A catalogue of verified and characterized arterial enhancers for key arterial identity genes

  1. Svanhild Nornes
  2. Susann Bruche
  3. Niharika Adak
  4. Ian McCracken
  5. Sarah De Val

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The establishment and growth of the arterial endothelium requires the coordinated expression of numerous genes. However, the transcriptional and signalling pathways regulating this process are still not fully established, and only a small number of enhancers for key arterial genes have been characterized. Here, we sought to generate a useful and accessible cohort of arterial enhancers with which to study arterial transcriptional regulation. We combined in silico analysis with transgenic zebrafish and mouse models to find and validate enhancers associated with eight key arterial identity genes ( Acvrl1 / Alk1 , Cxcr4, Cxcl12, Efnb2, Gja4/Cx37, Gja5/Cx40 , Nrp1 and Unc5b) . This identified a cohort of enhancers able to independently direct robust transcription to arterial ECs within the vasculature. To elucidate the regulatory pathways upstream of arterial gene transcription, we determined the occurrence of common endothelial transcription factor binding motifs, and assessed direct binding of these factors across all arterial enhancers compared to similar assessments of non-arterial-specific enhancers. These results find that binding of SOXF and ETS factors is a shared event across arterial enhancers, but also commonly occurs at pan-endothelial enhancers. Conversely, RBPJ/Notch, MEF2 and FOX binding was over-represented but not ubiquitous at arterial enhancers. We found no shared or arterial-specific signature for canonical WNT-associated TCF/LEF transcription factors, canonical TGFβ/BMP-associated SMAD1/5 and SMAD2, laminar shear stress-associated KLF factors or venous-enriched NR2F2 factors. This cohort of well characterized and in vivo-verified enhancers can now provide a platform for future studies into the interaction of different transcriptional and signalling pathways with arterial gene expression.

Article activity feed

  1. Review Commons

    Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Reply to the reviewers

    REVIEWER 1

    Reviewer #1 Evidence, reproducibility and clarity: Nornes et al. have generated a cohort of arterial enhancers based on in silico analysis and validation with transgenic lines in both zebrafish and mice. They utilized publicly available datasets for chromatin marks, including ATAC-seq on endothelial cells either from cell culture or isolated from mice, as well as EP300 binding, H3K27Ac, and H3K4Me1. Focusing on eight arterial-expressed genes, they identified a putative enhancer region marked by at least one enhancer feature. After validating the activity of these enhancers in zebrafish and mice, the authors assessed the regulatory pathways upstream of these genes. Using ChIP-seq and Cut&Run for key endothelial transcription factors, they discovered that binding sites for SoXF and ETS factors are shared in arterial enhancers, whereas binding sites for Notch, MEF2, and Fox are present only in the subset of identified enhancers. Together this study provides an arterial enhancer atlas that allows further characterisation of regulatory network behind endothelial cell identity.

    __Reviewer #1 Major Comment 1: __The authors have assessed 15 enhancers for arterial-venous specificity, by assessing the expression in DA, ISV, cardinal and ventral veins at 2 dpf. Interestingly there is a clear difference in the expression patterns of these enhancers in the zebrafish axial vasculature, especially seen at the level of ISV. The co-localization of the enhancer expression in the endothelium was done using endothelial marks expressed in both venous and arterial EC (kdrl). To fully distinguish if the expression is venous or arterial endothelial compartment colocalization with Tg expressed in arterial (flt1) or venous (lyve1) EC would be informative.

    RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer that a more detailed description of arterial-venous specificity of each enhancer could be included. In the original manuscript, the expression pattern of each enhancer within the vasculature was primarily assessed at 2 days post fertilization (dpf) in Fig 1-2. This identified arteries using direction of blood flow and available descriptive information, as arterial development in 2pdf zebrafish is very stereotypical and already well characterized.

    __REVISION (PLANNED): __The original Figure 3A includes a more detailed assessment of arterial-venous specificity at 3dpf for four arterial enhancers (Cxcr4+135, Cxcr4+151, Gja5-78 and Gja5-7, chosen as enhancers representing the four types of expression patterns seen). We will now extend this more detailed analysis to all arterial enhancer:GFP lines. This analysis uses kdrl-mCherry to mark the entire vasculature, comparative to the expression of the arterial enhancers (GFP). This allows us to clearly identify the intersegmental arteries (as opposed to intersegmental veins) by looking for direct connection to the dorsal aorta, and by assessing the direction of blood flow within these vessels. This analysis is done at 3dpf to give time for the intersegmental arteries to acquire identity and connect definitively with the dorsal aorta, and for the diminishment of any GFP expression originating from the initial sprouting from the dorsal aorta. By extending this analysis to the other arterial enhancer zebrafish lines shown in Figure 2, we will be able to more clearly classify the activity of each enhancer within different vascular beds. This information will also be recorded in a new Table better detailing the timing and specificity of activity of each enhancer.

    We chose not to use arterial or venous "marker lines" (e.g. Flt1:reporter or Lyve1:reporter) for the simple reason that these are also enhancer:GFP transgenes, and therefore are not necessarily definitive of the arterial or venous lineage per se (e.g. Flt1:GFP expression is controlled by the transcription factors binding the Flt1 enhancer in the same way that Cxcr4+135 and the others are, with the added caveat that the transcriptional regulation of the Flt1 and Lyve enhancers are not well defined). We felt that morphological determination based on direct connections and blood flow direction was therefore more accurate.

    __Reviewer #1 Major Comment 2: __In addition, it is striking that cxc4+135 drives the expression in nearly every ISV as cxcl12+269 only every other. Similarly, not all the enhancers are enriched in the DA to the same level. Is there biological significance to this? could authors discuss these results further? The pattern of expression of the unc5b-identified enhancer is also striking, does this reflect the known roles of unc5b in the vascular formation?

    __RESPONSE: __We agree, the diversity of enhancer expression patterns within the arterial compartment is notable, and really very interesting. The variations in enhancer expression pattern must be largely influenced by the transcription factor motifs within each enhancer, as these patterns were seen in both transient and stable transgenic zebrafish and therefore largely independent of chromatin integration location.

    __REVISION (PLANNED): __The extension of Figure 3A to all enhancer lines (see previous comment) will permit us to more clearly classify the activity of each arterial enhancer within different beds and at different time points. Currently there were no clear links between a particular transcription factor motif/binding and expression pattern, something that is discussed briefly in the original Results and Discussion sections. However, the expansion of Figure 3A to all enhancers, and the creation of a Table summarizing this more systematically will make the link (or lack of one) between expression patterns within the arterial tree and TF motifs easier to appreciate and discuss.

    __Reviewer #1 Major Comment 3: __The final part of the paper focuses on defining the presence of "deeply conserved" transcription factor binding sites (TFSB), defined as TFBS that are as conserved as the enhancer sequence surrounding them. In literature, the term 'deep conservation' refers to evolutionary conservation (genomic sequence preservation) in a wide range of species. Therefore, the additional classification presented by the authors based on the surrounding sequence is not clear. As, the KLF motifs in the Ece1in1, which is conserved between mouse and human, are defined as "deeply conserved". However, the FLK motif in the following enhancer, Flk1in10 (one line below), gets classified as non-deeply conserved, despite also being conserved between mouse and human. Thus, in the current form, there is a contradiction in the way the authors use the term 'deeply conserved' and the accepted meaning of this term. To avoid confusion, it would be important to revise this nomenclature.

    RESPONSE: We agree that this nomenclature should be revised. Our aim was to develop a standard approach to transcription factor motif analysis that could be applied to enhancers regardless of conservation levels and size, and easily replicated by others. Because not all functional transcription factor motifs within enhancers are necessarily conserved between species, we were careful to label both conserved and non-conserved motifs for each TF examined. Nonetheless, extra emphasis was placed on motifs with confirmatory TF binding evidence (e.g. ChIP-seq/CUT&RUN), and those conserved at the same depth as the surrounding sequence. This was because our previous work on endothelial enhancers clearly indicates that these motifs are far more likely to play a key role in regulation. However, the reviewer is correct to note that referring to such motifs as "deeply" conserved could be misinterpreted.

    REVISION (COMPLETED): We have altered our nomenclature. This is explained in the relevant Results sections: "Because the level of conservation of motifs can often be an indication of their importance to enhancer activity, we classified each motif into three categories: strongly conserved (motif conserved to the same depth of the surrounding sequence), weakly conserved (motif conserved in orthologous human enhancer but not to the same depth as the surrounding sequence) and not conserved (motif is not conserved within the orthologous human sequence)".

    Two enhancers (Unc5b-57 and Cdh1-1) were only conserved human-mouse, therefore each TF motif within these enhancers could be annotated as both weakly and strongly conserved. As the reviewer noted, this does create confusion. We have now adjusted Figure 5 to use a distinct shape for motifs for which no distinction between weak and strong motif can be made. This does not cover Ece1in1, which is conserved human-mouse-tenrec but was erroneously originally labelled human-mouse only. This error has been corrected.

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 1: __Details on how the corresponding non-coding regions between mice and humans were established are missing, what alignment tool was used?

    RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED): This information has now been included in the relevant Results section: "Orthologous human enhancer sequences were identified for every enhancer using the Vertebrate Multiz Alignment & Conservation Track on the UCSC genome browser"

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 2: __Not sufficient details are provided for the re-analysis of siRNA data. E.g., which clustering method was used? How the clusters were assigned to cell identities?

    RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED): The details regarding the re-analysis of scRNA data has been expanded in the Methods sections: "Publicly available E12 and E17.5 scRNA-seq data from EC isolated from BmxCreERT2;RosatdTomato lineage traced murine hearts54 was obtained from GEO (GSE214942) prior to processing FASTQ files with the 10X Genomics CellRanger pipeline (V7.0.0). RNA-seq reads were aligned to the mm10 genome reference downloaded from 10X Genomics with the addition of the TdTomato-WPRE sequence. Exclusion of low quality cells with either a UMI count >100,000, total gene count 10%) was performed using Scater55. Data normalisation was performed using the MultiBatchNormalisation method prior to merging of TdTomato positive and negative datasets from individual timepoints. The top 2000 most highly variable genes (excluding mitochondrial and ribosomal genes) in the merged datasets were identified using the Seurat FindVariableFeatures method and utilised to calculate principal component analysis (PCA). Normalised data was scaled using the ScaleData function. Cell clustering was performed using the standard unsupervised graph-based clustering method implemented within Seurat (V4)56. Clusters were visualised in two dimensions using UMAP based non-linear dimensional reduction following the standard Seurat (V4) workflow49. Identified clusters were assigned identities based on marker genes shown to be differentially expressed between populations previously identified in the original study47. Key markers include Npr3 (endocardial), Fabp4 (coronary vascular endothelial), and Nfatc1 (valvular endothelial). The E12.5 sinus venosus EC cluster was assigned based in Aplnr as previously described54. Arterial and venous EC clusters in the E17.5 datasets were annotated based on their enriched expression of Gja5 and Nr2f2, respectively."

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 3: __Details about the first HOMER analysis (in the assessment of transcription factor motifs and binding patterns at arterial enhancers) seem to be missing from the methods section.

    RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED): This has been included in the methods: "Analysis of overrepresented motifs within our validated arterial enhancer cohort was performed with HOMER's findMotifsGenome tool using the full validated region of the arterial enhancers. The analysis used the hg38 masked genome and otherwise default settings for all other parameters including randomly selected background regions".

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 4: __Pg 12: "For ETS, 23/23 arterial enhancers contained at least one conserved motif (all "deeply" conserved to the same depth as the surrounding enhancer, see S7)". Is it S8, where conservation is indicated?

    __ ____RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED):__ We have corrected this error in the text - no figure actually needed to be referenced here as the previous sentence contained the full list of relevant figures to this statement (Table 2 and Figures 5 and S9, previously called S8, are the places to see this information).

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 5: __Figure 1 and 2 for non-zebrafish readers it would be useful to indicate in Figures 1 and 2 the non EC expression that can be observed in the embryos.

    RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED): In addition to arterial expression, a number of the enhancer:GFP transgenes also showed GFP expression within the neural tube. In addition, some transient transgenic embryos also showed ectopic expression in muscle fibres. These have now been indicated on the images in Figure 1 and 2.

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 6: __Table S1: Please, indicate in the legend what the asterisk in the H DNAseI column stands for

    RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED): The asterisk indicates where DNaseI hypersensitivity is also seen in multiple non-EC lines. This explanation has been added to the legend.

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 7: __Figure S8: The phrasing "conserved to animal" in Figure S8 is misleading. There is no difference in something being conserved to tenrec or manatee, as both are Afrotherians. Hence, the data show that both Efnb2-141 and Ephb4-2 were present in the common ancestor of Afrotherians and humans, namely the ancestor of all placentals. Instead, it would be good to indicate the phylogenetic group for which the presence of the enhancer can be inferred (in this case, Placentalia).

    __RESPONSE: __Whilst I appreciate the point, it is the exact sequence that is important here - obviously tenrec and manatee are similar species but still contain differences in nucleotide sequences. The information about conservation leads the reader to the exact species with which the comparison is being made. We tried to restrict this to just one species per phylogenetic group (e.g. tenrec, opossum, chicken, zebrafish) but occasionally this was not possible.

    Reviewer #1 Significance

    To date, a systematic approach to identifying the regulatory networks driving endothelial cell identity is missing. This study provides important datasets and validation of enhancers involved in arterial gene expression and the associated transcription factors. Although this is only the tip of the iceberg, this work represents a significant milestone in the systematic understanding of how arterial gene expression is regulated. Overall, this study offers a powerful resource for understanding arterial gene regulation and conducting genome-wide studies of arterial enhancers.

    __RESPONSE: __We thank the reviewer for these kind words. Whilst we agree this is only a very small snapshot of all the arterial enhancers involved in gene regulation, we would like to stress that not only is this a massive increase to what has been known previously, but is also deliberately focused on the genes used to define arterial identity during development and in the adult, therefore these enhancers by themselves form an extremely valuable dataset with which to study the key factors driving arterial differentiation and identity.

    __ __

    REVIEWER 2

    __Reviewer #2 Evidence, reproducibility and clarity: __In this work, Nornes and collaborators have described a cohort of arterial enhancers that drive gene expression in arteries and not in veins. The paper is very well written and it is very informative. The authors have used in silico models to identified the potential artery enhancers and then used different developmental in vivo systems, zebrafish and mice, to validate their findings. Finally, the authors have explored what transcription factors may be binding the identified enhancer sequences and thus, drive arterial gene expression. I would like to congratulate the authors for this work that it has been a pleasure to read and review.

    Reviewer #2 Major Comment 1: In their identification of enhancers, the authors consider a candidate every enhancer that has a putative mark in both mouse and human. Nevertheless, all the human data comes from in vitro analysis. Considering how much cell culture affects endothelial cell identity, inducing effects like EndoMT, would this have any effect on the enhancer selection? Would it be possible to search any human in vivo data? Would this allow for even stronger and more relevant sequences?

    __RESPONSE: __We agree that the use of human endothelial cells in culture raises some potential issues. However, we stress that the mouse EC enhancer marks, which played a key role in defining putative enhancers, come from in vivo analysis (E11 embryos, P6 retina and adult aorta), limiting the potential for significant impact from cell culture-induced issues. Whilst we would have enthusiastically incorporated human in vivo data had it been available, our approach was still indisputably successful at identifying arterial enriched/specific enhancers.

    We consider it unlikely that culture/identity-related problems with human cultured ECs led to a significant undercount of enhancers, in part because comparatively few regions with enhancer marks in mouse in vivo ECs were excluded due to the absence of human enhancer marks. In fact, Cxcr4, Cxcl12, and Gja5 were poorly transcribed in the human cell lines studied here and consequently only enhancer marks in mouse were used to define putative enhancers for these three genes (this is clearly stated in the Results section). If a similar rational had applied to the remaining five genes, only an additional six putative enhancers would have been tested (one for Gja4, two for Nrp1 and three for Unc5b). However, we felt it made sense to include analysis of human enhancer marks for these five genes, as all were expressed in the human ECs used (as indicated by H3K1Me3 and DNaseI hypersensitivity at promoter regions) and orthologous human enhancers were identified for all. Additionally, our retrospective analysis of previously described mammalian in vivo-validated EC enhancers (Table S1 in the original manuscription, including eight arterial enhancers) found that all 32 were marked by at least one enhancer mark in human samples (1/32 did not contain mouse enhancer marks). We also tested eleven regions that did not reach our putative enhancer threshold, including five with only mouse marks. None of these directed expression in transgenic analysis.

    Reviewer #2 Major Comment 2: The human data comes from vein endothelial or microvasculature endothelial cells. Specially because some of the enhancers identified by the authors drive also vein expression, could the authors discriminate whether this is due to the identification coming from vein cells. Is there available data from HAECs? Would this not be conceptually more correct that using vein endothelial cells data? This should be at least discussed in the paper.

    __RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED): __We have now included a comparison with enhancer marks from HAECs, telo-HAECs and HUAECs as a new Figure S5. The enhancer marks seen in these cells were very similar to those in the HUVEC and microvascular cells already surveyed. Had enhancer marks within HAECs/telo-HAEC/HUAECs been included as a human enhancer mark in our initial survey, it would have been unlikely to have altered our analysis, although we agree it would have made it more conceptually correct. We chose not to go back and engineer this into our original enhancer selection rational however as we felt it would be intellectually dishonest. A paragraph has been added to the Results section about this analysis.

    Reviewer #2 Major Comment 3: Although the authors use the mouse embryo to further validate their finding beyond the zebrafish, the expression are a bit different. While on the fish the enhancers label smaller vessels of arterial identity, in the mouse, only bigger arteries are marked. Is this defined by the time of the analysis?

    __RESPONSE: __This experiment was conducted to demonstrate that these enhancers were arterial enriched in both zebrafish and mouse transgenesis, and feel this is clearly shown by the current data. Whilst I do not really agree that the expression pattern is different (for example, the Gja5 enhancers are more restricted to the major arteries in both zebrafish and mouse, compared to the more widely expressed Efnb2-333), this is challenging to ascertain at a single time-point in a transient transgenic mouse assay. Whilst it would be potentially interesting to better assess the activity of these enhancers over time in mice, we consider this a lengthy experiment (multiple stable lines would need to be established and characterized for each enhancer) which would not add particular benefit to this paper.

    Reviewer #2 Major Comment 4: The analysis of the enhancers is only done during development. Is the activity of these enhancers maintained through live or only important for artery vs vein determination? Is the expression of the different enhancer reporters maintained into adulthood?

    RESPONSE AND REVISION (PLANNED): We agree this would be interesting to ascertain. We plan to examine the activity of enhancer:GFP activity in adult fish fins (which are accessible even without crossing into a casper background, which is beyond the timescale of this project) in the fully revised version of this paper. We have already conducted a feasibility study on four arterial enhancers:GFP lines (Gja5-7:GFP, Gja5-78:GFP, Gja4+40:GFP and Efnb2-333:GFP), which found that all four were still active, and arterial-specific, in the adult.

    Reviewer #2 Significance

    This is a very well done study with potential interest for vascular biologists, in particular to those interested in the determination between artery and veins in a context of development. It advances our knowledge on the field of vascular biology as it not only proposes potential enhancers but also goes on to validation of the enhancers. Nevertheless, it is important to note that some of this enhancers have been identified from in vitro human data. In vitro culture of endothelial cells affects their cellular identity and thus, this study may have underscored many potential enhancers.

    REVIEWER 3

    __Reviewer #3: Evidence, reproducibility and clarity: __This manuscript by Nornes et al analyzed multiple published databases and identified a group of putative enhancers for 8 selected non-Notch arterial genes in mouse and human ECs. These enhancers were cloned and screened in fish embryos to test their effect in driving GFP reporter expression, which narrowed down a cohort of enhancers for further testing of expression activities in mouse embryonic arteries. The authors then analyzed the sequences of these enhancers, and identified binding motifs of ETS, SOX-F, FOX and MEF2 family TFs and Notch transcription regulator RBPJ commonly present in closed proximity in these arterial enhancers, suggesting interaction between these TFs in determination of arterial identity.

    Reviewer #3 Major Comment : This study provides an enormous amount of bioinformatic data analysis and screening results in transgenic fish and mouse models, which led to the discovery of a group of arterial enhancers and TFs binding motifs essential in regulating arterial identity.

    Reviewer #3 Other Comments ____1: Choice of arterial genes is slightly biased. Acvrl1/Alk1 is not enriched in arterial ECs. Sema3G, which is highly expressed in arterial ECs, is missing. UNC5B is enriched in arterial ECs but also expressed by sprouting ECs (PMID: 38866944).

    __RESPONSE: __When we started this project, scRNA-seq datasets in the developing vasculature were less available. Consequently, we initially based our choice of genes on data from Raftrey et al., Circ Res 2021 (available earlier on bioRxiv), which was focused on mouse coronary arterial ECs at the timepoints that arteries differentiate. This found Acvrl1 to be arterial enriched (not a novel observation, many publications treat Acvrl1 as arterial specific or arterial-enriched) and did not list Sema3g. We also considered a wider dataset from mouse and human mid-gestation embryos when available (Hou et al., Cell Research 2022). However, it is important to note that we did not aim to investigate every arterial-enriched gene, rather to use these datasets to help identify loci associated with gene expression patterns which indicated a high likelihood of containing arterial enhancers active during arterial differentiation.

    Sc-RNAseq data from both Raftery et al., and Hou et al., indicated that arterial ECs are subdivided into two groups, reflecting maturity but also potentially slightly different developmental trajectories. The genes studied here were therefore selected to evenly cover both subgroups, with Acvrl1, Cxcl12, Gja5 and Nrp1 primarily restricted to the mature arterial EC subgroup, while Cxcr4, Efnb2, Gja4 and Unc5b were also expressed in the less mature/arterial plexus/pre-arterial EC subgroup. It is notable that genes within the latter subgroup are also associated with angiogenic/sprouting ECs (Dll4 also belongs to this subgroup), which likely indicates biological links between angiogenesis and arterial identity rather than a problem in gene choice and specificity.

    __REVISION (COMPLETED): __This is already discussed in the Results section (angiogenic expression of arterial genes is discussed within the MEF2 and RBPJ sections) and in the Discussion (paragraph 2, referring to different expression patterns within arterial ECs). However, we have now edited the relevant Results section to better explain gene selection: "It is therefore clear that a better understanding of the regulatory pathways directing arterial differentiation requires the identification and characterization of a larger number of arterial enhancers directing the expression of key arterial identity genes. To identify a cohort of such enhancers, we looked in the loci of eight non-Notch genes: Acvrl1(ALK1) Cxcr4, Cxcl12, Efnb2, Gja4(CX37), Gja5 (CX40), Nrp1 and Unc5b. Although not a definitive list of arterial identity genes, single cell transcriptomic analysis indicates these genes are all significantly enriched in arterial ECs4,20, and are commonly used to define arterial EC populations in mouse and human scRNAseq analysis4,5,20,54. Additionally, single-cell transcriptomic data indicates that arterial ECs can be divided into two subgroups4,20. The genes selected here are equally split between subgroups (Acvrl1, Cxcl12, Gja5 and Nrp1 from the mature arterial EC subgroup, Cxcr4, Efnb2, Gja4 and Unc5b from the less mature/arterial plexus/pre-arterial EC subgroup)4,20. We did not exclude genes also implicated in angiogenesis/expressed in sprouting ECs, as these genes formed that vast majority of those associated with the less mature EC subgroup".

    Reviewer #3 Other Comments ____2: Exclusion of Notch genes. Although the reason for choosing non-notch genes and excluding notch genes for screening is addressed in this paper, it would be interesting to examine how the arterial enhancers identified in this study are present in the Notch genes, especially Dll4 (enriched in arterial and sprouting ECs) and Jag1 (enriched in arterial ECs).

    __RESPONSE: __Previous work from our lab and others has already examined arterial enhancers for Notch pathway genes. We already included these enhancers in all our later analysis (Figure 5-6 and relevant supplemental figures), including analysis of TF motifs.

    Reviewer #3 Other Comments ____3: SoxF family TFs. Among the 3 members of SoxF TFs, only Sox17 and Sox7 were assessed. Though not specific, Sox18 is highly expressed in the arteries. On the contrary, Sox7 is highly expressed in the vein and shows weak expression in arterial ECs (PMID: 26630461).

    __RESPONSE AND REVISION (PLANNED): __We agree. We will include assessment of SOX18 binding in our final revised manuscript. An antibody for this analysis has been identified already.

    Reviewer #3 Other Comments ____4: Minor inaccuracy in Intro/paragraph 3: though sox17 is reported as indispensable for arterial specification (PMID: 24153254), losing a single SoxF factor does not seem to completely compromise the arterial program (PMID: 24153254, PMID: 26630461). A combined loss of Sox17/18, or Sox 7/17/18, seems to do the job (PMID: 26630461).

    __RESPONSE: __We have altered this section: "The evidence linking SOXF transcription factors to arterial differentiation is more extensive, with loss of either SOX17 (the SOXF factor most specific to arterial ECs) or SOX7 resulting in arterial defects21-24. Whilst losing a single SOXF factor does not entirely compromise the arterial program, arterial differentiation appears absent after compound Sox17;Sox18 and Sox7;Sox17;Sox18 deletion, although this occurs alongside significantly impaired angiogenesis and severe vascular hyperplasia21-24. PMID 24153254 is reference 23, PMID 26630461 is reference 24.

    Reviewer #3 Other Comments ____5: Fig.4 e14.5 mouse embryos. If the observation aims to assess the dorsal aorta, it would be better to use mouse embryos at mid-gestation (e9.5-10.5), when the paired DAs are formed with arterial identity but haven't been remodelled and fused as one single aorta. The morphological data in this figure would be better to show the colocalization of LacZ expression and an arterial marker (e.g. Sox17) using immulfluorescence staining instead of purely lacZ.

    RESPONSE: This experiment was primarily conducted to demonstrate that our enhancers were arterial enriched in both zebrafish and mouse transgenesis, and feel this is clearly shown with the e14.5 transgenic embryos originally shown. We chose e14.5 because it matched the timepoints used for the single cell transcriptomics first used to select the target arterial identity genes, and feel it is a good match to 2-3 dpf zebrafish in terms of arterial differentiation mechanisms. We agree that E9-10 would have also been an additional useful timepoint, but we do not have the resources to generate this data nor consider it essential for the conclusions of our work here.

    __REVISION (PLANNED): __We are unable to perform immunofluorescence in the e14.5 transgenic embryos due to the fixation and staining solutions used for X-gal staining (which was done by an external company and could not be altered), but agree additional information is needed to demonstrate arterial endothelial specificity. We will therefore expand the analysis of sectioned embryos (currently restricted to just the Efnb2-333:LacZ transgene) to all enhancers shown in Figure 4. This analysis has some limitations due to infiltration of the X-gal solution to deeper tissues, but is anticipated it will clearly show enhancer activity in arterial endothelial cells rather than venous ECs or smooth muscle cells.

    __Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)): __This novel work establishes an important foundation for future understanding of how TFs may interact to determine arterial specification.

    Other revisions

    In addition to changes suggested by the reviewers, we also made one additional adjustment to the paper to include analysis of two additional putative enhancers (Efnb2-159 and Cxcr4+119). These were initially omitted in error yet both regions reach the standard of testable putative enhancers (noted in small changes to Figure S1 and Table S2). When tested in zebrafish transient transgenic embryos, Cxcr4+119 was inactive whilst Efnb2-159 was active in arterial endothelial cells. The relevant tables and figures have been adjusted to reflect these changes, the most significant of which are the inclusion of Efnb2-159 positive zebrafish in Figure 1 (and the necessity to create an additional supplemental Figure (S3) to accommodate the increased number of images), and analysis of Efnb2-159 transcription factor motifs/binding as part of Figure 5 and 6. No conclusions were altered by the inclusion of this additional data.

  2. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #3

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    This manuscript by Nornes et al analyzed multiple published databases and identified a group of putative enhancers for 8 selected non-Notch arterial genes in mouse and human ECs. These enhancers were cloned and screened in fish embryos to test their effect in driving GFP reporter expression, which narrowed down a cohort of enhancers for further testing of expression activities in mouse embryonic arteries. The authors then analyzed the sequences of these enhancers, and identified binding motifs of ETS, SOX-F, FOX and MEF2 family TFs and Notch transcription regulator RBPJ commonly present in closed proximity in these arterial enhancers, suggesting interaction between these TFs in determination of arterial identity.

    Major comments:

    This study provides an enormous amount of bioinformatic data analysis and screening results in transgenic fish and mouse models, which led to the discovery of a group of arterial enhancers and TFs binding motifs essential in regulating arterial identity.

    Other comments:

    1. Choice of arterial genes is slightly biased. Acvrl1/Alk1 is not enriched in arterial ECs. Sema3G, which is highly expressed in arterial ECs, is missing. UNC5B is enriched in arterial ECs but also expressed by sprouting ECs (PMID: 38866944).
    2. Exclusion of Notch genes. Although the reason for choosing non-notch genes and excluding notch genes for screening is addressed in this paper, it would be interesting to examine how the arterial enhancers identified in this study are present in the Notch genes, especially Dll4 (enriched in arterial and sprouting ECs) and Jag1 (enriched in arterial ECs).
    3. SoxF family TFs. Among the 3 members of SoxF TFs, only Sox17 and Sox7 were assessed. Though not specific, Sox18 is highly expressed in the arteries. On the contrary, Sox7 is highly expressed in the vein and shows weak expression in arterial ECs (PMID: 26630461). Minor inaccuracy in Intro/paragraph 3: though sox17 is reported as indispensable for arterial specification (PMID: 24153254), losing a single SoxF factor does not seem to completely compromise the arterial program (PMID: 24153254, PMID: 26630461). A combined loss of Sox17/18, or Sox 7/17/18, seems to do the job (PMID: 26630461).
    4. Fig.4 e14.5 mouse embryos. If the observation aims to assess the dorsal aorta, it would be better to use mouse embryos at mid-gestation (e9.5-10.5), when the paired DAs are formed with arterial identity but haven't been remodeled and fused as one single aorta. The morphological data in this figure would be better to show the colocalization of LacZ expression and an arterial marker (e.g. Sox17) using immulfluorescence staining instead of purely lacZ.

    Significance

    This novel work establishes an important foundation for future understanding of how TFs may interact to determine arterial specification.

  3. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #2

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    In this work, Nornes and collaborators have described a cohort of arterial enhancers that drive gene expression in arteries and not in veins. The paper is very well written and it is very informative. The authors have used in silico models to identified the potential artery enhancers and then used different developmental in vivo systems, zebrafish and mice, to validate their findings. Finally, the authors have explored what transcription factors may be binding the identified enhancer sequences and thus, drive arterial gene expression. I would like to congratulate the authors for this work that it has been a pleasure to read and review.

    Major comments:

    1. In their identification of enhancers, the authors consider a candidate every enhancer that has a putative mark in both mouse and human. Nevertheless, all the human data comes from in vitro analysis. Considering how much cell culture affects endothelial cell identity, inducing effects like EndoMT, would this have any effect on the enhancer selection? Would it be possible to search any human in vivo data? Would this allow for even stronger and more relevant sequences?
    2. The human data comes from vein endothelial or microvasculature endothelial cells. Specially because some of the enhancers identified by the authors drive also vein expression, could the authors discriminate whether this is due to the identification coming from vein cells. Is there available data from HAECs? Would this not be conceptually more correct that using vein endothelial cells data? This should be at least discussed in the paper.
    3. Although the authors use the mouse embryo to further validate their finding beyond the zebrafish, the expression are a bit different. While on the fish the enhancers label smaller vessels of arterial identity, in the mouse, only bigger arteries are marked. Is this defined by the time of the analysis?
    4. The analysis of the enhancers is only done during development. Is the activity of these enhancers maintained through live or only important for artery vs vein determination? Is the expression of the different enhancer reporters maintained into adulthood?

    Significance

    This is a very well done study with potential interest for vascular biologists, in particular to those interested in the determination between artery and veins in a context of development. It advances our knowledge on the field of vascular biology as it not only proposes potential enhancers but also goes on to validation of the enhancers. Nevertheless, it is important to note that some of this enhancers have been identified from in vitro human data. In vitro culture of endothelial cells affects their cellular identity and thus, this study may have underscored many potential enhancers.

  4. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    Summary:

    Nornes et al. have generated a cohort of arterial enhancers based on in silico analysis and validation with transgenic lines in both zebrafish and mice. They utilized publicly available datasets for chromatin marks, including ATAC-seq on endothelial cells either from cell culture or isolated from mice, as well as EP300 binding, H3K27Ac, and H3K4Me1. Focusing on eight arterial-expressed genes, they identified a putative enhancer region marked by at least one enhancer feature. After validating the activity of these enhancers in zebrafish and mice, the authors assessed the regulatory pathways upstream of these genes. Using ChIP-seq and Cut&Run for key endothelial transcription factors, they discovered that binding sites for SoXF and ETS factors are shared in arterial enhancers, whereas binding sites for Notch, MEF2, and Fox are present only in the subset of identified enhancers. Together this study provides an arterial enhancer atlas that allows further characterisation of regulatory network behind endothelial cell identity.

    Major comments:

    The authors have assessed 15 enhancers for arterial-venous specificity, by assessing the expression in DA, ISV, cardinal and ventral veins at 2 dpf. Interestingly there is a clear difference in the expression patterns of these enhancers in the zebrafish axial vasculature, especially seen at the level of ISV. The co-localization of the enhancer expression in the endothelium was done using endothelial marks expressed in both venous and arterial EC (kdrl). To fully distinguish if the expression is venous or arterial endothelial compartment colocalization with Tg expressed in arterial (flt1) or venous (lyve1) EC would be informative. In addition, it is striking that cxc4+135 drives the expression in nearly every ISV as cxcl12+269 only every other. Similarly, not all the enhancers are enriched in the DA to the same level. Is there biological significance to this? could authors discuss these results further? The pattern of expression of the unc5b-identified enhancer is also striking, does this reflect the known roles of unc5b in the vascular formation? The final part of the paper focuses on defining the presence of "deeply conserved" transcription factor binding sites (TFSB), defined as TFBS that are as conserved as the enhancer sequence surrounding them. In literature, the term 'deep conservation' refers to evolutionary conservation (genomic sequence preservation) in a wide range of species. Therefore, the additional classification presented by the authors based on the surrounding sequence is not clear. As, the KLF motifs in the Ece1in1, which is conserved between mouse and human, are defined as "deeply conserved". However, the FLK motif in the following enhancer, Flk1in10 (one line below), gets classified as non-deeply conserved, despite also being conserved between mouse and human. Thus, in the current form, there is a contradiction in the way the authors use the term 'deeply conserved' and the accepted meaning of this term. To avoid confusion, it would be important to revise this nomenclature.

    Minor:

    Details on how the corresponding non-coding regions between mice and humans were established are missing, what alignment tool was used?

    Not sufficient details are provided for the re-analysis of siRNA data. E.g., which clustering method was used? How the clusters were assigned to cell identities?

    Details about the first HOMER analysis (in the assessment of transcription factor motifs and binding patterns at arterial enhancers) seem to be missing from the methods section.

    Pg 12: "For ETS, 23/23 arterial enhancers contained at least one conserved motif (all "deeply" conserved to the same depth as the surrounding enhancer, see S7)". Is it S8, where conservation is indicated?

    Figure 1 and 2 for non-zebrafish readers it would be useful to indicate in Figures 1 and 2 the non EC expression that can be observed in the embryos.

    Table S1: Please, indicate in the legend what the asterisk in the H DNAseI column stands for

    Figure S8: The phrasing "conserved to animal" in Figure S8 is misleading. There is no difference in something being conserved to tenrec or manatee, as both are Afrotherians. Hence, the data show that both Efnb2-141 and Ephb4-2 were present in the common ancestor of Afrotherians and humans, namely the ancestor of all placentals. Instead, it would be good to indicate the phylogenetic group for which the presence of the enhancer can be inferred (in this case, Placentalia).

    Significance

    To date, a systematic approach to identifying the regulatory networks driving endothelial cell identity is missing. This study provides important datasets and validation of enhancers involved in arterial gene expression and the associated transcription factors. Although this is only the tip of the iceberg, this work represents a significant milestone in the systematic understanding of how arterial gene expression is regulated. Overall, this study offers a powerful resource for understanding arterial gene regulation and conducting genome-wide studies of arterial enhancers.

  5. Review Commons

    Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Reply to the reviewers

    REVIEWER 1

    Reviewer #1 Evidence, reproducibility and clarity: Nornes et al. have generated a cohort of arterial enhancers based on in silico analysis and validation with transgenic lines in both zebrafish and mice. They utilized publicly available datasets for chromatin marks, including ATAC-seq on endothelial cells either from cell culture or isolated from mice, as well as EP300 binding, H3K27Ac, and H3K4Me1. Focusing on eight arterial-expressed genes, they identified a putative enhancer region marked by at least one enhancer feature. After validating the activity of these enhancers in zebrafish and mice, the authors assessed the regulatory pathways upstream of these genes. Using ChIP-seq and Cut&Run for key endothelial transcription factors, they discovered that binding sites for SoXF and ETS factors are shared in arterial enhancers, whereas binding sites for Notch, MEF2, and Fox are present only in the subset of identified enhancers. Together this study provides an arterial enhancer atlas that allows further characterisation of regulatory network behind endothelial cell identity.

    __Reviewer #1 Major Comment 1: __The authors have assessed 15 enhancers for arterial-venous specificity, by assessing the expression in DA, ISV, cardinal and ventral veins at 2 dpf. Interestingly there is a clear difference in the expression patterns of these enhancers in the zebrafish axial vasculature, especially seen at the level of ISV. The co-localization of the enhancer expression in the endothelium was done using endothelial marks expressed in both venous and arterial EC (kdrl). To fully distinguish if the expression is venous or arterial endothelial compartment colocalization with Tg expressed in arterial (flt1) or venous (lyve1) EC would be informative.

    RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer that a more detailed description of arterial-venous specificity of each enhancer could be included. In the original manuscript, the expression pattern of each enhancer within the vasculature was primarily assessed at 2 days post fertilization (dpf) in Fig 1-2. This identified arteries using direction of blood flow and available descriptive information, as arterial development in 2pdf zebrafish is very stereotypical and already well characterized.

    __REVISION (PLANNED): __The original Figure 3A includes a more detailed assessment of arterial-venous specificity at 3dpf for four arterial enhancers (Cxcr4+135, Cxcr4+151, Gja5-78 and Gja5-7, chosen as enhancers representing the four types of expression patterns seen). We will now extend this more detailed analysis to all arterial enhancer:GFP lines. This analysis uses kdrl-mCherry to mark the entire vasculature, comparative to the expression of the arterial enhancers (GFP). This allows us to clearly identify the intersegmental arteries (as opposed to intersegmental veins) by looking for direct connection to the dorsal aorta, and by assessing the direction of blood flow within these vessels. This analysis is done at 3dpf to give time for the intersegmental arteries to acquire identity and connect definitively with the dorsal aorta, and for the diminishment of any GFP expression originating from the initial sprouting from the dorsal aorta. By extending this analysis to the other arterial enhancer zebrafish lines shown in Figure 2, we will be able to more clearly classify the activity of each enhancer within different vascular beds. This information will also be recorded in a new Table better detailing the timing and specificity of activity of each enhancer.

    We chose not to use arterial or venous “marker lines” (e.g. Flt1:reporter or Lyve1:reporter) for the simple reason that these are also enhancer:GFP transgenes, and therefore are not necessarily definitive of the arterial or venous lineage per se (e.g. Flt1:GFP expression is controlled by the transcription factors binding the Flt1 enhancer in the same way that Cxcr4+135 and the others are, with the added caveat that the transcriptional regulation of the Flt1 and Lyve enhancers are not well defined). We felt that morphological determination based on direct connections and blood flow direction was therefore more accurate.

    __Reviewer #1 Major Comment 2: __In addition, it is striking that cxc4+135 drives the expression in nearly every ISV as cxcl12+269 only every other. Similarly, not all the enhancers are enriched in the DA to the same level. Is there biological significance to this? could authors discuss these results further? The pattern of expression of the unc5b-identified enhancer is also striking, does this reflect the known roles of unc5b in the vascular formation?

    __RESPONSE: __We agree, the diversity of enhancer expression patterns within the arterial compartment is notable, and really very interesting. The variations in enhancer expression pattern must be largely influenced by the transcription factor motifs within each enhancer, as these patterns were seen in both transient and stable transgenic zebrafish and therefore largely independent of chromatin integration location.

    __REVISION (PLANNED): __The extension of Figure 3A to all enhancer lines (see previous comment) will permit us to more clearly classify the activity of each arterial enhancer within different beds and at different time points. Currently there were no clear links between a particular transcription factor motif/binding and expression pattern, something that is discussed briefly in the original Results and Discussion sections. However, the expansion of Figure 3A to all enhancers, and the creation of a Table summarizing this more systematically will make the link (or lack of one) between expression patterns within the arterial tree and TF motifs easier to appreciate and discuss.

    __Reviewer #1 Major Comment 3: __The final part of the paper focuses on defining the presence of "deeply conserved" transcription factor binding sites (TFSB), defined as TFBS that are as conserved as the enhancer sequence surrounding them. In literature, the term 'deep conservation' refers to evolutionary conservation (genomic sequence preservation) in a wide range of species. Therefore, the additional classification presented by the authors based on the surrounding sequence is not clear. As, the KLF motifs in the Ece1in1, which is conserved between mouse and human, are defined as "deeply conserved". However, the FLK motif in the following enhancer, Flk1in10 (one line below), gets classified as non-deeply conserved, despite also being conserved between mouse and human. Thus, in the current form, there is a contradiction in the way the authors use the term 'deeply conserved' and the accepted meaning of this term. To avoid confusion, it would be important to revise this nomenclature.

    RESPONSE: We agree that this nomenclature should be revised. Our aim was to develop a standard approach to transcription factor motif analysis that could be applied to enhancers regardless of conservation levels and size, and easily replicated by others. Because not all functional transcription factor motifs within enhancers are necessarily conserved between species, we were careful to label both conserved and non-conserved motifs for each TF examined. Nonetheless, extra emphasis was placed on motifs with confirmatory TF binding evidence (e.g. ChIP-seq/CUT&RUN), and those conserved at the same depth as the surrounding sequence. This was because our previous work on endothelial enhancers clearly indicates that these motifs are far more likely to play a key role in regulation. However, the reviewer is correct to note that referring to such motifs as “deeply” conserved could be misinterpreted.

    REVISION (COMPLETED): We have altered our nomenclature. This is explained in the relevant Results sections: “Because the level of conservation of motifs can often be an indication of their importance to enhancer activity, we classified each motif into three categories: strongly conserved (motif conserved to the same depth of the surrounding sequence), weakly conserved (motif conserved in orthologous human enhancer but not to the same depth as the surrounding sequence) and not conserved (motif is not conserved within the orthologous human sequence)”.

    Two enhancers (Unc5b-57 and Cdh1-1) were only conserved human-mouse, therefore each TF motif within these enhancers could be annotated as both weakly and strongly conserved. As the reviewer noted, this does create confusion. We have now adjusted Figure 5 to use a distinct shape for motifs for which no distinction between weak and strong motif can be made. This does not cover Ece1in1, which is conserved human-mouse-tenrec but was erroneously originally labelled human-mouse only. This error has been corrected.

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 1: __Details on how the corresponding non-coding regions between mice and humans were established are missing, what alignment tool was used?

    RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED): This information has now been included in the relevant Results section: “Orthologous human enhancer sequences were identified for every enhancer using the Vertebrate Multiz Alignment & Conservation Track on the UCSC genome browser”

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 2: __Not sufficient details are provided for the re-analysis of siRNA data. E.g., which clustering method was used? How the clusters were assigned to cell identities?

    RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED): The details regarding the re-analysis of scRNA data has been expanded in the Methods sections: “Publicly available E12 and E17.5 scRNA-seq data from EC isolated from BmxCreERT2;RosatdTomato lineage traced murine hearts54 was obtained from GEO (GSE214942) prior to processing FASTQ files with the 10X Genomics CellRanger pipeline (V7.0.0). RNA-seq reads were aligned to the mm10 genome reference downloaded from 10X Genomics with the addition of the TdTomato-WPRE sequence. Exclusion of low quality cells with either a UMI count >100,000, total gene count 10%) was performed using Scater55. Data normalisation was performed using the MultiBatchNormalisation method prior to merging of TdTomato positive and negative datasets from individual timepoints. The top 2000 most highly variable genes (excluding mitochondrial and ribosomal genes) in the merged datasets were identified using the Seurat FindVariableFeatures method and utilised to calculate principal component analysis (PCA). Normalised data was scaled using the ScaleData function. Cell clustering was performed using the standard unsupervised graph-based clustering method implemented within Seurat (V4)56. Clusters were visualised in two dimensions using UMAP based non-linear dimensional reduction following the standard Seurat (V4) workflow49. Identified clusters were assigned identities based on marker genes shown to be differentially expressed between populations previously identified in the original study47. Key markers include Npr3 (endocardial), Fabp4 (coronary vascular endothelial), and Nfatc1 (valvular endothelial). The E12.5 sinus venosus EC cluster was assigned based in Aplnr as previously described54. Arterial and venous EC clusters in the E17.5 datasets were annotated based on their enriched expression of Gja5 and Nr2f2, respectively.”

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 3: __Details about the first HOMER analysis (in the assessment of transcription factor motifs and binding patterns at arterial enhancers) seem to be missing from the methods section.

    RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED): This has been included in the methods: “Analysis of overrepresented motifs within our validated arterial enhancer cohort was performed with HOMER’s findMotifsGenome tool using the full validated region of the arterial enhancers. The analysis used the hg38 masked genome and otherwise default settings for all other parameters including randomly selected background regions”.

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 4: __Pg 12: "For ETS, 23/23 arterial enhancers contained at least one conserved motif (all "deeply" conserved to the same depth as the surrounding enhancer, see S7)". Is it S8, where conservation is indicated?

    __ ____RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED):__ We have corrected this error in the text – no figure actually needed to be referenced here as the previous sentence contained the full list of relevant figures to this statement (Table 2 and Figures 5 and S9, previously called S8, are the places to see this information).

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 5: __Figure 1 and 2 for non-zebrafish readers it would be useful to indicate in Figures 1 and 2 the non EC expression that can be observed in the embryos.

    RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED): In addition to arterial expression, a number of the enhancer:GFP transgenes also showed GFP expression within the neural tube. In addition, some transient transgenic embryos also showed ectopic expression in muscle fibres. These have now been indicated on the images in Figure 1 and 2.

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 6: __Table S1: Please, indicate in the legend what the asterisk in the H DNAseI column stands for

    RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED): The asterisk indicates where DNaseI hypersensitivity is also seen in multiple non-EC lines. This explanation has been added to the legend.

    __Reviewer #1 Minor Comment 7: __Figure S8: The phrasing "conserved to animal" in Figure S8 is misleading. There is no difference in something being conserved to tenrec or manatee, as both are Afrotherians. Hence, the data show that both Efnb2-141 and Ephb4-2 were present in the common ancestor of Afrotherians and humans, namely the ancestor of all placentals. Instead, it would be good to indicate the phylogenetic group for which the presence of the enhancer can be inferred (in this case, Placentalia).

    __RESPONSE: __Whilst I appreciate the point, it is the exact sequence that is important here – obviously tenrec and manatee are similar species but still contain differences in nucleotide sequences. The information about conservation leads the reader to the exact species with which the comparison is being made. We tried to restrict this to just one species per phylogenetic group (e.g. tenrec, opossum, chicken, zebrafish) but occasionally this was not possible.

    Reviewer #1 Significance

    To date, a systematic approach to identifying the regulatory networks driving endothelial cell identity is missing. This study provides important datasets and validation of enhancers involved in arterial gene expression and the associated transcription factors. Although this is only the tip of the iceberg, this work represents a significant milestone in the systematic understanding of how arterial gene expression is regulated. Overall, this study offers a powerful resource for understanding arterial gene regulation and conducting genome-wide studies of arterial enhancers.

    __RESPONSE: __We thank the reviewer for these kind words. Whilst we agree this is only a very small snapshot of all the arterial enhancers involved in gene regulation, we would like to stress that not only is this a massive increase to what has been known previously, but is also deliberately focused on the genes used to define arterial identity during development and in the adult, therefore these enhancers by themselves form an extremely valuable dataset with which to study the key factors driving arterial differentiation and identity.

    __ __

    REVIEWER 2

    __Reviewer #2 Evidence, reproducibility and clarity: __In this work, Nornes and collaborators have described a cohort of arterial enhancers that drive gene expression in arteries and not in veins. The paper is very well written and it is very informative. The authors have used in silico models to identified the potential artery enhancers and then used different developmental in vivo systems, zebrafish and mice, to validate their findings. Finally, the authors have explored what transcription factors may be binding the identified enhancer sequences and thus, drive arterial gene expression. I would like to congratulate the authors for this work that it has been a pleasure to read and review.

    Reviewer #2 Major Comment 1: In their identification of enhancers, the authors consider a candidate every enhancer that has a putative mark in both mouse and human. Nevertheless, all the human data comes from in vitro analysis. Considering how much cell culture affects endothelial cell identity, inducing effects like EndoMT, would this have any effect on the enhancer selection? Would it be possible to search any human in vivo data? Would this allow for even stronger and more relevant sequences?

    __RESPONSE: __We agree that the use of human endothelial cells in culture raises some potential issues. However, we stress that the mouse EC enhancer marks, which played a key role in defining putative enhancers, come from in vivo analysis (E11 embryos, P6 retina and adult aorta), limiting the potential for significant impact from cell culture-induced issues. Whilst we would have enthusiastically incorporated human in vivo data had it been available, our approach was still indisputably successful at identifying arterial enriched/specific enhancers.

    We consider it unlikely that culture/identity-related problems with human cultured ECs led to a significant undercount of enhancers, in part because comparatively few regions with enhancer marks in mouse in vivo ECs were excluded due to the absence of human enhancer marks. In fact, Cxcr4, Cxcl12, and Gja5 were poorly transcribed in the human cell lines studied here and consequently only enhancer marks in mouse were used to define putative enhancers for these three genes (this is clearly stated in the Results section). If a similar rational had applied to the remaining five genes, only an additional six putative enhancers would have been tested (one for Gja4, two for Nrp1 and three for Unc5b). However, we felt it made sense to include analysis of human enhancer marks for these five genes, as all were expressed in the human ECs used (as indicated by H3K1Me3 and DNaseI hypersensitivity at promoter regions) and orthologous human enhancers were identified for all. Additionally, our retrospective analysis of previously described mammalian in vivo-validated EC enhancers (Table S1 in the original manuscription, including eight arterial enhancers) found that all 32 were marked by at least one enhancer mark in human samples (1/32 did not contain mouse enhancer marks). We also tested eleven regions that did not reach our putative enhancer threshold, including five with only mouse marks. None of these directed expression in transgenic analysis.

    Reviewer #2 Major Comment 2: The human data comes from vein endothelial or microvasculature endothelial cells. Specially because some of the enhancers identified by the authors drive also vein expression, could the authors discriminate whether this is due to the identification coming from vein cells. Is there available data from HAECs? Would this not be conceptually more correct that using vein endothelial cells data? This should be at least discussed in the paper.

    __RESPONSE AND REVISION (COMPLETED): __We have now included a comparison with enhancer marks from HAECs, telo-HAECs and HUAECs as a new Figure S5. The enhancer marks seen in these cells were very similar to those in the HUVEC and microvascular cells already surveyed. Had enhancer marks within HAECs/telo-HAEC/HUAECs been included as a human enhancer mark in our initial survey, it would have been unlikely to have altered our analysis, although we agree it would have made it more conceptually correct. We chose not to go back and engineer this into our original enhancer selection rational however as we felt it would be intellectually dishonest. A paragraph has been added to the Results section about this analysis.

    Reviewer #2 Major Comment 3: Although the authors use the mouse embryo to further validate their finding beyond the zebrafish, the expression are a bit different. While on the fish the enhancers label smaller vessels of arterial identity, in the mouse, only bigger arteries are marked. Is this defined by the time of the analysis?

    __RESPONSE: __This experiment was conducted to demonstrate that these enhancers were arterial enriched in both zebrafish and mouse transgenesis, and feel this is clearly shown by the current data. Whilst I do not really agree that the expression pattern is different (for example, the Gja5 enhancers are more restricted to the major arteries in both zebrafish and mouse, compared to the more widely expressed Efnb2-333), this is challenging to ascertain at a single time-point in a transient transgenic mouse assay. Whilst it would be potentially interesting to better assess the activity of these enhancers over time in mice, we consider this a lengthy experiment (multiple stable lines would need to be established and characterized for each enhancer) which would not add particular benefit to this paper.

    Reviewer #2 Major Comment 4: The analysis of the enhancers is only done during development. Is the activity of these enhancers maintained through live or only important for artery vs vein determination? Is the expression of the different enhancer reporters maintained into adulthood?

    RESPONSE AND REVISION (PLANNED): We agree this would be interesting to ascertain. We plan to examine the activity of enhancer:GFP activity in adult fish fins (which are accessible even without crossing into a casper background, which is beyond the timescale of this project) in the fully revised version of this paper. We have already conducted a feasibility study on four arterial enhancers:GFP lines (Gja5-7:GFP, Gja5-78:GFP, Gja4+40:GFP and Efnb2-333:GFP), which found that all four were still active, and arterial-specific, in the adult.

    Reviewer #2 Significance

    This is a very well done study with potential interest for vascular biologists, in particular to those interested in the determination between artery and veins in a context of development. It advances our knowledge on the field of vascular biology as it not only proposes potential enhancers but also goes on to validation of the enhancers. Nevertheless, it is important to note that some of this enhancers have been identified from in vitro human data. In vitro culture of endothelial cells affects their cellular identity and thus, this study may have underscored many potential enhancers.

    REVIEWER 3

    __Reviewer #3: Evidence, reproducibility and clarity: __This manuscript by Nornes et al analyzed multiple published databases and identified a group of putative enhancers for 8 selected non-Notch arterial genes in mouse and human ECs. These enhancers were cloned and screened in fish embryos to test their effect in driving GFP reporter expression, which narrowed down a cohort of enhancers for further testing of expression activities in mouse embryonic arteries. The authors then analyzed the sequences of these enhancers, and identified binding motifs of ETS, SOX-F, FOX and MEF2 family TFs and Notch transcription regulator RBPJ commonly present in closed proximity in these arterial enhancers, suggesting interaction between these TFs in determination of arterial identity.

    Reviewer #3 Major Comment : This study provides an enormous amount of bioinformatic data analysis and screening results in transgenic fish and mouse models, which led to the discovery of a group of arterial enhancers and TFs binding motifs essential in regulating arterial identity.

    Reviewer #3 Other Comments ____1: Choice of arterial genes is slightly biased. Acvrl1/Alk1 is not enriched in arterial ECs. Sema3G, which is highly expressed in arterial ECs, is missing. UNC5B is enriched in arterial ECs but also expressed by sprouting ECs (PMID: 38866944).

    __RESPONSE: __When we started this project, scRNA-seq datasets in the developing vasculature were less available. Consequently, we initially based our choice of genes on data from Raftrey et al., Circ Res 2021 (available earlier on bioRxiv), which was focused on mouse coronary arterial ECs at the timepoints that arteries differentiate. This found Acvrl1 to be arterial enriched (not a novel observation, many publications treat Acvrl1 as arterial specific or arterial-enriched) and did not list Sema3g. We also considered a wider dataset from mouse and human mid-gestation embryos when available (Hou et al., Cell Research 2022). However, it is important to note that we did not aim to investigate every arterial-enriched gene, rather to use these datasets to help identify loci associated with gene expression patterns which indicated a high likelihood of containing arterial enhancers active during arterial differentiation.

    Sc-RNAseq data from both Raftery et al., and Hou et al., indicated that arterial ECs are subdivided into two groups, reflecting maturity but also potentially slightly different developmental trajectories. The genes studied here were therefore selected to evenly cover both subgroups, with Acvrl1, Cxcl12, Gja5 and Nrp1 primarily restricted to the mature arterial EC subgroup, while Cxcr4, Efnb2, Gja4 and Unc5b were also expressed in the less mature/arterial plexus/pre-arterial EC subgroup. It is notable that genes within the latter subgroup are also associated with angiogenic/sprouting ECs (Dll4 also belongs to this subgroup), which likely indicates biological links between angiogenesis and arterial identity rather than a problem in gene choice and specificity.

    __REVISION (COMPLETED): __This is already discussed in the Results section (angiogenic expression of arterial genes is discussed within the MEF2 and RBPJ sections) and in the Discussion (paragraph 2, referring to different expression patterns within arterial ECs). However, we have now edited the relevant Results section to better explain gene selection: “It is therefore clear that a better understanding of the regulatory pathways directing arterial differentiation requires the identification and characterization of a larger number of arterial enhancers directing the expression of key arterial identity genes. To identify a cohort of such enhancers, we looked in the loci of eight non-Notch genes: Acvrl1(ALK1) Cxcr4, Cxcl12, Efnb2, Gja4(CX37), Gja5 (CX40), Nrp1 and Unc5b. Although not a definitive list of arterial identity genes, single cell transcriptomic analysis indicates these genes are all significantly enriched in arterial ECs4,20, and are commonly used to define arterial EC populations in mouse and human scRNAseq analysis4,5,20,54. Additionally, single-cell transcriptomic data indicates that arterial ECs can be divided into two subgroups4,20. The genes selected here are equally split between subgroups (Acvrl1, Cxcl12, Gja5 and Nrp1 from the mature arterial EC subgroup, Cxcr4, Efnb2, Gja4 and Unc5b from the less mature/arterial plexus/pre-arterial EC subgroup)4,20. We did not exclude genes also implicated in angiogenesis/expressed in sprouting ECs, as these genes formed that vast majority of those associated with the less mature EC subgroup”.

    Reviewer #3 Other Comments ____2: Exclusion of Notch genes. Although the reason for choosing non-notch genes and excluding notch genes for screening is addressed in this paper, it would be interesting to examine how the arterial enhancers identified in this study are present in the Notch genes, especially Dll4 (enriched in arterial and sprouting ECs) and Jag1 (enriched in arterial ECs).

    __RESPONSE: __Previous work from our lab and others has already examined arterial enhancers for Notch pathway genes. We already included these enhancers in all our later analysis (Figure 5-6 and relevant supplemental figures), including analysis of TF motifs.

    Reviewer #3 Other Comments ____3: SoxF family TFs. Among the 3 members of SoxF TFs, only Sox17 and Sox7 were assessed. Though not specific, Sox18 is highly expressed in the arteries. On the contrary, Sox7 is highly expressed in the vein and shows weak expression in arterial ECs (PMID: 26630461).

    __RESPONSE AND REVISION (PLANNED): __We agree. We will include assessment of SOX18 binding in our final revised manuscript. An antibody for this analysis has been identified already.

    Reviewer #3 Other Comments ____4: Minor inaccuracy in Intro/paragraph 3: though sox17 is reported as indispensable for arterial specification (PMID: 24153254), losing a single SoxF factor does not seem to completely compromise the arterial program (PMID: 24153254, PMID: 26630461). A combined loss of Sox17/18, or Sox 7/17/18, seems to do the job (PMID: 26630461).

    __RESPONSE: __We have altered this section: “The evidence linking SOXF transcription factors to arterial differentiation is more extensive, with loss of either SOX17 (the SOXF factor most specific to arterial ECs) or SOX7 resulting in arterial defects21–24. Whilst losing a single SOXF factor does not entirely compromise the arterial program, arterial differentiation appears absent after compound Sox17;Sox18 and Sox7;Sox17;Sox18 deletion, although this occurs alongside significantly impaired angiogenesis and severe vascular hyperplasia21–24. PMID 24153254 is reference 23, PMID 26630461 is reference 24.

    Reviewer #3 Other Comments ____5: Fig.4 e14.5 mouse embryos. If the observation aims to assess the dorsal aorta, it would be better to use mouse embryos at mid-gestation (e9.5-10.5), when the paired DAs are formed with arterial identity but haven't been remodelled and fused as one single aorta. The morphological data in this figure would be better to show the colocalization of LacZ expression and an arterial marker (e.g. Sox17) using immulfluorescence staining instead of purely lacZ.

    RESPONSE: This experiment was primarily conducted to demonstrate that our enhancers were arterial enriched in both zebrafish and mouse transgenesis, and feel this is clearly shown with the e14.5 transgenic embryos originally shown. We chose e14.5 because it matched the timepoints used for the single cell transcriptomics first used to select the target arterial identity genes, and feel it is a good match to 2-3 dpf zebrafish in terms of arterial differentiation mechanisms. We agree that E9-10 would have also been an additional useful timepoint, but we do not have the resources to generate this data nor consider it essential for the conclusions of our work here.

    __REVISION (PLANNED): __We are unable to perform immunofluorescence in the e14.5 transgenic embryos due to the fixation and staining solutions used for X-gal staining (which was done by an external company and could not be altered), but agree additional information is needed to demonstrate arterial endothelial specificity. We will therefore expand the analysis of sectioned embryos (currently restricted to just the Efnb2-333:LacZ transgene) to all enhancers shown in Figure 4. This analysis has some limitations due to infiltration of the X-gal solution to deeper tissues, but is anticipated it will clearly show enhancer activity in arterial endothelial cells rather than venous ECs or smooth muscle cells.

    __Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)): __This novel work establishes an important foundation for future understanding of how TFs may interact to determine arterial specification.

    Other revisions

    In addition to changes suggested by the reviewers, we also made one additional adjustment to the paper to include analysis of two additional putative enhancers (Efnb2-159 and Cxcr4+119). These were initially omitted in error yet both regions reach the standard of testable putative enhancers (noted in small changes to Figure S1 and Table S2). When tested in zebrafish transient transgenic embryos, Cxcr4+119 was inactive whilst Efnb2-159 was active in arterial endothelial cells. The relevant tables and figures have been adjusted to reflect these changes, the most significant of which are the inclusion of Efnb2-159 positive zebrafish in Figure 1 (and the necessity to create an additional supplemental Figure (S3) to accommodate the increased number of images), and analysis of Efnb2-159 transcription factor motifs/binding as part of Figure 5 and 6. No conclusions were altered by the inclusion of this additional data.

  6. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #3

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    This manuscript by Nornes et al analyzed multiple published databases and identified a group of putative enhancers for 8 selected non-Notch arterial genes in mouse and human ECs. These enhancers were cloned and screened in fish embryos to test their effect in driving GFP reporter expression, which narrowed down a cohort of enhancers for further testing of expression activities in mouse embryonic arteries. The authors then analyzed the sequences of these enhancers, and identified binding motifs of ETS, SOX-F, FOX and MEF2 family TFs and Notch transcription regulator RBPJ commonly present in closed proximity in these arterial enhancers, suggesting interaction between these TFs in determination of arterial identity.

    Major comments:

    This study provides an enormous amount of bioinformatic data analysis and screening results in transgenic fish and mouse models, which led to the discovery of a group of arterial enhancers and TFs binding motifs essential in regulating arterial identity.

    Other comments:

    1. Choice of arterial genes is slightly biased. Acvrl1/Alk1 is not enriched in arterial ECs. Sema3G, which is highly expressed in arterial ECs, is missing. UNC5B is enriched in arterial ECs but also expressed by sprouting ECs (PMID: 38866944).
    2. Exclusion of Notch genes. Although the reason for choosing non-notch genes and excluding notch genes for screening is addressed in this paper, it would be interesting to examine how the arterial enhancers identified in this study are present in the Notch genes, especially Dll4 (enriched in arterial and sprouting ECs) and Jag1 (enriched in arterial ECs).
    3. SoxF family TFs. Among the 3 members of SoxF TFs, only Sox17 and Sox7 were assessed. Though not specific, Sox18 is highly expressed in the arteries. On the contrary, Sox7 is highly expressed in the vein and shows weak expression in arterial ECs (PMID: 26630461). Minor inaccuracy in Intro/paragraph 3: though sox17 is reported as indispensable for arterial specification (PMID: 24153254), losing a single SoxF factor does not seem to completely compromise the arterial program (PMID: 24153254, PMID: 26630461). A combined loss of Sox17/18, or Sox 7/17/18, seems to do the job (PMID: 26630461).
    4. Fig.4 e14.5 mouse embryos. If the observation aims to assess the dorsal aorta, it would be better to use mouse embryos at mid-gestation (e9.5-10.5), when the paired DAs are formed with arterial identity but haven't been remodeled and fused as one single aorta. The morphological data in this figure would be better to show the colocalization of LacZ expression and an arterial marker (e.g. Sox17) using immulfluorescence staining instead of purely lacZ.

    Significance

    This novel work establishes an important foundation for future understanding of how TFs may interact to determine arterial specification.

  7. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #2

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    In this work, Nornes and collaborators have described a cohort of arterial enhancers that drive gene expression in arteries and not in veins. The paper is very well written and it is very informative. The authors have used in silico models to identified the potential artery enhancers and then used different developmental in vivo systems, zebrafish and mice, to validate their findings. Finally, the authors have explored what transcription factors may be binding the identified enhancer sequences and thus, drive arterial gene expression. I would like to congratulate the authors for this work that it has been a pleasure to read and review.

    Major comments:

    1. In their identification of enhancers, the authors consider a candidate every enhancer that has a putative mark in both mouse and human. Nevertheless, all the human data comes from in vitro analysis. Considering how much cell culture affects endothelial cell identity, inducing effects like EndoMT, would this have any effect on the enhancer selection? Would it be possible to search any human in vivo data? Would this allow for even stronger and more relevant sequences?
    2. The human data comes from vein endothelial or microvasculature endothelial cells. Specially because some of the enhancers identified by the authors drive also vein expression, could the authors discriminate whether this is due to the identification coming from vein cells. Is there available data from HAECs? Would this not be conceptually more correct that using vein endothelial cells data? This should be at least discussed in the paper.
    3. Although the authors use the mouse embryo to further validate their finding beyond the zebrafish, the expression are a bit different. While on the fish the enhancers label smaller vessels of arterial identity, in the mouse, only bigger arteries are marked. Is this defined by the time of the analysis?
    4. The analysis of the enhancers is only done during development. Is the activity of these enhancers maintained through live or only important for artery vs vein determination? Is the expression of the different enhancer reporters maintained into adulthood?

    Significance

    This is a very well done study with potential interest for vascular biologists, in particular to those interested in the determination between artery and veins in a context of development. It advances our knowledge on the field of vascular biology as it not only proposes potential enhancers but also goes on to validation of the enhancers. Nevertheless, it is important to note that some of this enhancers have been identified from in vitro human data. In vitro culture of endothelial cells affects their cellular identity and thus, this study may have underscored many potential enhancers.

  8. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    Summary:

    Nornes et al. have generated a cohort of arterial enhancers based on in silico analysis and validation with transgenic lines in both zebrafish and mice. They utilized publicly available datasets for chromatin marks, including ATAC-seq on endothelial cells either from cell culture or isolated from mice, as well as EP300 binding, H3K27Ac, and H3K4Me1. Focusing on eight arterial-expressed genes, they identified a putative enhancer region marked by at least one enhancer feature. After validating the activity of these enhancers in zebrafish and mice, the authors assessed the regulatory pathways upstream of these genes. Using ChIP-seq and Cut&Run for key endothelial transcription factors, they discovered that binding sites for SoXF and ETS factors are shared in arterial enhancers, whereas binding sites for Notch, MEF2, and Fox are present only in the subset of identified enhancers. Together this study provides an arterial enhancer atlas that allows further characterisation of regulatory network behind endothelial cell identity.

    Major comments:

    The authors have assessed 15 enhancers for arterial-venous specificity, by assessing the expression in DA, ISV, cardinal and ventral veins at 2 dpf. Interestingly there is a clear difference in the expression patterns of these enhancers in the zebrafish axial vasculature, especially seen at the level of ISV. The co-localization of the enhancer expression in the endothelium was done using endothelial marks expressed in both venous and arterial EC (kdrl). To fully distinguish if the expression is venous or arterial endothelial compartment colocalization with Tg expressed in arterial (flt1) or venous (lyve1) EC would be informative. In addition, it is striking that cxc4+135 drives the expression in nearly every ISV as cxcl12+269 only every other. Similarly, not all the enhancers are enriched in the DA to the same level. Is there biological significance to this? could authors discuss these results further? The pattern of expression of the unc5b-identified enhancer is also striking, does this reflect the known roles of unc5b in the vascular formation? The final part of the paper focuses on defining the presence of "deeply conserved" transcription factor binding sites (TFSB), defined as TFBS that are as conserved as the enhancer sequence surrounding them. In literature, the term 'deep conservation' refers to evolutionary conservation (genomic sequence preservation) in a wide range of species. Therefore, the additional classification presented by the authors based on the surrounding sequence is not clear. As, the KLF motifs in the Ece1in1, which is conserved between mouse and human, are defined as "deeply conserved". However, the FLK motif in the following enhancer, Flk1in10 (one line below), gets classified as non-deeply conserved, despite also being conserved between mouse and human. Thus, in the current form, there is a contradiction in the way the authors use the term 'deeply conserved' and the accepted meaning of this term. To avoid confusion, it would be important to revise this nomenclature.

    Minor:

    Details on how the corresponding non-coding regions between mice and humans were established are missing, what alignment tool was used?

    Not sufficient details are provided for the re-analysis of siRNA data. E.g., which clustering method was used? How the clusters were assigned to cell identities?

    Details about the first HOMER analysis (in the assessment of transcription factor motifs and binding patterns at arterial enhancers) seem to be missing from the methods section.

    Pg 12: "For ETS, 23/23 arterial enhancers contained at least one conserved motif (all "deeply" conserved to the same depth as the surrounding enhancer, see S7)". Is it S8, where conservation is indicated?

    Figure 1 and 2 for non-zebrafish readers it would be useful to indicate in Figures 1 and 2 the non EC expression that can be observed in the embryos.

    Table S1: Please, indicate in the legend what the asterisk in the H DNAseI column stands for

    Figure S8: The phrasing "conserved to animal" in Figure S8 is misleading. There is no difference in something being conserved to tenrec or manatee, as both are Afrotherians. Hence, the data show that both Efnb2-141 and Ephb4-2 were present in the common ancestor of Afrotherians and humans, namely the ancestor of all placentals. Instead, it would be good to indicate the phylogenetic group for which the presence of the enhancer can be inferred (in this case, Placentalia).

    Significance

    To date, a systematic approach to identifying the regulatory networks driving endothelial cell identity is missing. This study provides important datasets and validation of enhancers involved in arterial gene expression and the associated transcription factors. Although this is only the tip of the iceberg, this work represents a significant milestone in the systematic understanding of how arterial gene expression is regulated. Overall, this study offers a powerful resource for understanding arterial gene regulation and conducting genome-wide studies of arterial enhancers.

  9. Version published to 10.1101/2024.04.30.591717v1 on bioRxiv