Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Nov 30;17(11):e0259477. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259477

Defining cardiac cell populations and relative cellular composition of the early fetal human heart

Jennifer M Dewing 1,*, Vinay Saunders 1, Ita O’Kelly 1,2, David I Wilson 1
Editor: Koh Ono3
PMCID: PMC9710754  PMID: 36449524

Abstract

While the adult human heart is primarily composed of cardiomyocytes, fibroblasts, endothelial and smooth muscle cells, the cellular composition during early development remains largely unknown. Reliable identification of fetal cardiac cell types using protein markers is critical to understand cardiac development and delineate the cellular composition of the developing human heart. This is the first study to use immunohistochemistry (IHC), flow cytometry and RT-PCR analyses to investigate the expression and specificity of commonly used cardiac cell markers in the early human fetal heart (8–12 post-conception weeks). The expression of previously reported protein markers for the detection of cardiomyocytes (Myosin Heavy Chain (MHC) and cardiac troponin I (cTnI), fibroblasts (DDR2, THY1, Vimentin), endothelial cells (CD31) and smooth muscle cells (α-SMA) were assessed. Two distinct populations of cTnI positive cells were identified through flow cytometry, with MHC positive cardiomyocytes showing high cTnI expression (cTnIHigh) while MHC negative non-myocytes showed lower cTnI expression (cTnILow). cTnI expression in non-myocytes was further confirmed by IHC and RT-PCR analyses, suggesting troponins are not cardiomyocyte-specific and may play distinct roles in non-muscle cells during early development. Vimentin (VIM) was expressed in cultured ventricular fibroblast populations and flow cytometry revealed VIMHigh and VIMLow cell populations in the fetal heart. MHC positive cardiomyocytes were VIMLow whilst CD31 positive endothelial cells were VIMHigh. Using markers investigated within this study, we characterised fetal human cardiac populations and estimate that 75–80% of fetal cardiac cells are cardiomyocytes and are MHC+/cTnIHigh/VIMLow, whilst non-myocytes comprise 20–25% of total cells and are MHC-/cTnILow/VIMHigh, with CD31+ endothelial cells comprising ~9% of this population. These findings show distinct differences from those reported for adult heart.

Introduction

The cellular composition of the adult mammalian heart has been defined through years of study and is known to be primarily composed of cardiomyocytes, fibroblasts, endothelial and smooth muscle cells [17]. Rodent studies have proposed that cardiomyocytes occupy ~75% of normal adult myocardial volume but account for only 30–40% of cell number, with non-cardiomyocytes (endothelial, smooth muscle cells and fibroblasts), though smaller in size, being the predominant cell type. Human studies have similarly concluded that the adult heart consists of approximately 30% cardiomyocytes and 50% endothelial cells [4]. While we have a good understanding of adult cardiac cellular composition, less is known about fetal heart composition, which is likely to differ due to the dynamic stages of early development. Delineating the cellular composition of the human fetal heart will influence our ability to understand normal human cardiac development. Furthermore, given that pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (PSC-CMs) have been shown to be phenotypically similar to cardiomyocytes of the mid-gestation human fetal heart, an improved understanding of the protein marker profiles of these cells could be critical to further develop and validate the cellular phenotype of differentiated PSC-CMs and provide additional tools for their purification and use in regenerative medicine [8].

The identification, characterisation and purification of cardiac cells relies upon their expression of cell-specific protein markers. Commonly used markers of cardiomyocytes include the sarcomeric proteins cardiac troponin (subunits I, T and C), myosin and tropomyosin. α-myosin heavy chain (α-MHC) has high expression levels in cardiac muscle and significantly lower levels in skeletal muscle; consequently the α-MHC promoter is often used in transgenic mouse models to track cardiomyocytes [912]. Endothelial and smooth muscle cells that line the cardiac vasculature can be detected by their expression of CD31 (PECAM-1) and α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), respectively. However, CD31 is also present on macrophages, and α-SMA is upregulated in activated fibroblasts, termed myofibroblasts, that respond to injured cardiac tissue. Whilst these markers may identify mature, differentiated endothelial, smooth muscle and cardiomyocyte cell populations in adult tissue, their specificity during development may be distinct.

One of the key challenges to the isolation and identification of cell populations in the heart is the heterogeneity of fibroblast cells and the lack of a defined cardiac fibroblast-specific marker. Fibroblasts are cells of mesenchymal origin that produce extracellular matrix proteins including collagen and fibronectin [13]. The phenotypic plasticity of cardiac fibroblasts depends on their developmental origin (epicardium, endocardium or neural crest) as well as their location within the myocardium [14]. The cell surface collagen receptor DDR2 has previously been used as a marker of cardiac fibroblasts [1518]. However, although previous studies have shown DDR2 to be absent from cardiomyocytes, its expression has also been reported in rat endothelial and smooth muscle cells, raising the possibility of interspecies differences [2, 17, 19, 20]. The cytoskeletal intermediate filament vimentin is a commonly used fibroblast marker due to its high levels of expression in cells of mesenchymal origin. However, vimentin may not provide the level of specificity previously attributed to this marker due to its documented expression in endothelial and smooth muscle cells [21, 22]. Thy-1 (CD90), a cell-surface glycoprotein, has been detected in cultured rat cardiac fibroblasts, with increased expression detected in fibrotic areas within the heart, suggesting it may be a marker for proliferating fibroblasts [9, 23, 24]. Nonetheless, Thy-1 has also been detected in thymocytes, T-cells, neurons, hematopoietic stem cells and endothelial cells [2527]. Whilst Pinto et al., were able to use Thy-1 and Sca-1 to delineate cardiac fibroblasts in mice, neither of these markers were successful at isolating cardiac fibroblasts of the adult human heart [4]. Similarly, fibroblast-specific protein 1 (FSP1) has been shown to lack fibroblast specificity in cardiac tissue during remodelling, with expression identified in hematopoietic, endothelial and vascular smooth muscle cells [28]. Together, these studies suggest that many commonly used markers of fibroblasts lack specificity.

The aim of this study was to use immunohistochemistry (IHC) and flow cytometry, alongside RT-PCR analysis, to estimate the cellular composition of the early fetal human heart and, in doing so, evaluate the specificity of a range of markers that hold the potential to define novel marker profiles of cardiac cell populations during early development.

Materials and methods

Isolation of fetal human cardiac cells

Human fetal heart tissue (8 to 12 post conception weeks (pcw) was obtained from the Human Developmental Biology Resource (HDBR), Newcastle, UK, following informed written consent. Tissue collection was in agreement with the Declaration of Helsinki (ethics approval reference: 08/HO906/21+5 NRES Committee North East- Newcastle & North Tyneside). The fetal tissues comprised the atria, ventricles, pulmonary artery and arch of aorta; the tissues used for immunohistochemistry were fixed without dissection and embedded in paraffin (see Fig 1 and immunohistochemistry methods below). For flow cytometry, the aorta and pulmonary artery were removed by careful dissection and processed separately from the heart, comprising the ventricles and atria. In order to remove blood cells contained within the chambers prior to flow cytometry, the atria were dissected from the ventricles to facilitate rinsing of the tissues. Ventricles and atria were divided into 1mm3 pieces using a tissue chopper (McIlwain), combined, and mechanically dissociated together in 3ml of PBS using the gentleMACS dissociator machine (Miltenyl Biotec) using the programme pre-set for heart tissue. The cell suspension (combined ventricle-atria cells) was passed through a 70 μm nylon cell strainer (BD Biosciences). For analysis of cells from the aorta and pulmonary artery, the process was repeated with dissected aorta and pulmonary artery tissue, which enabled the investigation of cells uncontaminated by myocardial content.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Antibodies for flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry

Antibodies were selected to identify cardiomyocytes, fibroblasts, smooth muscle cells and endothelial cells, based on current literature [12, 16, 17, 23, 29]. See S1 Table for complete list of primary and secondary antibodies used and their corresponding controls.

Flow cytometry

The cardiac cell suspensions were prepared for flow cytometry by filtering through a 35 μm cap before washing in 1% fetal calf serum in PBS. Centrifugation of cells between washes was carried out at 300 g. Cells were treated with human FcR blocking serum (BD Bisociences) for 15 minutes on ice, washed and fixed in 1% formaldehyde (Sigma) for 10 minutes at room temperature. Cells were washed and permeabilized in 0.05% saponin (Sigma) for 20 minutes at room temperature. For cell surface staining, permeabilisation was omitted. Cells were incubated with primary antibodies on ice for 1hr, then washed three times. For non-conjugated antibodies, cells were subsequently incubated with secondary antibodies for 30 minutes on ice, followed by further washing. Cells were analysed using a BD FACSCanto I Flow cytometer (BD biosciences). Single and dual stain flow cytometry analyses were carried out to target the major cardiac cells types. Small size exclusion was performed on forward scatter and side scatter dot plots to select the cell population (S1A Fig). Representative flow cytometry histograms showing the fluorescence intensity of unstained cardiac cells is displayed in S1B–S1D Fig. Isotype antibodies were used as controls for directly conjugated primary antibodies. Incubation with secondary antibodies only was used as a control for samples treated with primary and secondary antibodies. Gating of positive cells was determined using flow cytometry dot plots of negative control samples verses stained samples: positive cells were selected based on their expression above the negative control. This gating strategy is displayed in S2 Fig. For dual flow cytometry, compensation analysis was applied to samples based on unstained and single stained controls.

Immunohistochemistry

Immunohistochemistry followed previously reported methods [30]. Briefly, fetal human heart tissue was fixed in 4% formaldehyde, embedded in paraffin and 10 μm thick microtome sections cut. Antigen retrieval was performed by boiling sections in 0.1mM sodium citrate solution (pH 9.0) + 0.05% Tween 20 for 15 minutes. Sections were then stained with primary antibodies and incubated overnight at 4°C in a moist chamber. For non-conjugated antibodies, sections were washed and incubated with secondary antibodies for 2 hours at room temperature. Nuclei were stained by incubation with 4’, 6-diamidino-2-pheylindole (DAPI), followed by mounting. Representative images of negative control staining are shown in S3 Fig.

Cardiac fibroblast Isolation and cell culture

Fibroblasts were isolated from fetal human heart tissue by explant migration following previously reported methods by Ieda et al., (2010) [9]. Briefly, following dissection, ventricles were chopped into 1mm3 pieces using a tissue chopper (McIlwain) and cultured in 10% FBS DMEM on gelatin-coated plates. Following the migration of fibroblasts from the explant (2 weeks), the cells and explants were trypsinised from the plate, filtered through a 70 μm nylon cell strainer to exclude explant tissue and re-seeded on gelatin-coated 6-well tissue culture plates containing 10% FBS DMEM until 80% confluent. Cells were pelleted for RNA exaction and flow cytometry or re-seeded on glass coverslips for immunocytochemistry.

Immunocytochemistry

Cardiac fetal fibroblasts cultured on glass coverslips in 6-well plates were washed with PBS and fixed with 4% formaldehyde for 7 minutes. The cells were washed thoroughly with PBS before quenching the PFA with 100 mM glycine for 10 minutes. Cells were permeabilized with 0.1% triton-X-100 for 7 minutes followed by washing with PBS and blocking with 3% BSA diluted in PBS for 1 hour. Primary antibody diluted in 0.1% triton containing 3% goat serum was added to wells before being incubated in a humidity chamber overnight at 4°C. Cells were thoroughly washed with PBS and diluted secondary antibody added to each well and incubated at room temperature in the dark for two hours. The cells were washed with PBS three times before mounting with vecta-shield with DAPI.

Reverse Transcriptase (RT)-PCR

Total RNA was isolated using TRIzol Reagent (Invitrogen) from whole heart tissue and cell pellets of cultured primary ventricular fibroblasts. 1 μg of RNA was used for cDNA synthesis using M-MLV reverse transcriptase (Promega). RT-PCR was carried out using Go-Taq polymerase (Promega) in a 50 μl reaction containing 0.5 μM primers, 10 mM dNTPs and 5 μl of 10 ng/μl cDNA. Primer sequences and amplicon sizes are listed in S2 Table. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) consisted of initial denaturation of DNA at 95°C, followed by 40 cycles of 94°C for 1 minute, annealing at 58°C for 1 minute and extension at 72°C for 1 minute, with a final extension of 72°C for 10 minutes. The PCR products were resolved on 1.5% agarose gels containing Nancy-520 (Sigma Aldrich) and imaged using a high performance ultraviolet transilluminator (UVP) and the associated DocIT software.

Results

Single marker immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry of the fetal human heart reveals cell populations expressing high and low cTnI levels

We sought to define fetal cardiac cell populations using immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry. The experimental strategy used to investigate the different populations in the early developing heart is summarised in Fig 1. Initially, immunohistochemistry of whole fetal human heart sections were used to investigate the expression of commonly used markers of the four main cardiac cell types: cardiomyocytes (MHC (MF20), cTnI (TNNI3)), cardiac fibroblasts (vimentin (VIM), DDR2, THY1/CD90), endothelial cells (CD31/PECAM-1)) and smooth muscle cells (α-SMA) (Fig 2). cTnI and MHC showed distinct sarcomeric staining typical of cardiomyocytes (Fig 2A). The fibroblast markers showed extensive staining throughout the heart tissue, with vimentin localised to the cytoplasm and the membrane protein THY1 also showing cytoplasmic staining (Fig 2B). DDR2 expression was seen throughout the myocardium and was localised to the nucleus and the cytoplasm. CD31 and α-SMA showed positive staining of the endothelial and smooth muscle cells lining the vessels in the heart, respectively (Fig 2C).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

To determine the relative protein expression levels of these cardiac markers at the cellular level, flow cytometry was performed on ventricle-atria cell suspensions of fetal hearts. Flow cytometry dot plots of negative controls (isotype controls and secondary antibody only) are displayed in S2 Fig. Our strategy to determine the proportions of specific cardiac cell types within the fetal human heart was based on the percentage of cells exhibiting expression above the negative control, which can be visualised by the flow cytometry histograms presented in Fig 3. Using the markers of cardiomyocytes, 75% of cells were MHC+ (n = 21, SEM ±1.40) (Fig 3A) and 93% were cTnI+ (n = 14, SEM ±1.5) (Fig 3B), suggesting a proportion of cTnI+ cardiac cells are non-myocytes. For cardiac fibroblast markers, 90% of cells were vimentin+ (n = 18, SEM ±1.2) (Fig 3C), 83% were DDR2+ (n = 4, SEM ±0.6) (Fig 3D) and 81% were THY1+ (n = 15 SEM ±1.40) (Fig 3E). For endothelial and smooth muscle cell markers, 9% of cells were CD31+ (n = 12, SEM = ±0.54) (Fig 3F) and 12% were α-SMA+ (n = 7, SEM = ± 1.9) (Fig 3G), respectively. These data suggest that cTnI is not cardiomyocyte specific and vimentin, DDR2 and THY1 are not fibroblast specific. A complete list of all single marker flow cytometry data is displayed in S3 Table.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Interpreting each flow cytometry dot plot for cTnI and vimentin revealed two distinct populations of positive cells based on their relative fluorescence intensity (high and low expressing) (Fig 4). On average, 11% of cells were VIMHigh (SEM ±1.01) and 78% were VIMLow (SEM ±0.54) (n = 7) (Fig 4A and 4B). On average, 79% of cells were cTnIHigh (SEM ±2.41) and 19% were cTnILow (SEM ±2.1) (n = 14) (Fig 4C and 4D). The fluorescence intensity of the cTnILow population is 1000 times greater than the negative and unstained (S1 Fig) controls, confirming this cell population does not represent a cTnI negative population. Furthermore, the fluorescence intensity of the cTnIHigh population is 10 times greater than the cTnILow population, evidence that these represent two distinct populations. High and low expressing populations were also detected for cardiac troponin subunit T (cTnT (TNNT2)) (S4 Fig), with 28% of cells cTnTLow (SEM ±1.83) and 64% of cells cTnTHigh (SEM±0.3) n = 2. As a previously reported marker of cardiomyocytes, we predicted that cTnIHigh cells represented the cardiomyocyte population. To determine whether cTnILow cells could represent a non-myocyte population, we performed flow cytometry analysis on cells of the fetal aorta/pulmonary artery, which are absent of cardiomyocytes. Cells from these tissues expressed cTnI at the same fluorescence intensity as the cTnILow cardiac population, confirming cTnI is expressed at lower levels in non-myocyte cells types (Fig 4E).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Dual marker flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry of fetal human heart reveal expression of vimentin at low levels in cardiomyocytes

Dual flow cytometry can determine the expression levels of two markers simultaneously within cell populations, enabling further interrogation of the cellular composition of the two cTnI+ populations. Cardiac cells were co-stained with cTnI and MHC and analysed by flow cytometry. cTnIHigh cells were also MHC+ (80% of cells, SEM ±2.6) whilst cTnILow cells were MHC- (18% of cells, (SEM ±2.64) (n = 5) (Fig 5A), supporting the theory that cTnIHigh cells are cardiomyocytes. To investigate the identity of vimentin positive populations, cardiac cells were co-stained with vimentin and cTnI, α-SMA, CD31 or MHC. VIMHigh and VIMLow cells were gated (Fig 5B) and plotted against these markers (Fig 5C–5F). The majority of VIMLow cells (blue) expressed cTnI at higher levels, whilst VIMHigh cells (red) expressed cTnI at lower levels (Fig 5C). On average, 67% of cardiac cells were VIMLow/cTnIHigh (SEM ±3.38) and 20% were VIMHigh/cTnILow (SEM ±2.53) (n = 4). 18% of cells were α-SMA+/VIM+ (n = 2, SEM ±6.37), with the majority of this population expressing vimentin at lower levels (blue) (Fig 5D). 9% of cells were CD31+/VIM+ (n = 8, SEM ±0.84), with the majority of these cells expressing high levels of vimentin (red) (Fig 5E). 79% of cells were MHC+/VIM+ (n = 7, SEM ±1.88), with the majority of this population expressing low levels of vimentin (Fig 5F). Together, these data suggest that whilst fetal cardiac endothelial cells express vimentin at higher levels, fetal cardiomyocytes and cardiac smooth muscle cells express vimentin at lower levels. In support of these findings, immunohistochemistry analysis of fetal human heart tissue confirmed expression of vimentin at high levels (closed arrowhead) and lower levels (open arrowhead) in the myocardium (S5 Fig).

Fig 5.

Fig 5

To further confirm the flow cytometry data, dual immunohistochemistry was carried out on fetal human heart tissue (Fig 6). Co-expression of cTnI and vimentin was seen in the myocardium and the cells of large blood vessels (the demarcation border between vessel and myocardium was defined by tissue structure and nuclei density and not cTnI expression) (Fig 6A). However, the fluorescence intensity of cTnI in the cells lining the blood vessel was much weaker relative to the myocardium, correlating with the flow cytometry data that showed high cTnI expression in myocytes and low cTnI expression in non-myocytes (Fig 6A). Colocalisation of α-SMA and vimentin was observed in coronary vessels (Fig 6B). Similarly, vimentin and CD31 co-stained the endothelial cells lining the cardiac blood vessels (Fig 6C). Co-localisation of vimentin with MHC in the myocardium supported the flow cytometry data that fetal human cardiomyocytes express vimentin (Fig 6D). Expression of DDR2 co-localised with MHC+ cardiomyocytes and MHC- cells of the aorta/pulmonary artery vessels (S6A Fig). CD31+ endothelial cells and α-SMA+ smooth muscle cells lining blood vessels also co-stained for DDR2 (S6B and S6C Fig). Dual staining of CD31 and α-SMA showed expression in distinct regions of the vessels, confirming specificity of these antibodies (S7 Fig). These findings indicate DDR2 is expressed in myocytes as well as and non-muscle cardiac cell types during early development.

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Troponins TNNI3 and TNNT2 are expressed in non-myocyte cells of the human fetal heart

Our flow cytometry data revealed expression of the cardiomyocyte marker cTnI in non-myocyte cell populations. To investigate this further, fibroblasts were isolated and cultured from fetal human cardiac ventricular tissue using explant migration, as previously described9, which provided a non-cardiomyocyte cell population that could be used to assess the expression of key cardiac cell markers at the gene and protein level. To investigate the transcription of genes in myocyte and non-myocyte populations, RT-PCR was performed to detect marker transcripts, comparing whole fetal heart with isolated primary fetal ventricular fibroblast cells. Fetal heart tissue expressed VIM (Vimentin), THY1, DDR2, MYH6 (α-MHC), TNNI3 (cTnI), TNNT2 (cTnT), PECAM-1 (CD31) and ACTA2 (α-SMA) (Fig 7A). Ventricular fibroblasts were absent of MYH6 and PECAM-1 (Fig 7B) but expressed TNNI3 and TNNT2, further evidence for the expression of these genes in non-myocyte populations. The absence of MYH6 transcripts demonstrated that cardiomyocytes had not migrated from the explants and thus excluded cardiomyocyte contamination as a cause of TNNI3 and TNNT2 transcript detection. Furthermore, the absence of CD31 transcripts also confirmed that the isolated fibroblasts were not contaminated by endothelial cells.

Fig 7.

Fig 7

Cardiac fibroblasts are enriched for Vimentin, THY1, DDR2, cTnI and α-SMA

To investigate the expression of key cardiac cell markers at the protein level in a non-myocyte population, flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry were performed on cultured fetal human ventricular fibroblasts. Fibroblasts were stained for Vimentin, THY1, DDR2, cTnI and α-SMA. Flow cytometry revealed enrichment of all proteins in these cells (>96% positive) (Fig 7C–7G). Dual immunocytochemistry of cultured ventricular fibroblasts showed co-expression of vimentin and cTnI. (Fig 7H). The absence of MHC expression in cTnI positive fibroblasts further confirmed this finding is not as a result of cardiomyocyte contamination (Fig 7I). Interestingly, the staining pattern of cTnI in the ventricular fibroblasts is distinct from that observed in mature cardiomyocytes, with a lack of sarcomeric organisation. These data provide further evidence that cTnI is expressed in non-myocyte cells of the fetal heart.

Discussion

This study aimed to define the cellular composition of the early fetal human heart, an objective that is impaired by the lack of specific markers for some key cardiac cell types. As such, this study also evaluated the expression and specificity of a range of commonly used cardiac markers to help define novel marker profiles for cardiac cell populations during early development. Immunohistochemical analyses of cardiomyocyte markers MHC and cTnI showed defined sarcomeric staining in the myocardium of fetal heart tissue confirming their expression in cardiomyocytes. Notably, flow cytometry analyses showed a greater percentage of cardiac cells expressing cTnI (93%) compared to MHC (79%), suggesting cells other than cardiomyocytes may express cTnI. Flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry analyses were able to confirm the expression of cTnI at a lower level in non-myocytes (MHC-) and higher level in cardiomyocytes (MHC+). Furthermore, TNNT and TNNI gene expression in ventricular fibroblasts was established by RT-PCR, further supporting the presence of troponins in non-myocyte cells. Our results are strengthened by the recent findings from Cui et al., [31] identifying positive immunostaining of cTnT in cardiac fibroblasts from 17 gestational week fetal cardiac tissue. Furthermore, transcriptional analysis of fetal cardiac populations at the single cell level has revealed expression of TNNT3 in a subset of endothelial cells, further evidence that troponins are not specific to muscle cells [32]. The non-striated pattern of expression of cTnI in cardiac fibroblasts observed in this study suggest a non-sarcomeric organisation and potential non-sarcomeric role, however, the exact function of cTnl in these non-contracting cells remains unclear. Other previous studies have shown the expression of specific isoforms of troponin, as well as other contractile proteins, including myosin and tropomyosin, in smooth muscle cells [3335], suggesting that cardiac troponin may also have non-cardiomyocyte-specific isoforms in the context of cardiac development. Indeed, the role of TnT in multiple cellular processes beyond contraction in skeletal muscle [36], including transcription-related processes, and the recognised role of troponins in cancer [37], has established that troponins’ effects are multifaceted and isoform-dependent. Overall, these data suggest troponin proteins are not specific markers of cardiomyocytes in the developing human heart, which should be considered when evaluating the use of these proteins to identify and isolate cardiomyocytes and may further be valuable in the purification and differentiation of PSC-CMs.

The mesenchymal marker vimentin is a commonly used fibroblast marker; however, we showed approximately 90% of fetal cardiac cells are positive for vimentin, suggesting cells other than fibroblasts express this protein. Flow cytometry analysis showed expression of vimentin at low levels in MHC+ cardiomyocytes (MHC+/VIMLow) and high levels in MHC- non-myocyte cells. We were able to confirm that cardiac fibroblast cells isolated from ventricular tissue are enriched for vimentin relative to total heart (ventricle/atria). We also confirmed that endothelial cells express high levels of vimentin, supporting what has previously been described in the adult heart [22]. These findings are consistent with a previous study that identified weak expression of vimentin in some cardiomyocytes of 9–14 pcw human hearts and demonstrated that with increasing fetal age vimentin expression in cardiomyocytes decreases and desmin expression increases [38]. It remains unclear the precise role of vimentin in fetal cardiomyocytes, as well as the reason for its absence in adult cardiomyocytes. The collagen receptor DDR2 has been identified as a more specific marker of adult cardiac fibroblasts [39], however, our results showed its expression in cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells of the developing heart.

Flow cytometry of fetal cardiac cells stained for the cardiomyocyte marker MHC revealed a large population of highly expressing cells (fluorescence intensity >104) alongside a very small, broader peak of cells expressing MHC at lower levels. Whilst both populations are gated as MHC+, we chose not to interpret this small peak as a distinct population as it did not exhibit the same characteristics as the cTnI or vimentin low populations. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that this peak may represent a distinct population of positive cells expressing MHC at lower levels.

Utilising multiple experimental approaches and cellular markers, our results offer an estimate of the relative cellular composition of the human fetal heart and distinct marker profiles to distinguish between fetal cellular populations. Our analysis supports the use of three markers to define the fetal human cardiomyocyte population: ‘MHC+/cTnIHigh/VIMLow ‘ represents the fetal human cardiomyocyte population, which we estimate to comprise 75–80% of total cardiac cells. This is consistent with other reports, which have shown cardiomyocytes to be the largest cell population in the fetal heart [31, 32]. In contrast, current estimates of the adult human heart suggest non-myocytes to be the dominant population [4, 6, 7]. Specifically, using nuclei analysis of human tissue, Pinto et al showed that cardiomyocytes occupy 31% of the adult cardiac population, whilst Tucker et al conducted single nuclear RNA sequencing to reveal an adult cardiomyocyte population comprising 36% of cells [40]. In the fetal heart, Banerjee et al., [16] showed cardiomyocytes to occupy around 65% of the late-stage embryonic mouse heart, whilst in human fetal tissue, Suryawanshi et al., [32] used single cell sequencing to reveal cardiomyocytes account for nearly half of the total cell composition. Furthermore, Cui et al., used single cell transcriptomics to show cardiomyocytes make up the largest population of cells in the embryonic heart [31]. Mitosis of differentiated cardiomyocytes in the developing heart is well documented and is responsible for cardiac morphogenesis and organogenesis in utero [41]. From two weeks after birth, cardiomyocyte proliferation is significantly reduced in the mammalian heart as these cells enter cell cycle arrest, with continued cardiac growth reliant on hypertrophy of pre-existing cardiomyocytes [42, 43]. Therefore, cardiomyocytes occupying the largest cellular population during cardiac development likely reflect the proliferative nature of fetal cardiomyocytes relative to adult cardiomyocytes.

In this study, the non-cardiomyocyte population was estimated to comprise 20–25% of total cardiac cells and exhibit an MHC-/cTnILow/VIMHigh marker profile, of which approximately 10% are endothelial cells (CD31+/VIMHigh). Due to the lack of a fibroblast-specific marker, it is difficult to accurately determine the percentage of fibroblasts and smooth muscle cells, although based on the percentage of endothelial cells within this non-myocyte population, it is likely in the region of 10–15%. Indeed, we found 11% of cells were VIM+/α-SMA+ which may represent a cell population with a fibroblast and smooth muscle cell phenotype. Smooth muscle cells have been shown to transcriptionally cluster with fibroblasts and exhibit fibroblast features, including expression of extracellular matrix genes, suggesting a common developmental lineage [31, 32], which would impede discrimination between these cell types if the phenotypes have yet to become distinct [31, 44]. However, the nature of in vitro culture conditions can initiate primary fibroblasts to take on a smooth muscle phenotype and therefore we cannot conclude that cardiac fibroblasts in vivo exactly mimic the expression patterns we observed.

This study focused on the four main cell types of the heart and therefore we cannot comment on the contribution of other important cardiac cells types to the cellular composition of the fetal human heart, including mural and immune cells. Further investigations are required to determine the exact composition of the non-myocyte population during early cardiac development. Due to the lack of reliable surface markers for fibroblasts that would enable cell sorting for downstream RNA and protein applications, the isolation and culture of primary fibroblasts is currently the only viable option to investigate this cell population.

The results from our study suggest the marker profiles of fetal cardiac cells are distinct from those of adult cardiac cells. The phenotypic similarities between the mid-gestation human fetal heart and pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes suggests our data could be useful when purifying and characterising these cells. Furthermore, the marker profiles identified could potentially be used for future studies to determine how the ratio of cardiomyocytes to non-cardiomyocytes changes throughout fetal development.

Supporting information

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

S1 Fig

(A) Representative flow cytometry side scatter and forward scatter dot plot of fetal human cardiac cells showing gating of the cellular population for downstream analyses. (B) Representative flow cytometry histogram of unstained heart cells at the APC fluorophore wavelength (max excitation 650nm, max emission 661nm). (C) Representative flow cytometry histogram of unstained heart cells at the PE fluorophore wavelength (max excitation 566nm, max emission 574nm). (D) Representative flow cytometry histogram of unstained heart cells at the FITC fluorophore wavelength (max excitation 490nm, max emission 525nm).

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Representative flow cytometry gating strategy used to determine positive populations of cardiac cells for each marker.

Dot plots with fluorescence on the Y axis and FSC on the X axis were used to determine positive populations. The distribution of the negative control population (isotype or secondary antibody only) was used to draw the positive gates. Cells expressing fluorescence levels above the negative controls were marked as positive.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Representative immunohistochemistry images of antibody negative controls in fetal human heart tissue.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Representative flow cytometry histogram of fetal human heart cells stained for cTnT showing two distinct populations of cTnTHigh (64%) and TnTLow (28%) expressing cells (n = 2).

Grey histogram peaks represent antibody controls.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Immunohistochemistry of fetal human heart tissue showing expression of Vimentin at high levels (closed arrowhead) and lower levels (open arrowhead) in the myocardium.

DAPI was used as a counter stain for cell nuclei.

(TIF)

S6 Fig

DDR2 dual immunohistochemistry of fetal human heart tissue: (A) DDR2 and MHC expression at the boundary (dotted line) of a blood vessel wall and the myocardium. (B) DDR2 and α-SMA expression in a cardiac blood vessel (C) DDR2 and CD31 expression in a cardiac blood vessel. Myo = myocardium. AO/PA = aorta/pulmonary artery. DAPI was used as a counter stain for cell nuclei.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Dual immunohistochemistry of fetal human heart tissue expressing α-SMA and CD31 showing expression in distinct regions of the blood vessel.

α-SMA expression is seen in the smooth muscle vessel lining and CD31 expression is seen in the endothelial inner lining of the vessel. DAPI was used as a counter stain for cell nuclei.

(TIF)

S1 Table. List of primary and secondary antibodies, their working concentrations and their corresponding controls.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Primer sequences and amplicon sizes for detection of cardiac cell marker mRNA transcripts using RT-PCR.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Complete list of flow cytometry data showing tissue age, percentage of positive cells recorded for each marker and number of samples analysed.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC), through Medical Research Council Capacity Building Studentship (Grant No. G1000406) received by the University of Southampton and was used to support the PhD studentship of JD and by A Joint MRC/Wellcome Trust Grant (Grant No. 099175/Z/12/Z) received by Newcastle University that was used to fund the HDBR tissue for this project. Immunocore also provided funding in the form of salary for IO. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Vliegen H. W., Laarsem A. V.D, Cornelisse C.J. Eulderink F. Myocardial changes in pressure overload-induced left ventricular hypertrophy. A study on tissue composition, polyploidization and multinucleation. European Heart Journal 12, 488–494 (1991). doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a059928 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Camelliti P., Borg T. K. & Kohl P. Structural and functional characterisation of cardiac fibroblasts. Cardiovascular research 65, 40–51, doi: 10.1016/j.cardiores.2004.08.020 (2005). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Moore G. W., Hutchins G. M., Bulkley B. H., Tseng J. S. & Ki P. F. Constituents of the human ventricular myocardium: connective tissue hyperplasia accompanying muscular hypertrophy. Am Heart J 100, 610–616 (1980). doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(80)90224-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pinto A. R. et al. Revisiting Cardiac Cellular Composition. Circulation research 118, 400–409, doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.307778 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zhou P. & Pu W. T. Recounting Cardiac Cellular Composition. Circ Res 118, 368–370, doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.308139 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bergmann O. et al. Dynamics of Cell Generation and Turnover in the Human Heart. Cell 161, 1566–1575, (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Marín-Sedeño E., de Morentin X. M., Pérez-Pomares J. M., Gómez-Cabrero D. & Ruiz-Villalba A. Understanding the Adult Mammalian Heart at Single-Cell RNA-Seq Resolution. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 9, doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.645276 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Denning C. et al. Cardiomyocytes from human pluripotent stem cells: From laboratory curiosity to industrial biomedical platform. Biochimica et biophysica acta, doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2015.10.014 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ieda M. et al. Direct reprogramming of fibroblasts into functional cardiomyocytes by defined factors. Cell 142, 375–386, doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.07.002 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Protze S. et al. A new approach to transcription factor screening for reprogramming of fibroblasts to cardiomyocyte-like cells. Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology 53, 323–332, doi: 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2012.04.010 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Qian L., Berry E. C., Fu J. D., Ieda M. & Srivastava D. Reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts into cardiomyocyte-like cells in vitro. Nature protocols 8, 1204–1215, doi: 10.1038/nprot.2013.067 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Molkentin J. D., Jobe S. M. & Markham B. E. α-myosin heavy chain gene regulation: delineation and characterization of the cardiac muscle-specific enhancer and muscle-specific promoter. Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology 28, 1211–1225 (1996). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Souders C. A., Bowers S. L. & Baudino T. A. Cardiac fibroblast: the renaissance cell. Circulation research 105, 1164–1176, doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.109.209809 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Moore-Morris T., Cattaneo P., Puceat M. & Evans S. M. Origins of cardiac fibroblasts. Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology 91, 1–5, doi: 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2015.12.031 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ponten A. et al. FACS-based isolation, propagation and characterization of mouse embryonic cardiomyocytes based on VCAM-1 surface marker expression. PloS one 8, e82403, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082403 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Banerjee I., Fuseler J. W., Price R. L., Borg T. K. & Baudino T. A. Determination of cell types and numbers during cardiac development in the neonatal and adult rat and mouse. Am J Cardiovasc Dis 293, H1883–H1891, doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00514.2007 (2007). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Goldsmith E. C., Zhang X., Watson J., Hastings J. & Potts J. D. The collagen receptor DDR2 is expressed during early cardiac development. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 293, 762–769, doi: 10.1002/ar.20922 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Goldsmith E. C. et al. Organization of fibroblasts in the heart. Developmental Dynamics 230, 787–794, doi: 10.1002/dvdy.20095 (2004). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Shyu K. G., Chao Y. M., Wang B. W. & Kuan P. Regulation of discoidin domain receptor 2 by cyclic mechanical stretch in cultured rat vascular smooth muscle cells. Hypertension 46, 614–621, doi: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000175811.79863.e2 (2005). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Morales M. O., Price R. L. & Goldsmith E. C. Expression of Discoidin Domain Receptor 2 (DDR2) in the developing heart. Microscopy and microanalysis: the official journal of Microscopy Society of America, Microbeam Analysis Society, Microscopical Society of Canada 11, 260–267, doi: 10.1017/S1431927605050518 (2005). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wang R., Li Q. & Tang D. D. Role of vimentin in smooth muscle force development. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 291, C483–C489 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dave J. M. & Bayless K. J. Vimentin as an integral regulator of cell adhesion and endothelial sprouting. Microcirculation 21, 333–344, doi: 10.1111/micc.12111 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hudon-David F., Bouzeghrane F., Couture P. & Thibault G. Thy-1 expression by cardiac fibroblasts: lack of association with myofibroblast contractile markers. Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology 42, 991–1000, doi: 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2007.02.009 (2007). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Baum J. & Duffy H. S. Fibroblasts and myofibroblasts: what are we talking about? Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology 57, 376–379, doi: 10.1097/FJC.0b013e3182116e39 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rege T. A. & Hagood J. S. Thy-1 as a regulator of cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions in axon regeneration, apoptosis, adhesion, migration, cancer, and fibrosis. FASEB journal: official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 20, 1045–1054, doi: 10.1096/fj.05-5460rev (2006). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Craig W., Kay R., Cutler R. L. & Lansdorp P. M. Expression of Thy-1 on human hematopoietic progenitor cells. J. Exp. Med. 177, 1331–1342 (1993). doi: 10.1084/jem.177.5.1331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wetzel A. et al. Human Thy-1 (CD90) on Activated Endothelial Cells Is a Counterreceptor for the Leukocyte Integrin Mac-1 (CD11b/CD18). The Journal of Immunology 172, 3850–3859, doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.172.6.3850 (2004). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kong P., Christia P., Saxena A., Su Y. & Frangogiannis N. G. Lack of specificity of fibroblast-specific protein 1 in cardiac remodeling and fibrosis. American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology 305, H1363–1372, doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00395.2013 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Baudino T. A., Carver W., Giles W. & Borg T. K. Cardiac fibroblasts: friend or foe? American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology 291, H1015–1026, doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00023.2006 (2006). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hearn T. et al. Subcellular Localization of ALMS1 Supports Involvement of Centrosome and Basal Body Dysfunction in the Pathogenesis of Obesity, Insulin Resistance, and Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes 54, 1581–1587 (2005). doi: 10.2337/diabetes.54.5.1581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cui Y. et al. Single-Cell Transcriptome Analysis Maps the Developmental Track of the Human Heart. Cell Rep 26, 1934–1950 e1935, doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.01.079 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Suryawanshi H. et al. Cell atlas of the foetal human heart and implications for autoimmune-mediated congenital heart block. Cardiovascular Research 116, 1446–1457, doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvz257 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ju Y. et al. Troponin T3 expression in skeletal and smooth muscle is required for growth and postnatal survival: characterization of Tnnt3(tm2a(KOMP)Wtsi) mice. Genesis 51, 667–675, doi: 10.1002/dvg.22407 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kajioka S. et al. Endogenous cardiac troponin T modulates Ca(2+)-mediated smooth muscle contraction. Scientific reports 2, 979, doi: 10.1038/srep00979 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gahlmann R., Wade R., Gunning P. & Kedes L. Differential expression of slow and fast skeletal muscle troponin C: Slow skeletal muscle troponin C is expressed in human fibroblasts. Journal of Molecular Biology 201, 379–391 (1988). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Babu G. J., Warshaw D. M. & Periasamy M. Smooth muscle myosin heavy chain isoforms and their role in muscle physiology. Microscopy Research and Technique 50, 532–540, (2000). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Johnston J. R., Bryant Chase P. & Renato Pinto J. Troponin through the looking-glass: emerging roles beyond regulation of striated muscle contraction. Oncotarget 9 (2017). doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.22879 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kim H. D. Expression of intermediate filament Desmin and Vimentin in the human fetal heart. Anat Rec 246, 271–278 (1996). doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tarbit E., Singh I., Peart J. N. & Rose’Meyer R. B. Biomarkers for the identification of cardiac fibroblast and myofibroblast cells. Heart Fail Rev 24, 1–15, doi: 10.1007/s10741-018-9720-1 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tucker N. R. et al. Transcriptional and Cellular Diversity of the Human Heart. Circulation 142, 466–482, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.045401 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Yutzey K. E. Cardiomyocyte Proliferation: Teaching an Old Dogma New Tricks. Circ Res 120, 627–629, doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.310058 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Leri A., Rota M., Pasqualini F. S., Goichberg P. & Anversa P. Origin of cardiomyocytes in the adult heart. Circulation research 116, 150–166, doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.303595 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kikuchi K. & Poss K. D. Cardiac regenerative capacity and mechanisms. Annual review of cell and developmental biology 28, 719–741, doi: 10.1146/annurev-cellbio-101011-155739 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Rinkevich Y. et al. Identification and prospective isolation of a mesothelial precursor lineage giving rise to smooth muscle cells and fibroblasts for mammalian internal organs, and their vasculature. Nature Cell Biology 14, 1251–1260 (2012). doi: 10.1038/ncb2610 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Federica Limana

23 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-32716Defining Cardiac Cell Populations and Relative Cellular Composition of the Early Fetal Human HeartPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dewing,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by January 7, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Federica Limana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

[This work was funded by the MRC DTA Capacity Building Studentship G1000406. The human embryonic and fetal material was provided by the Joint MRC/Wellcome Trust grant #099175/Z/12/Z Human Developmental Biology Resource (HDBR)]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

 [J.M.D received DTA Capacity Building Studentship funding from the Medical Research council UK: thttps://mrc.ukri.org/skills-careers/studentships/how-we-fund-studentships/doctoral-training-partnerships-dtps/

Grant number: G1000406

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

VS, IOK and DIW were not directly funded by this award.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. 

  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

[The authors have declared that no competing interests exist].  

  

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Immunocore Ltd, Abingdon, Oxford, United Kingdom. 

a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. 

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. 

b) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Fig1

Multiple issues.

Issue 1

Not enough information is provided to follow what the authors did. Under the section ”antibodies for flow and IHC”, a mix of directly conjugated and unconjugated primary antibodies are given. It is unclear exactly which antibodies were used for IHC and whether the same antibodies were used for both IHC and flow. Only one antibody for each antigen is listed, suggesting the same was used for flow and IHC yet the methods state that secondary antibodies were used for IHC staining, suggesting unconjugated primaries were used. This is unclear.

We need a table to show exactly which primaries/secondaries were used for each experiment (IHC and flow), with catalogue supplier numbers, dye conjugations, paired control isotype antibodies etc.

Issue 2

As far as I can determine no controls were performed to test the specificity of the antibodies used. Both positive and negative controls are needed to support the conclusions.

We need to see negative controls omitting primary antibody to show that the fluorescence reported does not result from autofluorescence.

The evidence for specificity given in the paper comes simply from IHC data showing expression patterns resembling that expected. In the case of the cardiomyocyte markers TnI and MHC, striations can be seen within the cells, giving confidence that the stained cells are indeed striated muscle. Endothelial and smooth muscle cell markers appear to be staining blood vessels as expected (although double labelling is needed to show that the expression does not overlap). However, it is more difficult to conclude that the fibroblast markers are staining fibroblasts as no clear anatomical features have been identified.

We need to see a positive control for these antibodies. Either a Western blot or dot blot to demonstrate binding to the correct protein is needed. Alternatively, staining of a known cell line would provide confidence in cell identification.

Fig 2

Multiple issues with this key figure.

Issue 1

The interpretation of the data (presence or absence of marker) is very much dependent on how the raw data is gated. Although the methods state that the position of the gate was set based on the control data this does not seem to always be the case. In fact, positioning varies between different panel in Fig2. In some cases the gate is positioned close to the negative control peak whereas in others it is some distance away, excluding some datapoints that would otherwise be classed as positive.

Issue 2

Not enough information is provided to understand what was done, and as a result we cannot conclude that the data is reliable.

As stated above, it is unclear whether the antibodies used are same as those used for IHC.

The antibody staining procedure is not given in the methods. The study employs a mix of directly dye-conjugated and unconjugated antibodies, which require different methods (the latter require a fluorescent secondary) but this is not clearly explained. E.g. was unbound antibody washed off? Were primary and secondary applied sequentially?

A detailed staining protocol needs to be provided.

Issue 3

The controls used are not the same for all antibodies.

The methods are unclear, but for directly conjugated antibodies the authors appear to have used an isotype control, while for unconjugated primary antibodies they use a secondary antibody. Are these equivalent? The level of fluorescence of different controls appears to vary between graphs by a factor of 10.

The legend to Fig2 states that the grey peak indicates “isotype/negative controls”. What does this mean? What is a negative control?

We need to know exactly what was used as the negative control for each antibody, and this should be included in the above table of antibodies.

Issue 4

The quality of the data varies considerably between different antigens. The graphs for DDR2 (Fig2e) and THY1 (Fig2f) show high quality data. In these cases, two peaks are seen. There is a peak which overlaps with the negative control, indicating cells that are negative for the marker, and then a second peak clearly distinct from and not overlapping with the first, indicating cells positive for the marker. Data for other markers is more questionable, as detailed below.

Issue 5

There are no positive controls.

Do the antibodies work and bind to the expected protein? Again, positive controls are needed (Western, dot blot, or known cells) to prove specific binding.

2a. The FSC x SSC plot used to identify cells needs to be shown.

2b. The gate has not been applied as stated in the methods and is instead shifted a long way from the negative control such that some fluorescent cells ( in a peak at about 10-3) are excluded. The authors appear to assume that this lower-intensity peak is a negative signal, even though it is clearly distinct from the negative control. It appears to me that there is a problem with the negative control in this and other graphs, but detailed information on the control used is missing from the methods and figure legend.

2c. This graph is very similar to that shown in Fig 2b, but oddly the gate has been placed in a different position. In this case, the gate includes both high and low intensity peaks. One of these two panels must be wrong. Data shown in Fig 3e (discussed below) suggests to me that the lower intensity peak represents cells negative for this marker, but this is not how the authors interpreted this data.

2d. There is a large low-intensity peak and a smaller high-intensity peak, partly overlapping. The gate includes both peaks. Again, I think the lower-intensity peak represents negative cells.

2e. No issues

2f. No issues

2g. The graph shows a high low-intensity peak, partly overlapping with the negative control and a smaller high-intensity peak, which is distinct. The gate has been placed at the edge of the negative control peak, and therefore includes all of the high-intensity cells and some of the low-intensity. I think this is wrong. The lower intensity peak most likely represents the cells negative for the marker and the difference between this peak and the control is likely due to a problem with the unspecified control.

2h. Only a single peak is seen, which is shifted relative to the control. There may be a very low higher-intensity peak to the right, but this overlaps with the first. Issues with gate positioning in 2g apply here as well.

2i. Data is derived from above, and therefore needs to be revised.

Fig 3

3a, 3c. It is unclear to me why the boxes shown on these graphs are not rectangles with 90° angles. They appear to be based on the fluorescence gates shown in Fig 3b and 3d, but these gates are at a fixed fluorescence level, not one that changes with cell size (FSC).

3b,3d. The two peaks shown on each graph are labelled as low and high level expression, but these could be interpreted as positive and negative expression if the control is wrong (discussed above).

3e. The data shows that cells from vascular tissue (which does not contain striated muscle) showed the same level of fluorescence as the lower TnI peak in heart cells. Troponin is used only by striated and not by smooth muscle. The authors conclude from these data that a population of cells expressing low levels of TnI exists in both heart (striated muscle) and vascular tissue (smooth muscle). An alternative interpretation of these data, and to my mind the more likely explanation, is that this peak represent cells negative for TnI, even though it is shifted relative to the negative control. To answer this we need more information on what the negative control is, and preferably also data for a negative control cell type.

Fig 4

Issue 1

In order to identify double or triple labelled cells using flow sorting, it is necessary to use fluorescent dyes whose emissions spectra do not overlap, otherwise signal will bleed through between channels. The authors do not tell us which dyes were used to perform these experiments and therefore it is impossible to assess whether the data is accurate.

Issue 2

Furthermore, the accuracy of these data depends on the correct placing of the gates shown in Fig 2. As stated above, I believe that some of the gates used were incorrect.

4a. The data shown in Fig 3e suggests that the lower TnI peak represents cells negative for TnI. If so, then the population here labelled as Tni + / MHC – are actually negative for both markers suggesting they are simply the non-cardiomyocyte population of the heart.

4b. Again, I think the boxes should be rectangles if based on fluorescence gates.

4c. The same issues that apply to 4a apply here. If the cells labelled as low expression are in reality negative for the marker then the result is more logical: we have one population of troponin positive cardiomyocyes and one population of vimentin positive fibroblasts.

4d-4f. Why is this data presented in a different manner to 4c? Surely all graphs should be either marker x FSC or marker1 x marker2. Secondly, the colour-coding of these datapoints is unnecessary – it is supposed to show populations expressing high and low Vim, but we can judge for ourselves whether such populations exist by looking at the y axis. Again the gating here is dependent on Fig 2 being correct.

Fig 5

Issue 1

Not enough information is provided to follow what the authors did. The legend does not tell us what tissue is shown nor how the images relate to each other.

Issue 2

All of the issues mentioned in Fig1 also apply here and make these data unreliable.

The co-localisation of vimentin with other markers reported for both IHC and flow data could be explained by non-specific binding of the vimentin antibody. Controls are needed to disprove this null hypothesis.

Fig 6

Fig 6 is offered as supporting evidence for the hypothesis that a population of troponin-expressing fibroblasts exists in the heart. To show this, the authors dissected out pieces of heart tissue and then selected for cells which migrated out of the heart, which they describe as fibroblasts. They then used a crude endpoint RT-PCR to demonstrate co-expression of TnI/TnT with Vim in these cells.

There are a few issues here.

Issue 1

The cells isolated have not been characterised and have not been shown to be a pure population of fibroblasts.

We need IHC data to show that this is a homogenous population in which all cells either express or do not express a given marker (is this what is shown in Fig 7? – unclear).

Issue 2

Under certain conditions, cardiac fibroblasts can trans-differentiate into cardiomyocytes. It is possible that migratory fibroblasts have begun to trans-differentiate into another cell type. What is the evidence that these are the same cell type as exist in the foetal heart?

Issue 3

The RT-PCR data is not quantitative, a single contaminating cell could give a false positive.

Fig 7

It is unclear whether these are the same cells used in Fig 6. Again, more information is needed. What passage number are these and those in Fig 6? Are they from the same heart?

IHC – we need a DAPI co-stain in order to assess whether there are cells negative for each marker. Double labelling with vimentin would also be useful to support the hypothesis that fibroblasts express troponin.

Flow- the level of fluorescence of the positive peak appears to be different to that shown in Fig 2 for some panels. If this is the same antibody how can that be the case? We need to see flow data for MHC and CD31 to confirm the negative RTPCR results and therefore give more confidence in the positive data shown.

Minor points

1. The authors should give the official names of the proteins studied for clarity (as listed by NCBI). In some cases multiple isoforms of a protein exist, and the names used by the authors do not make clear the specific isoform referred. For example, there are three Troponin I proteins and the one normally expressed in heart is TNNI3. Similarly, there are multiple myosin heavy chains and the one referred to is MYH6.

2. Line 72 “Thy1… as a surface protein it has the advantage over vimentin and DDR2 in that it does not require cell permeabilisation and can therefore be used for fluorescent activated cell sorting”. DDR2 is also a transmembrane protein that can be used in FACS. Furthermore, the authors go on to show FACS data for many intracellular proteins.

3. typo line 93 - estimare

Reviewer #2: The authors explored the cellular composition of the fetal heart in a brief descriptive study that flows well. The aim of the study is to evaluate the specificity of certain cell markers in identifying the cell composition of the fetal heart. The authors explain the challenges of identifying cell-specific markers, especially for fibroblasts, in the adult myocardium, but did not provide robust suggestions of cell-specific markers in the fetal heart. Here are my recommendations that may help improve the current manuscript.

1-Please provide the detailed methodology for the isolation of cardiac fibroblasts and cardiomyocytes.

2-Please provide more details on the antibodies that you used in your immunofluorescence and FACS, including antibody dilutions, incubation time, etc.

3-The authors show that "the fibroblast markers showed extensive staining throughout the heart tissue" One would question the specificity of the antibody used and the technique of your IHC staining. Please include any possible positive or negative controls (including images from isotype-matched control staining for example).

It would also be more reliable if you dual stain each of the fibroblast markers with a GFP staining in PDGFRa-GFP mice (commercially available).

4-The quality of the immunofluorescence images in figure 1 should be enhanced. More examples should be provided from different regions of the myocardium. Do you see differential labeling of specific markers in different regions of the LV (sub-endocardium, sub-epicardium, or mid-myocardium)? Did you observe differential labeling in RV or the atria compared to LV?

5-Again, in the flow cytometry, one would need to see appropriate validation of the primary antibodies, and the appropriate negative controls (including the isotype control), and positive controls (for example, cells from fibroblast reporter mice).

6-With the challenges that you explained in identifying a fibroblast marker, how about mEF-SK4 as a marker of fibroblasts (Pinto, A. R. et al. Cir Res 2016).

7-"TnI-Low cells were MHC-", If these cells are not MHC+, are they fibroblasts, endothelial cells, or other cell types?

8-Staining of cultured fibroblast for α-SMA does not reflect the biology in the fetal heart. Cultured cardiac fibroblasts are under high tension thus they transform to a-SMA expression myofibroblasts.

9-Please tone down your conclusions and use non-speculative language as possible in your discussion, for example, "suggesting a role of troponins in non-muscle cells distinct from that of cardiomyocytes and skeletal muscle cells", "vimentin expression may be a property of cardioymyocytes of the developing heart only.".

10-Based on your current data, I wouldn't speculate that cardiomyocytes are "estimated to comprise 75-80% of total cardiac cells.". Additionally, what about other cell types other than endothelial cells, and fibroblast that are not included in your percentages of fetal cardiac cell populations (including pericytes, macrophages, etc)?

11-Please correct the minor typos as in line 93 "estimare", line 189, etc.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript “Defining Cardiac Cell Populations and Relative Cellular Composition of the Early Fetal Human Heart” tries to analyze commonly used markers for the main cardiac cell types, such as cardiomyocytes, cardiac fibroblasts, endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells, in human fetal hearts (< 12 pcw ). Their findings are mainly based on antibodies used for Immunohistochemistry as well as flow cytometry analyses. However, they never tested specificity of these antibodies.

Major Comments

This directly leads to my main concern about this manuscript: Results and numbers from flow cytometry analyses seem plausible, however, there is no proof of specificity of the antibodies used. In addition, no complete gating strategy is shown. The authors should show (for example in a Supplemental figure) how gates were set in each dot plot of flow cytometry. If possible a positive control should be used for each antibody.

Further, it would be helpful to directly compare the findings to adult specimen. In the discussion, the authors talk about the differences in cell composition and marker expression between fetal hearts and adult hearts. But given the different antibodies used for detection of cell populations and different methods used for dissociation of tissues, such numbers might be highly variable. Please perform immunohistochemical stainings and flow cytometry analyses with the same antibodies on adult specimen.

The manuscript is unfortunately written in a rather long-winded, ponderous style, e.g. at p 3, the sentences beginning in line 49 or line 58ff. Please shorten and clarify sentences where possible.

References: The newest reference cited by the authors is from the year 2019. However, science is rapidly progressing, especially on the topic of cardiac development and fetal hearts since the heart is one of the most important organs and the one developing first in embryogenesis. References should be updated and newest publications, especially concerning single cell analysis of fetal human hearts should be included.

Specific Concerns

p2: Abstract

p2, line 26: …which remains largely unknown: here you should include something like “at least in humans”

p2, line 30: …Myosin Heavy Chain: you should specify if you mean the alpha or beta isoform

p2, line 30/31: you should use a consistent nomenclature to describe gene or protein names; (e.g. sometimes you only use the abbreviation, sometimes the complete name is written…).

p3: Introduction

p3, line 63: you should shortly discuss the different embryonic origins of fibroblasts which contribute to fibroblast heterogeneity

p4, line 72: DDR2 is also a surface Protein and is mainly found on the plasma membrane (by the way: this sentence should also be shortened, maybe build 2 sentences.)

p4, line 84: CD31 is not specific for endothelial cells (is also expressed in macrophages), alphaSMA is not specific for Smooth muscle cells but also expressed in activated fibroblasts. Please relativize that.

p4, line 93: estimate not “estimare”

p5: Materials and Methods section

the whole section should include more experimental details so that one is able to follow the experiments

a table with the specimen used should be included

p5, line 106: 70µm strainer: this is a size discrimination, did you check if you lose cardiomyocytes in this step? Or are fetal cardiomyocytes smaller than 70µm?

p5, line 109: heading should be “Fibroblast Isolation and Cell Culture”

p5, line 115: you should please note centrifugation speed in [g] not in rpm, since rpm is dependent on the rotor radius

p5, line 117: 35µm strainer: this is a size discrimination (even more than mentioned above line 106), did you check if you lose cardiomyocytes in this step? Or are fetal cardiomyocytes smaller than 35µm?

p5, line 133: as already noted above: how did you check specificity of antibodies? E.g. positive controls? Double stainings?

p5, line 135: as already noted in the abstract: is it alpha or beta MHC or does the antibody detect both isoforms?

p7, line 143: please note in that paragraph that results of the RT-PCR were visualized on an XXX% agarose gel and the fluorescent dye you used….

p7: Results

p7, line 157: TnT is not shown in Fig1A? Missing? Not stained?

p7, line 159: now you write that you stained alphaMHC. There are two isoforms of MHC: alpha and beta. The beta isoform is more relevant in fetal cardiac tissue while the alpha isoform is more typical for adult cardiac tissue. Could you please discriminate between the two isoforms? Are there antibodies that are specific for each isoform? Would be interesting to analyze the amount of beta versus alpha…

p7, line 161: since Thy1 is a surface protein, it should not be localized in the cytoplasm…. Vimentin should mark fibres of the cytoskeleton (However, I cannot recognize these patterns since the picture quality is so poor). In addition, there is DDR2 in the figure (not mentioned in the text).

p7, line 162: how do you know that these antibodies stain endothelial cells or smooth muscle cells? This is not the thing you can read from this picture. You only see that the antibodies stain cells from vessel walls.

p8, line 181/182 (legend for Fig 2I): Percentages of MHC and TnI are not the same as mentioned in the text???? Please correct.

p8, line 187/188: Please indicate percentages for TnT high and low expressing populations. By the way, the same holds true for MHC. Can you also add this into the Suppl Figure?

p8, line 188ff: You should do stainings for fetal aorta/pulmonary artery not only with TnI antibodies but also with Vimentin, TnT and MHC.

p9, line 213 (corresponding to Fig 4 C): Could you please include gates into this dot plot similar to the other dot plots in the same Figure? For Fig 4D: in the dotplot itself there should be aSMA/Vim not TnI/Vim, right?

p9, line 221: I know that you regard Vimention as a fibroblast marker. However, this marks cells from mesenchymal origin. Thus for a proof of principle you should also double stain Vimentin and DDR2 and Vimentin and Thy1.

p10, line 234: However, Vimentin intensity is not different in Fig5A (in the FACS you showed Vimlow for TnI high cells.

p11, line 255: Fetal heart tissue also expresses THY1 and DDR2; the gene name for aSMA is ACTA2 (in Fig 6 you should not use the protein names but the gene names which are sometimes different). Human gene names are written in capitals (e.g. THY1 not Thy1)

In Fig 6 you should show a negative control and an amplification control such as GAPDH or BetaActin for all the lines so that one can decide if the differences in the band intensities are really reflecting differences in gene expression and not only differences in amplification efficiency, etc.

p12, line 267: you should write “….in fetal cultured ventricular fibroblasts”

p12, line 268: THY1 and DDR2 are missing

p12, line 272: you should also stain for CD31 and MHC and check if cultured fibroblasts are negative for those antibodies (important for specificity of those antibodies).

Figures

The overall quality of pictures in the figures is not very good, especially the immunohistochemical stainings are rather blurry and overexposed. Please improve the quality of these images (Fig 1, Fig 5, Fig 7, Suppl Fig 2), e.g. by taking pictures with a confocal microscope.

The Figure Legends should also be improved. In the legends you should shortly describe what you see in the pictures, so that you can understand without reading the text.

p12 Discussion

p13, line 285: you cannot say that cTnI lower levels were confirmed in non-myocytes by RT-PCR, since you have no housekeeping gene in your RT PCR as a normalization control.

p14, line 315: why should there be myofibroblasts in a fetal heart? This is a cell type that is usual representing some kind of pathology in a heart…

In the discussion you should compare your results from human fetal hearts to results from murine fetal hearts and of course to state-of-the-art single cell studies on the cellular composition and gene expression of human fetal hearts.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Iain Dykes

Reviewer #2: Yes: Anis Hanna

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 30;17(11):e0259477. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259477.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 May 2022

We would like to thank the reviewers for their invaluable comments on this manuscript. We have now addressed all the points raised by the reviewers, which can be found in the submitted point-by point rebuttal and the revised manuscript file. Where possible, we have also added additional supplementary figures, at the request of the reviewers, or to support our rebuttal statements.

We believe the reviewers’ comments and the subsequent changes made to this manuscript have significantly improved the quality of the article and we thank them for this contribution.

Please note that the image quality of the submitted figures is diminished when converted to PDF for submission by the PLOS software and does not reflect the image quality of the original files.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers, Dewing et al 2022.docx

Decision Letter 1

Federica Limana

10 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-32716R1Defining Cardiac Cell Populations and Relative Cellular Composition of the Early Fetal Human HeartPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dewing,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Two reviewers still have significant concerns about the reporting of the methodology and are not satisfied with the authors’ responses mainly because they have made no changes to the interpretation of the data as suggested and, importantly, they have not addressed even some major comments. Further, it is really annoying when authors claim they have introduced several changes to the manuscript but they did not and it is not acceptable that they are not able to present the raw data when requested.  

I decide for a major revision but I would be willing to reconsider a revised submission only once all the concerns are addressed and if they are addressed within and not later than 40 days (mandatory due date: July 21st 2022)

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by July 21st 2022. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Federica Limana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have added further details to the methods section and provided a little more clarity in some figure legends. They have also inserted some additional supplemental data, including negative controls for IHC staining and a table showing the antibodies used. Together these are useful to clarify what was done. In particular, they have explained what the negative control data for the flow analysis represents. This is helpful, strengthens their conclusions and addresses some of my original concerns. I believe this revised version now satisfies PLOS guidelines on minimal reporting.

However, they have made no changes to the interpretation of the data based on the feedback received. The figures, abstract and main text remain largely unchanged. Despite providing a detailed rebuttal to the reviewers, very few changes have been made to the manuscript itself. Most of the points made in the rebuttal are omitted from the main manuscript. For this reason, some of my original concerns remain outstanding.

In general, I feel that the manuscript that the manuscript would benefit from a re-write. It remains thin on experimental details and I feel that some sections could be explained more clearly. The sub-headings could be changed to describe the key findings rather than the methods used. More explanation is needed in the text of the fibroblast explant culture method and also of the rationale of analysing different parts of the heart.

Detailed Comments

Fig1

Negative controls for these antibodies are now shown in Fig S2 and look fine. This figure should be referred to in the text.

Fig2

This figure has not been modified in the revised version.

The authors have now told us what the negative control is and this has answered some of my concerns. However, the positioning of the gate remains arbitrary and therefore all of the concerns I raised in my original review regarding this remain outstanding.

In their rebuttal, the authors refer to a figure from Banerjee 2007, which they state was used to design their own figure. I would therefore like to point out that in Banerjee the position of the gate is not arbitrary, but is aligned with the end of the unstained control cells, and is in the same position in every panel. The position of the gate in this current manuscript is arbitrary. (the authors correctly point out that Banerjee does not use an isotype/secondary control to position the gate. Their method is indeed an improvement, but only if information from this control is used to inform positioning of the gate).

Much of the paper concerns the existence of two populations of cells (high and low expression of a given marker), therefore the decision to arbitrarily exclude cells showing low MHC expression is bizarre.

The positioning of the gate in other panels also appears rather random, sometimes overlapping the tail of the negative peak, sometimes not.

Fig2a: The purpose of this figure is to show autofluorescence of unlabelled cells. However, the x axis is unlabelled so it is unclear which channel this corresponds to, making this panel meaningless. The authors used antibodies with a variety of different fluorophores, therefore, we need to see autofluorescence data plotted for each channel. It would be better to plot these unlabelled cells on each panel along with experimental and control antibodies.

Fig3

No Fig 3 is provided.

Fig 4

OK

Fig 5

It is still not too clear what we are looking at. It would be better if the panels were at the same mag and showed adjacent sections of the same tissue. One concern I have here is that in Fig 5a the line dividing the myocardium from the blood vessel appears to be based on differing expression levels of cTnI, yet this difference is then given as evidence that non-cardiomyocytes express cTnI. This is circular logic, and could be avoided if another image showing MHC/SMA were included and used to draw the line.

Figs 6, 7

Some of the expression patterns shown in Fig 7 are quite odd. cTnI is shown expressed in the nuclei of these fibroblasts – this is very odd for a structural protein and not the expected pattern. The expression pattern shown in Fig S7 is quite different to that in Fig 7. However, neither of these are points are mentioned in the text at all. It looks like something has gone wrong here.

I think Figs 6 and 7 could be combined into one, perhaps with a diagram to explain the methods. Co-expression data shown in Fig S7 is key, so could be moved to main figure.

Reviewer #2: I would like to thank the authors for addressing all of my comments. I have no additional suggestions.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript “Defining Cardiac Cell Populations and Relative Cellular Composition of the Early Fetal Human Heart” tries to analyze commonly used markers for the main cardiac cell types, such as cardiomyocytes, cardiac fibroblasts, endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells, in human fetal hearts (< 12 pcw ). The findings are mainly based on antibodies used for immunohistochemistry as well as flow cytometry analyses.

In the revised version of the manuscript, the authors improved the picture quality for immunohistochemistry. The authors also added more details to the Material & Method’s section. In addition, the authors added a paragraph to the discussion where they compare their findings about the human fetal heart to mouse data and to state-of-the-art single cell data.

However, there are still several concerns from my side.

Unfortunately, the authors did not address some of my major comments. They did not even answer to points such as “In addition, it would be helpful to directly compare the findings to adult specimen. In the discussion, the authors talk about the differences in cell composition and marker expression between fetal hearts and adult hearts. But given the different antibodies used for detection of cell populations and different methods used for dissociation of tissues, such numbers might be highly variable. Please perform immunohistochemical stainings and flow cytometry analyses with the same antibodies on adult specimen.”

The comment “The newest reference cited by the authors is from the year 2019. However, science is rapidly progressing, especially on the topic of cardiac development and fetal hearts since the heart is one of the most important organs and the one developing first in embryogenesis. References should be updated and newest publications, especially concerning single cell analysis of fetal human hearts should be included“ was addressed by adding one more reference (from 2020). However, also here the authors did not answer to my comment.

I see that the authors might feel annoyed if they get lots of comments from the reviewers. However, as a reviewer, one invests time to perform this review and really tries to offer comments that help to improve the manuscript.

At least, the authors addressed some of my specific concerns. However, sometimes they claim that they have changed a certain paragraph or statement but they did not.

In addition, I see it as a significant problem that, in several cases, the authors are not able to present the source or original data or images.

Please find the problematic points in the following.

Specific Concerns:

my comment: p4, line 84: CD31 is not specific for endothelial cells (is also expressed in macrophages), alphaSMA is not specific for Smooth muscle cells but also expressed in activated fibroblasts. Please relativize that.

authors: We have now added: ‘However, CD31 is also present on macrophages, and α-SMA is upregulated in activated fibroblasts, termed ‘myofibroblasts’, that respond to injured cardiac tissue.’

� Unfortunately I cannot find that in the text. Might the authors have sent a wrong version of their revised text?

p5: Materials and Methods section:

my comment: p5, line 109: heading should be “Fibroblast Isolation and Cell Culture”

authors: This has now been amended (on page 7, line 152)

� it has not been changed. Again: wrong text version?

my comment: p7, line 143: please note in that paragraph that results of the RT-PCR were visualized on an XXX% agarose gel and the fluorescent dye you used….

authors: This has now been added to the end of the RT-PCR section

� it has not been added. Wrong text version?

my comment: p7: Results

p7, line 157: TnT is not shown in Fig1A? Missing? Not stained?

authors: We used cTnT to validate the flow cytometry data of cTnI, showing high and low positive populations (Supplementary Figure 3). We did not do any additional IHC with this antibody, although this antibody is well characterised, having been cited in over 71 publications.

� Then it should not be mentioned when talking about the IHC results in Figure 1. Please change that.

my comment: p7, line 161: since Thy1 is a surface protein, it should not be localized in the cytoplasm…. Vimentin should mark fibres of the cytoskeleton (However, I cannot recognize these patterns since the picture quality is so poor). In addition, there is DDR2 in the figure (not mentioned in the text).

authors: We have now amended this figure to include images of higher quality that better represent the expression we saw in the heart. We agree that as a surface marker we would expect to see Thy-1 on the cell surface, however, we have identified other published IHC and immunocytochemistry that show Thy-1 expression not localised only to the cell surface (Sidney et al., 2015, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcyt.2015.08.003.; Pietro et al., 2020 DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21124356). This suggests possible internalisation of the receptor where it may play an alternative role. We must also consider that the thickness and cellular density of the tissue, which will result insectioning of cells along different planes and therefore surface staining can be interpreted as cytoplasmic based on localisation relative to the nucleus.

� I agree with the author’s remarks. However, the text says Thy1 is “predominantly” found in cytoplasm (I would not agree with that from what I see on the pictures, now that the picture quality is improved). You might write: is “also” found in cytoplasm….

authors: We have now also added in commentary of DDR2 expression pattern in the text.

� No, I cannot find that.

my comment: p8, line 181/182 (legend for Fig 2I): Percentages of MHC and TnI are not the same as mentioned in the text???? Please correct.

authors: We have checked that the percentage of MHC and TnI in the text are the same as those displayed in the figure.

� But the bar graph in Fig 2I shows not the correct percentages for MHC (the text says 75%, the bar graph says 65%) and TnI.(the text says 93%, the bar graph says something less than 40%). Please correct that.

my comment: p8, line 187/188: Please indicate percentages for TnT high and low expressing populations. By the way, the same holds true for MHC. Can you also add this into the Suppl Figure?

authors: Unfortunately, we are not able to source this data.

� then the data should not be used for a manuscript.

my comment: In Fig 6 you should show a negative control and an amplification control such as GAPDH or BetaActin for all the lines so that one can decide if the differences in the band intensities are really reflecting differences in gene expression and not only differences in amplification efficiency, etc.

authors: Housekeeping controls were used for reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR), however, unfortunately the primary data (gel images) are no longer able to be accessed. We used RT-PCR to show the presence or absence of transcripts and to confirm there was no contamination of CMs in the fibroblast population. We have now amended the text to ensure we only discuss the RT-PCR data in a qualitative manner.

� data used in a manuscript should be available. Apart from this, it is only a RT-PCR, so it could easily be repeated with a housekeeping gene.

Figures

my comment: The Figure Legends should also be improved. In the legends you should shortly describe what you see in the pictures, so that you can understand without reading the text.

authors: We have amended the figure legends where necessary.

� Actually the Figure legends were not changed

authors: We believe these legends are consistent with those from previous PlosOne publications. If the editor would like us to amend further we are happy to do so.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Iain Dykes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 30;17(11):e0259477. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259477.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


19 Jul 2022

For the editor: please see attached 'cover letter' file that has been uploaded

For the reviewers: Please see attached 'response to reviewers' file that has been uploaded

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers #2, Dewing et al July 2022.docx

Decision Letter 2

Thomas Tischer

31 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-32716R2Defining Cardiac Cell Populations and Relative Cellular Composition of the Early Fetal Human HeartPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dewing,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript has been seen by three reviewers and they have raised a number of suggestions. Specifically they feel that the explanations you have provided in the rebuttal letter are very good and should be included in the text to provide more clarity. They also raise concerns about the description of some of the methods that could be improved.Could you please revise your manuscript to include their recommendations?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thomas Tischer

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the latest revision (R2), the authors have corrected some errors that I highlighted in the R1 version, included further control data in the supplement, improved some figures and provided a detailed explanation of their methods in the rebuttal. However, what they have not done is make any major changes to the text of the manuscript. The revised R2 manuscript actually differs very little from R1 (the tracked changes version provided shows changes made in R1, it is difficult to find many new changes for R2). It is clear that the authors are very much unwilling to make significant changes to the manuscript, despite extensive comments/concerns by myself and Reviewer 3. As far as I can gather from the tracked changes shown, very few changes have been made to the text of the manuscript: no more that 2 or 3 sentences have been added.

While I appreciate that the authors are perfectly entitled to have a different opinion on how the data should be analysed and interpreted, I think it is important that they include enough detail in the text to allow a reader to clearly follow what was done. I’m afraid I still don’t believe that this has been achieved. I find the manuscript quite hard to read because the authors provide minimal information in the text to explain what they have done, and why. The detailed explanation provided in the rebuttal is not included in the text of the manuscript. There are also no figure legends. Last time I suggested that a full re-write of the manuscript was needed, and I therefore find it rather frustrating that the authors have made only minor changes. As stated previously, I feel that many of the points made in the rebuttal should be incorporated into the manuscript itself to make it easier to follow, this has simply not been done.

To address my previous comments:

"However, they have made no changes to the interpretation of the data based on the feedback received. The figures, abstract and main text remain largely unchanged. Despite providing a detailed rebuttal to the reviewers, very few changes have been made to the manuscript itself. Most of the points made in the rebuttal are omitted from the main manuscript. "

This is still the case, very little has changed since R1.I do not think the conclusions of the paper have been changed at all despite this extensive review process.

"In general, I feel that the manuscript that the manuscript would benefit from a re-write. "

Not done, only minimal changes to text.

"It remains thin on experimental details and I feel that some sections could be explained more clearly. The sub-headings could be changed to describe the key findings rather than the methods used."

The authors rejected this suggestion in the rebuttal.

"More explanation is needed in the text of the fibroblast explant culture method and also of the rationale of analysing different parts of the heart."

The authors state in the rebuttal that these have been added, but I was unable to find much in the manuscript. A single line has been added to the methods. The results section still contains almost no explanation of the rationale behind the explant experiment, this is simply not sufficient to follow.

Fig2

The authors have answered my concerns in the rebuttal, but I feel these details need to be explained fully in the text of the manuscript itself.

Furthermore, if the dot blots were used to set the gates, then why not put these images in the main figure rather than in the supplement?

Fig 5

Again, my concerns have been answered in the rebuttal, but I feel that this explanation needs to be in the text of the manuscript.

Figs 6, 7

"Some of the expression patterns shown in Fig 7 are quite odd. cTnI is shown expressed in the nuclei of these fibroblasts – this is very odd for a structural protein and not the expected pattern. The expression pattern shown in Fig S7 is quite different to that in Fig 7. However, neither of these are points are mentioned in the text at all. It looks like something has gone wrong here."

The authors have corrected this error

"I think Figs 6 and 7 could be combined into one, perhaps with a diagram to explain the methods. Co-expression data shown in Fig S7 is key, so could be moved to main figure."

The authors have made a combined figure, but have not included a diagram to explain the methods. As stated a few times now, I feel this experiment is unclear.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: My concerns have been addressed now.

Only one little thing: please correct at p10, line 217: not cTNI but cTNT

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: iain dykes

Reviewer #2: Yes: Anis Hanna, MD

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 3

Koh Ono

8 Nov 2022

Defining Cardiac Cell Populations and Relative Cellular Composition of the Early Fetal Human Heart

PONE-D-21-32716R3

Dear Dr. Dewing,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Koh Ono, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The manuscript was improved. I have no further comments.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: See answer above.

All of my comments have been addressed after Revision R2.

I think the authors significantly improved their manuscript by several rounds of revisions.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Iain Dykes

Reviewer #2: Yes: Anis Hanna

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Koh Ono

18 Nov 2022

PONE-D-21-32716R3

Defining Cardiac Cell Populations and Relative Cellular Composition of the Early Fetal Human Heart

Dear Dr. Dewing:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Koh Ono

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    S1 Fig

    (A) Representative flow cytometry side scatter and forward scatter dot plot of fetal human cardiac cells showing gating of the cellular population for downstream analyses. (B) Representative flow cytometry histogram of unstained heart cells at the APC fluorophore wavelength (max excitation 650nm, max emission 661nm). (C) Representative flow cytometry histogram of unstained heart cells at the PE fluorophore wavelength (max excitation 566nm, max emission 574nm). (D) Representative flow cytometry histogram of unstained heart cells at the FITC fluorophore wavelength (max excitation 490nm, max emission 525nm).

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Representative flow cytometry gating strategy used to determine positive populations of cardiac cells for each marker.

    Dot plots with fluorescence on the Y axis and FSC on the X axis were used to determine positive populations. The distribution of the negative control population (isotype or secondary antibody only) was used to draw the positive gates. Cells expressing fluorescence levels above the negative controls were marked as positive.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Representative immunohistochemistry images of antibody negative controls in fetal human heart tissue.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Representative flow cytometry histogram of fetal human heart cells stained for cTnT showing two distinct populations of cTnTHigh (64%) and TnTLow (28%) expressing cells (n = 2).

    Grey histogram peaks represent antibody controls.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Immunohistochemistry of fetal human heart tissue showing expression of Vimentin at high levels (closed arrowhead) and lower levels (open arrowhead) in the myocardium.

    DAPI was used as a counter stain for cell nuclei.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig

    DDR2 dual immunohistochemistry of fetal human heart tissue: (A) DDR2 and MHC expression at the boundary (dotted line) of a blood vessel wall and the myocardium. (B) DDR2 and α-SMA expression in a cardiac blood vessel (C) DDR2 and CD31 expression in a cardiac blood vessel. Myo = myocardium. AO/PA = aorta/pulmonary artery. DAPI was used as a counter stain for cell nuclei.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. Dual immunohistochemistry of fetal human heart tissue expressing α-SMA and CD31 showing expression in distinct regions of the blood vessel.

    α-SMA expression is seen in the smooth muscle vessel lining and CD31 expression is seen in the endothelial inner lining of the vessel. DAPI was used as a counter stain for cell nuclei.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. List of primary and secondary antibodies, their working concentrations and their corresponding controls.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Primer sequences and amplicon sizes for detection of cardiac cell marker mRNA transcripts using RT-PCR.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Complete list of flow cytometry data showing tissue age, percentage of positive cells recorded for each marker and number of samples analysed.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers, Dewing et al 2022.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers #2, Dewing et al July 2022.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers, Round 3, Dewing et al.,.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES