA (B) before immunoblot analysis.(D) Statistical analysis of (C) was performed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey's posttest. The SEM for LC3 (n = 2) and p62 (n = 4) are shown. ∗p < 0.05.(E) siRNA-resistant GFP-WIPI2b, GFP-WIPI2b RERE, GFP-WIPI2b FTTG, or GFP-WIPI2b FTTG RERE was expressed in HEK293A cells treated for 72 hr with WIPI2 siRNA. Cells were starved in EBSS for 2 hr without or with BafA, fixed, and labeled, and LC3 was visualized by confocal microscopy. Scale bars, 10 μm.(F) Quantification of WIPI2 puncta per cell from (E). SEM from 10 cells per condition; ∗∗∗p < 0.001 using one-way ANOVA.(G) Statistical analysis of LC3 puncta from (E) with GFP control (not shown in E). SEM for n = 3. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA with Dunn's posttest t test. ∗p < 0.05. See also Table S1.
Figure 6(A) HEK293A cells transiently expressing the indicated mCherry constructs were treated in either full medium (F), starvation medium (S), or starvation medium with wortmannin (W) for 2 hr before immunoblot analysis.(B) Statistical analysis of (A) was performed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test. SEM for n = 3. ∗p < 0.05.(C) Complexes from HEK293A cells transiently expressing the indicated mCherry constructs were immunoprecipitated using RFP-Trap before analysis by immunoblotting.(D) 2GL9 cells transiently expressing the indicated mCherry constructs treated as in (A) were fixed and visualized by confocal microscopy.(E) CLEM of MCF7 cells expressing GFP-LC3 and mCherry-WIPI2b CAAX. Bright-field and confocal image merged (left), confocal of expressing cell (middle), low-magnification TEM of cell of interest (right). Boxed area indicates plasma membrane region showing colocalization of GFP-LC3 and mCherry-WIPI2b. Scale bar, 10 μm (n = 3).(F) High-magnification TEM showing plasma membrane region boxed in (E). Magnified insets, in top right, show small vesicular clusters under the plasma membrane detected in mCherry-WIPI2b CAAX, GFP-LC3 expressing cells but not in untransfected cells from a control experiment.(G) HEK293A cells treated with either RISC-free (RF), Atg16L1 siRNA, or FIP200 siRNA for 72 hr before transfection with HA-WIPI2b-CAAX were incubated in full medium (F), EBSS (S), or EBSS with wortmannin (W) for 2 hr before immunoblot analysis. Please note that all WIPI2 constructs are FTTG mutants. See also Figure S6 and Table S1.
Figure 7(A) Atg16L1Δ/Δ MEFs were transiently transfected with either mock, FLAG-tagged Atg16L1 WT, ERER, or DRDR. After 2 hr in EBSS, cells were fixed and labeled with anti-LC3 and anti-FLAG antibodies and visualized by confocal microscopy. Scale bars, 20 μm.(B) Statistical analysis of (A) was performed using one-way ANOVA with Dunn's posttest. ∗p < 0.05. SEM for n = 3.(C) Atg16L1Δ/Δ MEFs were transiently transfected with either mock, FLAG-tagged Atg16L1 WT, E226R E230R (ERER), or D237R D239R (DRDR) before analysis by immunoblotting.(D) Statistical analysis of (C) was performed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test. SEM for n = 3. ∗p < 0.05.(E) HEK293A cells were treated with either RISC-free control or WIPI2 siRNA before infection with Salmonella (moi = 100) for 1 hr, labeled with anti-LC3, WIPI2, and p62 antibodies, and followed by confocal analysis. Scale bars, 5 μm.(F) Statistical analysis for (E) was performed using an unpaired Student's t test. ∗p < 0.05. SEM for n = 3.(G) Atg16L1Δ/Δ MEFs were transiently transfected with FLAG-Atg16L1 WT, FLAG-Atg16L1 ERER, or FLAG-Atg16L2 DRDR 24 hr before being infected with Salmonella (moi = 25) for 1 hr, labeled with anti-LC3, anti-p62, and anti-FLAG antibodies, and followed by analysis by confocal microscopy. Scale bars, 5 μm.(H) Statistical analysis of (G) was performed by one-way ANOVA with Dunn's post hoc test. SEM for n = 4. ∗p < 0.05. See also Figure S7.
Figure 1A RT-qPCR reveals that miR-210 was increased in lungs of mice with PH triggered by various conditions: VHL−/− as compared with VHL+/+ mice (N = 4/group), ***P < 0.0001 (first graph); hypoxia + SU5416 (Hyp + SU5416) (N = 6/group) as compared with normoxia + SU5416 (Norm + SU5416) (N = 7/group), **P = 0.0015 (second graph); Il6 transgenic versus littermate control mice (N = 4/group), **P = 0.0097 (third graph); and S. mansoni-infected mice (N = 4) compared with non-infected control mice (N = 5), ***P < 0.0001 (fourth graph).B From animal subjects in (A), in situ hybridization (ISH, purple stain) revealed increased miR-210 in < 100-μm pulmonary vessels of mice suffering from PH, *P = 0.0493 for first graph, **P = 0.0015 for second graph, *P = 0.0391 for third graph.C Representative ISH stain of miR-210 in < 100 μm pulmonary vessels of mice (bottom micrographs) exposed to Hyp + SU5416 compared with Norm + SU5416 (α-smooth muscle actin stain from serial sections, top row of micrographs).D Increased miR-210 in < 200-μm remodeled pulmonary vessels of patients suffering from PAH (N = 19, Supplementary Table S1) as compared with non-PAH donor control lung (N = 10). Serial staining with hematoxylin and eosin is displayed in the top row of micrographs; quantification of miRNA ISH, right graph, *P = 0.0167.E Increased levels of miR-210 in plasma drawn from the pulmonary circulation (pulmonary capillary wedge position, PCWP) of patients with elevated mean pulmonary arterial pressures (mean PAP ≥ 25 mmHg) compared with control subjects (mPAP < 25 mmHg, N = 5/group, demographics in Supplementary Table S2), *P = 0.0357.F From animals in (C) immunohistochemistry (IHC) revealed that the miR-210 targets ISCU1/2 were reciprocally down-regulated in miR-210-enriched remodeled pulmonary vessels-namely in PH mice exposed to Hyp + SU5416 (F, ***P = 0.0002).G From humans in (D), immunohistochemistry (IHC) revealed that the miR-210 targets ISCU1/2 were reciprocally down-regulated in miR-210-enriched remodeled pulmonary vessels-namely in human PAH patients (G, ***P = 0.0008).H, I miR-210 expression (H) was increased (***P = 0.0003), and ISCU1/2 expression (I) was decreased (***P < 0.0001) in PECAM+pulmonary vascular endothelial cells isolated from PH mice (Hyp + SU5416) as compared with control (Norm + SU5416) (N = 4/group, left bars).
Figure 2After lentiviral delivery of GCN4 or GRX2 sensor genes to human PAECs, cellular fluorescence was measured by flow cytometry. Unlike control GCN4 sensors that homodimerized independent of Fe-S levels and induced consistent fluorescence, fluorescence derived from the GRX2 Fe-S-dependent sensors decreased in hypoxia, as displayed in representative flow cytometric plots (left) and by quantification of percentage of positive cells [(cell number in M2 gate)/(total cell number) × 100]. Immunoblotting revealed consistent expression of either GRX2 or GCN4 sensors (FLAG-tagged) in hypoxia (Hyp) compared with normoxia (Norm) (N = 3, ***P < 0.0001 for GRX2; N = 3, NS P = 0.1848 for GCN4).In contrast to consistent fluorescence from control GCN4 sensors, Fe-S-dependent GRX2 sensor fluorescence was decreased by siRNA knockdown of ISCU1/2 (siISCU) as compared with control (siCont) (N = 3, ***P < 0.0001 for GRX2; N = 3, NS P = 0.1790 for GCN4).GRX2, but not GCN4, sensor fluorescence was decreased after transfection of miR-210 oligonucleotide mimic (miR-210) as compared with control (miRC) (N = 3, ***P = 0.0002 for GRX2; N = 3, NS P = 0.0913 for GCN4). During hypoxic exposure, GRX2, but not GCN4, sensor fluorescence was increased after transfection of an antisense miR-210 inhibitor (AS210) as compared with control (ASC) (N = 3, **P = 0.003 for GRX2; N = 3, NS P = 0.1194 for GCN4).After lentiviral delivery of sensor genes, Fe-S-dependent GRX2 sensor fluorescence was decreased in PECAM-positive cells from PH mouse lung (Hyp + SU5416) as compared with control non-PH mouse lung (Norm + SU5416, N = 3, ***P < 0.001).By electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy (representative VHL−/− versus control lung), Fe-S cluster signal was decreased (left graph) in VHL−/− mice lung tissue (VHL−/−, N = 3) as compared with WT control lung tissues (WT, N = 5), ***P = 0.0003.By EPR, Fe-S-specific signal was decreased (right graph) in human PH-diseased lung tissue harvested at lung transplantation (PH, N = 3, Supplementary Table S3) compared with non-PH control donor lung tissues (control, N = 3), *P = 0.048.
Figure 3B By immunohistochemistry (IHC), ISCU1/2 was unchanged in < 100 μm pulmonary vessels of miR-210−/−mice exposed to Hyp + SU5416 (N = 6) versus Norm + SU5416 (N = 7), NS P = 0.2833.C Fe-S-dependent Complex I-specific activity was decreased in WT PH mice as compared with control (N = 7/group, left bars, ***P < 0.0001), but activity was preserved in the lungs of miR-210−/−mice in either condition (N = 8/group, right bars), NS P = 0.3693.D IHC demonstrated that pulmonary vascular GLUT1 was increased in WT PH mice (left bars, ***P = 0.0006), but GLUT1 was unchanged in miR-210−/− mice in either condition (right bars, NS P = 0.9967).E 3-nitrotyrosine (3-NT) was increased in pulmonary vessels of WT PH mice but was reduced in miR-210−/− mice in either condition (N = 6/group) (***P < 0.0001, NS P = 0.4087).F In PH conditions, endothelin-1 was decreased in miR-210−/− lung tissue compared with WT tissue (N = 5/group), **P = 0.007.G PCNA was increased in WT PH pulmonary vessels but was decreased in miR-210−/− tissue exposed to either condition (N = 5/group) (**P = 0.0096, *P = 0.0124, *P = 0.0263 for miR-210−/−).H PCNA was increased in PECAM+ endothelial cells from PH versus non-PH mice (N = 3/group, **P = 0.0052).I Unlike WT mice (black bars) demonstrating increased right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) after Hyp + SU5416 (N = 10) versus Norm + SU5416 (N = 11), hemodynamic dysregulation was significantly alleviated in miR-210−/− mice (white bars, N = 11) (***P < 0.0001, *P = 0.0258, **P = 0.0059).J Compared with WT controls (N = 9), miR-210−/− mice (N = 8) displayed a blunted increase of the Fulton index (RV/LV + S) under PH versus baseline conditions (expressed as a ratio of RV/LV + S under Hyp + SU5416 versus Norm + SU5416, *P = 0.031).K-M Under PH (black bars, N = 8/group) versus baseline conditions (white bars, N = 6/group), pulmonary vascular remodeling was alleviated in miR-210−/− mice, as visualized via histology (L), and confirmed by decreased % arteriolar muscularization (K, **P = 0.001, **P = 0.0045 for miR-210−/−, *P = 0.0158) and decreased vessel wall thickness (M, ***P < 0.0001, **P = 0.0086).
Figure 4B, C Intrapharyngeal delivery of miR-210 mimic increased miR-210 in whole lung (***P = 0.0002) (B) and in < 100-μm pulmonary vessels (**P = 0.007) (C).D miR-210 mimic also repressed ISCU1/2 levels in those same caliber vessels (N = 6/group), **P = 0.0022.E Endothelin-1 was increased in mouse lung tissue after delivery of miR-210 mimic (N = 6/group), *P = 0.0368.F-H miR-210 mimic delivery increased RVSP (N = 8/group) (F) and vascular remodeling (α-smooth muscle actin stain, α-SMA), as evidenced by increased percent of muscularized (< 100 μm) pulmonary vessels (G) and increased medial thickening relative to vessel diameter when compared with miR-Control (H) (N = 6/group). **P = 0.0021 for (F), **P = 0.0072 for (G), *P = 0.0335 for (H).