Skip to main content
Scientific Data logoLink to Scientific Data
. 2019 Oct 29;6:240. doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0256-6

Transcriptomic profile of cystic fibrosis airway epithelial cells undergoing repair

Alice Zoso 1, Aderonke Sofoluwe 1, Marc Bacchetta 1, Marc Chanson 1,
PMCID: PMC6820749  PMID: 31664037

Abstract

Pathological remodeling of the airway epithelium is commonly observed in Cystic Fibrosis (CF). The different cell types that constitute the airway epithelium are regenerated upon injury to restore integrity and maintenance of the epithelium barrier function. The molecular signature of tissue repair in CF airway epithelial cells has, however, not well been investigated in primary cultures. We therefore collected RNA-seq data from well-differentiated primary cultures of bronchial human airway epithelial cells (HAECs) of CF (F508del/F508del) and non-CF (NCF) origins before and after mechanical wounding, exposed or not to flagellin. We identified the expression changes with time of repair of genes, the products of which are markers of the different cell types that constitute the airway epithelium (basal, suprabasal, intermediate, secretory, goblet and ciliated cells as well as ionocytes). Researchers in the CF field may benefit from this transcriptomic profile, which covers the initial steps of wound repair and revealed differences in this process between CF and NCF cultures.

Subject terms: Apicobasal polarity, Respiratory distress syndrome, Transcriptomics


Measurement(s) messenger RNA
Technology Type(s) RNA sequencing
Factor Type(s) exposure to flagellin • cystic fibrosis versus non-cystic fibrosis • mechanical wounding
Sample Characteristic - Organism Homo sapiens

Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data: 10.6084/m9.figshare.9944675

Background & Summary

In this study, we compared by next generation RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) the transcriptomic profile of human airway epithelial cells from cystic fibrosis (CF) patients and healthy donors (NCF). F508del, the most common variant of the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene, is associated with a severe clinical phenotype that leads to chronic inflammation and infection of the airways by opportunistic pathogens, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa1. The continuous exposure to severe harmful stimuli places lungs at constant risk of injury and thereby, tissue repair is crucial for maintaining lung homeostasis2,3. CFTR plays a key role in regeneration of the airway epithelium, the repair of which is obviously insufficient to maintain lung functions in CF410. Knowledge of the molecular mechanisms regulating airway epithelial cell differentiation was mostly gained from lineage tracing studies in mouse models3. Less is known in human although application of single-cell RNA-seq on airway biopsies and primary HAEC cultures are rapidly filling up this gap1113. The present work aims to identify gene expression changes in CF and NCF human airway epithelial cells (HAECs) undergoing repair. Some cultures of NCF and CF HAECs were also exposed to flagellin for 24 h to mimic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and processed for RNA-seq.

The tracheobronchial airway epithelium is pseudostratified and constituted of basal (BCs), secretory Club/Clara (SCs), ionocytes (ICs), mucin-producing goblet (GCs) and ciliated cells (CCs)3,11,12,14. It is well demonstrated that epithelium regeneration/repair is initiated by BC proliferation to repopulate the denuded injured area3. In parallel, subsets of progenitor cells (suprabasal cells, sBCs) cycle and/or progressively mature to intermediate - or early progenitor - cells leading to the generation of SCs. After wound closure, all cells exit the cell cycle, BCs return to their original state while SCs terminate their differentiation to GCs and CCs. Figure 1 illustrates the logFC changes in expression of markers of the different cell subtypes with time of repair after injury of CF and NCF HAEC primary cultures. We focused on the initial steps of repair by comparing the post-wounding conditions (24 h post-wounding pW, wound closure WC, usually reached 42 hours after injury, and 2-days post wound closure pWC) to the control non-wounded condition (NW). We monitored TP63, cytokeratin 5 (KRT5) and KRT14 for BCs (Fig. 1a), KRT4 and KRT13 for sBCs (Fig. 1b), SCGB1A1 and SCGB3A1 for SCs (Fig. 1c), MUC5B and SPDEF for GCs (Fig. 1d), FOXJ1, FOXI1 and CFTR for CCs and ICs (Fig. 1e). Globally, proliferation can be evaluated by the expression of MKI67 (Fig. 1b) and early differentiation by the expression of KRT8 (Fig. 1d), a marker which is not detected in BCs and sBCs. Note that FUT4, a marker of immature SCs is detected (Fig. 1c). The results indicate that the repair process is engaged after wounding in both CF and NCF cultures and that our RNA-seq allows monitoring gene expression during the initial steps before the generation of mature SCs. A schematic overview of the experimental conditions as well as the comparisons performed between conditions and groups are provided in Fig. 2. Table 1 indicates the number of gene changes for each time point after wounding relative to the NW conditions (top). Comparison of the number of gene changes between conditions (pW vs NW; WC vs pW; pWC vs WC) is also given (middle). We also performed comparison of gene changes between CF and NCF HAEC cultures for the different conditions (bottom). Again, up- and downregulated genes in CF HAECs are detected for all conditions, suggesting alterations in the switch between proliferation and differentiation for CF HAECs. Finally, flagellin stimulation at Time 0 (NW) and at WC further highlighted differences in the transcriptomic response of CF HAECs (Table 2).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Changes in gene expression (logFC) of markers of subpopulations of NCF (blue lines and dots) and CF (red lines and dots) HAECs at different times of wound repair as compared to their initial expression (values set at 0) in non-wounded conditions. (a) Expression levels of basal cell marker genes: TP63, KRT5 and KRT14. (b) Expression levels of suprabasal cell marker genes (KRT4 and KRT13) and of a marker of cell proliferation (MKI67). (c) Expression levels of Club cell marker genes (SCGB1A1 and SCGB3A1), including the marker of immature cells (FUT4). (d) Expression levels of goblet cell marker genes (MUC5B and SPDEF) and of KRT8, which is a marker of early cell differentiation. (e) Expression levels of ciliated cell and ionocyte marker genes (FOXJ1 and FOXI1, respectively), with both subpopulations expressing CFTR. Data are expressed as means; error bars were not drawn for clarity since no statistical differences were observed between NCF and CF cultures. pW: post wounding; WC: wound closure; pWC; post wound closure.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Experimental design and condition’s comparison. (a) Schematic illustration of the wound-induced repair process in HAECs. Well-differentiated airway epithelium 3D cultures from CF patients and NCF donors were used, corresponding the non-wounded (NW) condition. At time 0, a circular wound (W) was induced in the center of the culture but leaving intact the epithelium at the periphery. Twenty-four hours after wounding (pW), migrating and proliferating cells started to cover the denuded area. Wound closure (WC) was reached 42 hours after wounding. mRNA was isolated from two Transwells per patient/donor and for each condition, NW, pW, WC and 48 hours after wound closure (pWC; 90 hours after wounding). In parallel experiments, 2 NW and WC Transwells per patient/donor were treated with flagellin to mimic infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. (b) Illustration of the gene expression comparisons performed between different conditions after wounding (pW, WC, pWC) and the initial NW condition, exposed or not to flagellin (F). (c) Illustration of the gene expression comparisons performed for all conditions between CF and NCF cultures.

Table 1.

Number of differently expressed genes with FDR (False Discovery Rate) 5% and the number of which have a fold-change 2 (FC 2) thresholds.

# up-regulated genes # down-regulated genes No change # with
FC 2
of which #
FC < 2
of which #
FC > 2
Compare different Times per Group
NCF
   pW vs NW 2930 2359 9669 1260 339 921
   WC vs NW 3871 3459 7628 2148 791 1357
   pWC vs NW 630 127 14201 305 15 290
CF
   pW vs NW 3297 3142 8519 1244 360 884
   WC vs NW 3109 2881 8968 1136 266 870
   pWC vs NW 474 58 14426 195 3 192
Compare different Conditions per group
NCF
   pW vs NW 2930 2359 9669 1260 339 921
   WC vs pW 57 15 14886 32 2 30
   pWC vs WC 517 1414 13027 410 358 52
CF
   pW vs NW 3297 3142 8519 1244 360 884
   WC vs pW 0 0 14958 0 0 0
   pWC vs WC 212 668 14078 141 107 34
Compare different Groups per Condition
CF vs NCF
   NW 181 110 14667 162 40 122
   pW 47 86 14825 95 73 22
   WC 217 480 14261 309 241 68
   pWC 55 114 14789 111 80 31

(Top) Comparisons between different times of HAEC repair with initial, non-wounded condition, for NCF and CF cultures. (Middle) Comparisons between different times of HAEC repair for NCF and CF cultures. (Bottom) Comparisons between NCF and CF cultures for the different times of HAEC repair. NW, non-wounded; pW, 24 h post-wound; WC, wound closure; pWC, 2d post-wound closure.

Table 2.

Number of differently expressed genes with FDR (False Discovery Rate) 5% and the number of which have a fold-change 2 (FC 2) thresholds.

# up-regulated genes # down-regulated genes No change # with
FC 2
of which #
FC < 2
of which #
FC > 2
Compare different Times per Group
NCF + F
   WC vs NW 1292 624 14082 656 122 534
CF + F
   WC vs NW 1302 668 14028 647 142 505
Compare different Conditions per group
NCF ± F
   NW 643 70 15285 496 35 461
   WC 31 14 15953 37 13 24
CF ± F
   NW 564 189 15245 438 83 355
   WC 222 34 15742 183 21 162
Compare different Groups per Condition
CF + F vs NCF + F
   NW 14 140 15844 144 135 9
   WC 9 38 15951 43 38 5

(Top) Comparisons between wound closure (WC) of HAEC repair and the initial, non-wounded (NW) condition, for NCF and CF cultures treated with flagellin (F). (Middle) Comparisons between flagellin (F)-treated and non-treated NCF and CF cultures that were not wounded (NW) and at time of wound closure (WC) of HAEC repair. (Bottom) Comparisons between NCF and CF non-wounded (NW) cultures and time of wound closure (WC) of HAEC repair after flagellin (F) exposure.

In summary, this study presents RNA-seq data from healthy and CF human HAECs undergoing repair after injury. We extracted gene expression of typical marker genes of the different cell subtypes that constitute the airway epithelium and report differences in the repair process between CF and NCF cultures. We believe that these data will be valuable for researchers studying airway epithelium regeneration in the context of the CF disease.

Methods

Cell cultures

Well-differentiated primary cultures of bronchial airway epithelial cells (MucilAir™ and MucilAir™-CF) on Transwell filters at the air-liquid interface for 45–60 days were purchased from Epithelix Sàrl (Plan-les-Ouates, Switzerland). All CF HAEC cultures were generated from 7 patients homozygous for the F508del CFTR variant. NCF cultures were generated from 7 subjects but one culture (subject 4) did not differentiate appropriately and was discarded. Detailed characteristics of the patients (age, sex, smoking status) are not available. The basal medium, which consisted of DMEM:F12 (3:1, Life Technologies, Zug, Switzerland) supplemented with 1.5% Ultroser G (Bioserpa, Cergy, France) and antibiotics, was refreshed every 2 days. Mechanical wounding was performed using an airbrush linked to a pressure regulator, as previously described15.

RNA extraction

Total RNA was extracted using Qiagen RNeasy Kit (Qiagen, Hombrechtikon, Switzerland), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. At 24 hours post-wound (pW) and at WC, the Transwell filters were cut off and undamaged cells at the periphery of the wound were discarded from the repairing cells using a sterile scalpel before lysis and RNA extraction. Two filters were pooled per condition. RNA-seq was performed by the iGE3 Genomic Platform at the Faculty of medicine, University of Geneva.

Differential gene expression analysis

Library size normalizations and differential gene expression calculations have been performed using the package edgeR (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796818/). The genes having a count above one count per million reads (cpm) in at least 3 samples were kept for the analysis. For each comparison, the latest condition was used as the ‘control’, i.e. genes with a positive fold-change are more expressed in the first condition compared to the ‘control’ condition. Genes with maximal expression value in any of the compared conditions lower than 1 RPKM (reads per kb per million read) were removed from the analysis before calling for differentially expressed genes. The differentially expressed gene tests were done with a general linear model with a negative binomial distribution. The differentially expressed genes p-values are corrected for multiple testing error with a 5% FDR (false discovery rate) and the correction used is Benjamini-Hochberg (BH). By default, the fold-change (FC) and the Benjamini-Hochberg corrected p-value thresholds were set to 2 and 0.01, respectively. Genes with higher Benjamini-Hochberg corrected p-value or lower FC were not considered as differentially expressed.

Data Records

The data can be accessed to NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) with the accession number GSE12769616. The lists of differentially expressed genes with FDR 5% and FC 2 thresholds for the comparisons indicated in Tables 1 and 2 are available in figshare17. Datasets of original reads for all conditions (NCF and CF, before and after wounding) are available in the NCBI SRA repository18.

Technical Validation

RNA integrity assessment

Before sequencing, QuBit (Invitrogen) was used to assess RNA quality and quantity without prior purification of the samples.

RNA-seq data quality assessment

Single read of 50 bases, TruSeq stranded mRNA, was performed with a HiSeq 4000 from Illumina. The sequencing quality control was done with FastQC (http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/). Quality scores of 32–40 were achieved (Fig. 3a), corresponding to 1/1000 and 1/10’000 chance of errors, respectively. The reads were mapped with STAR, an ultra-fast and universal RNA-seq aligner, which can do spliced alignments and read clipping: http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/10/25/bioinformatics.bts635.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Quality assessment FASTQ data. (a) The quality distribution along the reads plot is shown for one NCF (left, sample 54) and one CF (right, sample 26) sample. Box and whisker plots demonstrate the distribution of per base quality for each left and right read position read for each of the analyzed samples. Mean value is indicated by the dark line; the yellow box represents the interquartile range (25–75%) with the lower and upper whiskers representing the 10 and 90% points, respectively. (b) MDS (principal components analysis) plot indicating the similarity of the counts in the samples obtained from the first (black letters) and the second (red letters) series of NCF and CF cultures.

Only the reads that are mapped once to the genome are considered for the read allocation to genomic features. Ambiguous reads were removed using featureCounts: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24227677.

Reads mapping is provided as a Supplementary Data File (Online-only Table 1). For polyA-enriched RNAseq, 70% or more reads uniquely assigned to a gene are considered really good, although this percentage may be affected by the nature of the different expressed genes.

Sequencing was performed on two different occasions with RNA samples collected at one-year interval times. Figure 3b shows the multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) plot (principal components analysis) of the samples, which gives an indication of the similarity of the counts in the earlier and former experiments (first and second series, respectively). No batch effect could be observed between the two sequenced data.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from ABCF2, CFCH and the Swiss National Science Foundations to M.C. We would like to thank Natacha Civic and Mylène Docquier at the iGE3 Genomics platform (Faculty of medicine, University of Geneva), Sylvain Lemeille (Dept. of pathology and immunology, Faculty of medicine, University of Geneva) for the bioinformatics and Joanna Bou Saab for early RNA sample collection.

Online-only Table

Online-only Table 1.

Mapping with STAR and reads allocation to genomic features.

Conditions Mapping status Allocation status
Initial Unique Multiple Unmapped Ambiguity noFeatures Assigned Assigned (%)
Sample 1: CF_pW_rep1 27055856 22084611 4572500 398745 417070 1701042 19966499 73.8
Sample 2: CF_pW_rep2 29375070 25107286 3922319 345465 497780 2343725 22265781 75.8
Sample 3: CF_pW_rep3 25831778 21983510 3607914 240354 412046 2083512 19487952 75.44
Sample 4: CF_pW_rep4 26472753 22580726 3577899 314128 413227 2005814 20161685 76.16
Sample 5: CF_pW_rep5 24530221 21110696 3361651 57874 396777 2529895 18184024 74.13
Sample 6: CF_pW_rep6 18263626 16046779 2155259 61588 313639 1671889 14061251 76.99
Sample 7: CF_pW_rep7 23098321 20140508 2891639 66174 414076 1766582 17959850 77.75
Sample 8: CF_pWC_rep1 28343765 23391672 4634526 317567 418971 2195260 20777441 73.31
Sample 9: CF_pWC_rep2 28421910 23499099 4460243 462568 420870 2665892 20412337 71.82
Sample 10: CF_pWC_rep3 32049392 27330970 4437995 280427 482346 3058976 23789648 74.23
Sample 11: CF_pWC_rep4 29426653 24568958 4527872 329823 437617 2350594 21780747 74.02
Sample 12: CF_pWC_rep5 23509435 20325015 3118066 66354 363314 3093031 16868670 71.75
Sample 13: CF_pWC_rep6 26808287 23222520 3499746 86021 417070 3306680 19498770 72.73
Sample 14: CF_pWC_rep7 25390525 21972218 3337373 80934 406602 3151580 18414036 72.52
Sample 15: CF_Flag_NW_rep1 28937956 23995951 4593671 348334 457062 2263768 21275121 73.52
Sample 16: CF_Flag_NW_rep2 27896159 23081832 4484454 329873 429904 2639009 20012919 71.74
Sample 17: CF_Flag_NW_rep3 29012044 22853960 5806857 351227 430473 2819945 19603542 67.57
Sample 18: CF_Flag_NW_rep4 29966891 25029508 4578373 359010 454832 2781231 21793445 72.73
Sample 19: CF_Flag_NW_rep5 25243568 21799921 3370111 73536 399795 3530522 17869604 70.79
Sample 20: CF_Flag_NW_rep6 23525961 20540760 2906760 78441 375115 3032076 17133569 72.83
Sample 21: CF_Flag_NW_rep7 25429057 22171330 3164973 92754 405822 3454333 18311175 72.01
Sample 22: CF_Flag_WC_rep1 27455756 22812623 4276541 366592 422674 1936924 20453025 74.49
Sample 23: CF_Flag_WC_rep2 26052335 22610952 3219507 221876 407641 2206644 19996667 76.76
Sample 24: CF_Flag_WC_rep3 29676536 24970137 4282099 424300 488602 1975516 22506019 75.84
Sample 25: CF_Flag_WC_rep4 27028337 22848427 3820941 358969 421962 1998139 20428326 75.58
Sample 26: CF_Flag_WC_rep5 26357220 22209036 4079640 68544 414080 2735889 19059067 72.31
Sample 27: CF_Flag_WC_rep6 20339155 17902816 2367795 68544 334978 2371446 15196392 74.71
Sample 28: CF_Flag_WC_rep7 20846068 17868257 2908468 69343 332474 2297950 15237833 73.1
Sample 29: CF_NW_rep1 27354203 22701945 4355935 296323 393776 1914877 20393292 74.55
Sample 30: CF_NW_rep2 28989623 24338336 4366492 284795 421404 2968003 20948929 72.26
Sample 31: CF_NW_rep3 25604382 21534527 3759304 310551 377236 2375862 18781429 73.35
Sample 32: CF_NW_rep4 28117785 23502033 4217864 397888 418353 2317895 20765785 73.85
Sample 33: CF_NW_rep5 25800266 22277199 3446004 77063 401969 3890419 17984811 69.71
Sample 34: CF_NW_rep6 24229957 21197246 2966851 65860 385978 2942315 17868953 73.75
Sample 35: CF_NW_rep7 19389289 16853083 2469615 66591 292314 2848474 13712295 70.72
Sample 36: CF_WC_rep1 27713621 22242514 5101546 369561 415331 1750702 20076481 72.44
Sample 37: CF_WC_rep2 27795476 23032050 4477032 286394 430414 2328828 20272808 72.94
Sample 38: CF_WC_rep3 27297648 23085529 3808956 403163 447701 1887015 20750813 76.02
Sample 39: CF_WC_rep4 27518854 23301353 3882416 335085 430413 1883012 20987928 76.27
Sample 40: CF_WC_rep5 20285541 17495579 2736494 53468 340579 2117350 15037650 74.13
Sample 41: CF_WC_rep6 16307572 14199530 2065283 42759 265512 1601438 12332580 75.62
Sample 42: CF_WC_rep7 20996505 18300489 2621865 74151 328438 2462407 15509644 73.87
Sample 43: NCF_pW_rep1 27294957 22843894 4143637 307426 437924 2091351 20314619 74.43
Samples 44: NCF_pW_rep2 28368473 23984765 4154289 229419 468951 2113842 21401972 75.44
Samples 45: NCF_pW_rep3 29954171 25078264 4583543 292364 475086 2602827 22000351 73.45
Samples 46: NCF_pW_rep5 20513223 17764819 2695539 52865 338937 2047538 15378344 74.97
Samples 47: NCF_pW_rep6 23061659 19990115 3013511 58033 390696 2407910 17191509 74.55
Samples 48: NCF_pW_rep7 20620005 17871570 2691218 57217 347867 1792089 15731614 76.29
Samples 49: NCF_pWC_rep1 26505296 22252175 3985854 267267 399269 2095608 19757298 74.54
Samples 50: NCF_pWC_rep2 29119661 24286641 4548069 284951 452589 2590125 21243927 72.95
Samples 51: NCF_pWC_rep3 23987320 19882776 3867828 236716 369674 1914042 17599060 73.37
Samples 52: NCF_pWC_rep5 22980476 19244779 3674432 61265 342536 2601439 16300804 70.93
Samples 53: NCF_pWC_rep6 26682850 22982851 3616350 83649 430766 3802346 18749739 70.27
Samples 54: NCF_pWC_rep7 20019647 16557495 3408641 53511 309569 2251749 13996177 69.91
Samples 55: NCF_FlagNW_rep1 31537158 27156134 3722713 658311 496149 2360464 24299521 77.05
Samples 56: NCF_FlagNW_rep2 25992915 20158038 5576651 258226 353978 2099575 17704485 68.11
Samples 57: NCF_FlagNW_rep3 26241469 22052164 3881570 307735 424212 2330329 19297623 73.54
Samples 58: NCF_FlagNW_rep5 23661828 20567572 3018174 76082 372910 3604790 16589872 70.11
Samples 59: NCF_FlagNW_rep6 25975904 22637672 3268895 69337 429978 2889146 19318548 74.37
Samples 60: NCF_FlagNW_rep7 24019200 20562887 3394438 61875 387713 2669143 17506031 72.88
Samples 61: NCF_FlagWC_rep1 27322955 21568566 5486648 267741 381699 1992246 19194621 70.25
Samples 62: NCF_FlagWC_rep2 28392971 23251231 4930663 211077 433337 2366930 20450964 72.03
Samples 63: NCF_FlagWC_rep3 30173946 26023032 3829860 321054 489253 2749847 22783932 75.51
Samples 64: NCF_FlagWC_rep5 25019094 21458446 3494641 66007 397230 2788270 18272946 73.04
Samples 65: NCF_FlagWC_rep6 20993388 18066453 2871509 55426 352920 1881789 15831744 75.41
Samples 66: NCF_FlagWC_rep7 25825712 21766171 3991489 68052 407328 2489378 18869465 73.06
Samples 67: NCF_NW_rep1 26440644 22292672 3883826 264146 412080 2278593 19601999 74.14
Samples 68: NCF_NW_rep2 28230517 24150322 3837544 242651 433291 2790739 20926292 74.13
Samples 69: NCF_NW_rep3 28221303 23337680 4653126 230497 422161 2669611 20245908 71.74
Samples 70: NCF_NW_rep5 25201987 21326171 3807662 68154 392759 3046604 17886808 70.97
Samples 71: NCF_NW_rep6 21834253 18736227 3036005 62021 361539 2330198 16044490 73.48
Samples 72: NCF_NW_rep7 25440769 22193920 3175802 71047 410317 3077105 18706498 73.53
Samples 73. NCF_WC_rep1 26289846 21571767 4417932 300147 394181 1666345 19511241 74.22
Samples 74: NCF_WC_rep2 26811590 22682744 3895770 233076 411541 2375317 19895886 74.21
Samples 75: NCF_WC_rep3 26602370 22751639 3594974 255757 413537 2351103 19986999 75.13
Samples 76: NCF_WC_rep5 18082081 15522930 2510520 48631 280435 1694281 13548214 74.93
Samples 77: NCF_WC_rep6 27839732 23992391 3773367 73974 452694 2742183 20797514 74.7
Samples 78: NCF_WC_rep7 17914419 15257942 2611919 44558 287221 1494456 13476265 75.23

Author contributions

A.Z. analyzed the data. A.S. prepared samples and analyzed the data. M.B. performed the wound injury and monitored the cell cultures. M.C. wrote the Data Descriptor, and analyzed the data.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Cohen TS, Prince A. Cystic fibrosis: a mucosal immunodeficiency syndrome. Nat. Med. 2012;18:509–519. doi: 10.1038/nm.2715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Puchelle E, Zahm JM, Tournier JM, Coraux C. Airway epithelial repair, regeneration, and remodeling after injury in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2006;3:726–733. doi: 10.1513/pats.200605-126SF. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wansleeben C, Barkauskas CE, Rock JR, Hogan BM. Stem cells of the adult lung: their development and role in homeostasis, regeneration, and disease. Wiley Interdiscip. Re.v Dev. Biol. 2013;2:131–148. doi: 10.1002/wdev.58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Voynow JA, Fischer BM, Roberts BC, Proia AD. Basal-like cells constitute the proliferating cell population in cystic fibrosis airways. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2005;172:1013–1018. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200410-1398OC. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hajj R, et al. Human airway surface epithelial regeneration is delayed and abnormal in cystic fibrosis. J. Pathol. 2007;211:340–350. doi: 10.1002/path.2118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Schiller KR, Maniak PJ, O’Grady SM. Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator is involved in airway epithelial wound repair. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2010;299:C912–C921. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00215.2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Trinh NT, et al. Improvement of defective cystic fibrosis airway epithelial wound repair after CFTR rescue. Eur. Respir. J. 2012;40:1390–1400. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00221711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Crespin S, et al. Cx26 regulates proliferation of repairing basal airway epithelial cells. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2014;52:152–160. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2014.02.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Itokazu Y, et al. Reduced GM1 ganglioside in CFTR-deficient human airway cells results in decreased β1-integrin signaling and delayed wound repair. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2014;306:C819–C830. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00168.2013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Adam D, et al. CFTR rescue with VX-809 and VX-770 favors the repair of primary airway epithelial cell cultures from patients with class II variants in the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa exoproducts. J. Cyst. Fibros. 2018;17:705–714. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2018.03.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Treutlein B, et al. Reconstructing lineage hierarchies of the distal lung epithelium using single-cell RNA-seq. Nature. 2014;15:371–375. doi: 10.1038/nature13173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Plasschaert LW, et al. A single-cell atlas of the airway epithelium reveals the CFTR-rich pulmonary ionocyte. Nature. 2018;560:377–381. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0394-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Revinski DR, et al. CDC20B is required for deuterosome-mediated centriole production in multiciliated cells. Nat. Commun. 2018;7:4668. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06768-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Whitsett JA, Alenghat T. Respiratory epithelial cells orchestratepulmonary innate immunity. Nat. Immunol. 2015;16:27–35. doi: 10.1038/ni.3045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Crespin S, et al. Approaches to study differentiation and repair of human airway epithelial cells. Methods Mol. Biol. 2011;742:173–185. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-120-8_10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.2019. Gene Expression Omnibus. GSE127696
  • 17.Zoso A, Sofoluwe A, Bacchetta M, Chanson M. 2019. Transcriptomic profile of cystic fibrosis airway epithelial cells undergoing repair. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 18.2019. NCBI Sequence Read Archive. SRP187187

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Citations

  1. 2019. Gene Expression Omnibus. GSE127696
  2. Zoso A, Sofoluwe A, Bacchetta M, Chanson M. 2019. Transcriptomic profile of cystic fibrosis airway epithelial cells undergoing repair. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. 2019. NCBI Sequence Read Archive. SRP187187

Articles from Scientific Data are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES