↓ Skip to main content

mTORC2 mediates CXCL12-induced angiogenesis

Overview of attention for article published in Angiogenesis, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
mTORC2 mediates CXCL12-induced angiogenesis
Published in
Angiogenesis, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10456-016-9509-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary E. Ziegler, Michaela M. S. Hatch, Nan Wu, Steven A. Muawad, Christopher C. W. Hughes

Abstract

The chemokine CXCL12, through its receptor CXCR4, positively regulates angiogenesis by promoting endothelial cell (EC) migration and tube formation. However, the relevant downstream signaling pathways in EC have not been defined. Similarly, the upstream activators of mTORC2 signaling in EC are also poorly defined. Here, we demonstrate for the first time that CXCL12 regulation of angiogenesis requires mTORC2 but not mTORC1. We find that CXCR4 signaling activates mTORC2 as indicated by phosphorylation of serine 473 on Akt and does so through a G-protein- and PI3K-dependent pathway. Significantly, independent disruption of the mTOR complexes by drugs or multiple independent siRNAs reveals that mTORC2, but not mTORC1, is required for microvascular sprouting in a 3D in vitro angiogenesis model. Importantly, in a mouse model, both tumor angiogenesis and tumor volume are significantly reduced only when mTORC2 is inhibited. Finally, 6-phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose-2,6-bisphosphatase 3 (PFKFB3), which is a key regulator of glycolytic flux, is required for microvascular sprouting in vitro, and its expression is reduced in vivo when mTORC2 is targeted. Taken together, these findings identify mTORC2 as a critical signaling nexus downstream of CXCL12/CXCR4 that represents a potential link between mTORC2, metabolic regulation, and angiogenesis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Student > Master 7 15%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,455,405
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Angiogenesis
#400
of 537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,996
of 299,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Angiogenesis
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.