Yes-associated protein upregulates filopodia formation to promote alveolar epithelial-cell phagocytosis
Authors: Jing He
Chuanwang Song
Xiangnan Tao
Yan Chen
Peiyu Gao
Mimi Mu
Journal: Immunology Letters (2020)
Discipline: IMMUNOLOGY
Keywords: Alveolar epithelial cells (AECs); Filopodia; PI3K signaling; Phagocytosis; Yes-associated protein (YAP).
Affiliations: Department of Immunology, School of Laboratory Medicine, Bengbu Medical College, Anhui, 233030, PR China; Anhui Provincial Key Laboratory of Infection and Immunity, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, Anhui, 233030, PR China; Anhui Province Key Laboratory of Immunology in Chronic Diseases, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, Anhui, 233030, PR China., Clinical Laboratory, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College, Anhui, 233004, PR China., Department of Immunology, School of Laboratory Medicine, Bengbu Medical College, Anhui, 233030, PR China; Anhui Provincial Key Laboratory of Infection and Immunity, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, Anhui, 233030, PR China; Anhui Province Key Laboratory of Immunology in Chronic Diseases, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, Anhui, 233030, PR China. Electronic address: .

Abstract:  Cells engulf particles larger than 0.5 μm in diameter by phagocytosis, which is driven by cytoskeletal rearrangements. Phagocytosis by alveolar epithelial cells (AECs) helps to maintain the alveolar homeostasis. Yes-associated protein (YAP), a transcriptional coactivator of the Hippo pathway, affects proliferation, differentiation, and cytoskeletal rearrangement of AECs, but it is not clear whether YAP regulates phagocytosis. In this study, interference with YAP expression inhibited phagocytosis in MLE-12 cells and in primary cultures of AEC. Filopodia formation promoted phagocytosis in AECs, and YAP enhanced filopodia formation in AECs. Blocking PI3K signaling resulted in reduced YAP protein expression and inhibition of phagocytosis. The results indicate that YAP expression was regulated by PI3K signaling and promoted phagocytosis in AECs by upregulating filopodia formation. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Brought to my attention through Twitter. Figure 1: Several panels look more similar to each other than expected. I count at least five possible duplications. ![file] , 
 Dear Bik, Thank you for your important comments on our paper. After receiving the comment information, we checked the original data carefully. Because of the large amount of data and similar naming, we made some mistakes for the Fig 1 preparation. The carelessness in combining the images caused the repetition of the images. We greatly regret the error and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this error may cause. We will contact the journal office as soon as possible to make corrections. Thank you again for your valuable comments on our work. Sincerely yours Chuanwang Song , 
 #2 u201cwe made some (sic) mistakes for the Fig 1 preparation.u201d Can readers be sure that the rest of the reported data somehow does not suffer from similar issues? For example, could the authors please post the original uncropped scans for Figure 7? , 
 Corrigendum, available online April 2021, found here: https: www.sciencedirect.com science article pii S0165247821000419  The authors regret the incorrect publication of Figures 1 and 7 in the original article. In these figures, the images of Flow cytometry or Western blot results should be replaced with appropriate images which are presented below. The changes do not affect the scientific conclusion and significance of the article. Here is a comparison of the originally published Figure 1 and the corrected Figure 1. A whopping 7 panels have been replaced, which I have marked below with cyan boxes. That is a lot of replacements, and one could wonder how this did not *affect the scientific conclusion and significance of the article* . In particular, it should be pointed out that all panels in Figure 1A are now different, with different measured percentages, but somehow the bar graphs on the right still look exactly the same. Can the authors please clarify how the bar graphs did change with the replacement of seven panels? ![file] In addition, Figure 7 has been replaced as well. The Western blots are completely different. Could the authors explain why they replaced these panels, please? Are there any other panels that they might not be certain about? ![file] ,