Comparative single-cell profiling reveals distinct cardiac resident macrophages essential for zebrafish heart regeneration

Zebrafish exhibit a robust ability to regenerate their hearts following injury, and the immune system plays a key role in this process. We previously showed that delaying macrophage recruitment by clodronate liposome (–1d_CL, macrophage-delayed model) impairs neutrophil resolution and heart regeneration, even when the infiltrating macrophage number was restored within the first week post injury (Lai et al., 2017). It is thus intriguing to learn the regenerative macrophage property by comparing these late macrophages vs. control macrophages during cardiac repair. Here, we further investigate the mechanistic insights of heart regeneration by comparing the non-regenerative macrophage-delayed model with regenerative controls. Temporal RNAseq analyses revealed that –1d_CL treatment led to disrupted inflammatory resolution, reactive oxygen species homeostasis, and energy metabolism during cardiac repair. Comparative single-cell RNAseq profiling of inflammatory cells from regenerative vs. non-regenerative hearts further identified heterogeneous macrophages and neutrophils, showing alternative activation and cellular crosstalk leading to neutrophil retention and chronic inflammation. Among macrophages, two residential subpopulations (hbaa+ Mac and timp4.3+ Mac 3) were enriched only in regenerative hearts and barely recovered after +1d_CL treatment. To deplete the resident macrophage without delaying the circulating macrophage recruitment, we established the resident macrophage-deficient model by administrating CL earlier at 8 d (–8d_CL) before cryoinjury. Strikingly, resident macrophage-deficient zebrafish still exhibited defects in revascularization, cardiomyocyte survival, debris clearance, and extracellular matrix remodeling/scar resolution without functional compensation from the circulating/monocyte-derived macrophages. Our results characterized the diverse function and interaction between inflammatory cells and identified unique resident macrophages prerequisite for zebrafish heart regeneration.

For all that apply, please note where in the article the information is provided. Please note that we also collect information about data availability and ethics in the submission form.

Design:
Study protocol Indicate where provided:

section/figure legend N/A
If the study protocol has been pre-registered, provide DOI.
For clinical trials, provide the trial registration number OR cite DOI.

N/A
Laboratory protocol Indicate where provided:

section/submission form N/A
If study is subject to dual use research of concern regulations, state the authority granting approval and reference number for the regulatory approval.   Data availability Indicate where provided:

section/submission form N/A
For newly created and reused datasets, the manuscript includes a data availability statement that provides details for access (or notes restrictions on access).
We cited the previous paper of the reused dataset of 0h, 6h, 1d, 2d, 3d, and 5 dpci, which was incorporated in Figure 1B. Please see the figure legend of Figure   1B.
When newly created datasets are publicly available, provide

Reporting:
The MDAR framework recommends adoption of discipline-specific guidelines, established and endorsed through community initiatives. * We provide the following guidance regarding transparent reporting and statistics; we also refer authors to Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript.

Sample-size estimation
• You should state whether an appropriate sample size was computed when the study was being designed • You should state the statistical method of sample size computation and any required assumptions • If no explicit power analysis was used, you should describe how you decided what sample (replicate) size (number) to use

Replicates
• You should report how often each experiment was performed • You should include a definition of biological versus technical replication • The data obtained should be provided and sufficient information should be provided to indicate the number of independent biological and/or technical replicates • If you encountered any outliers, you should describe how these were handled • Criteria for exclusion/inclusion of data should be clearly stated • High-throughput sequence data should be uploaded before submission, with a private link for reviewers provided (these are available from both GEO and ArrayExpress)

Statistical reporting
• Statistical analysis methods should be described and justified • Raw data should be presented in figures whenever informative to do so (typically when N per group is less than 10) • For each experiment, you should identify the statistical tests used, exact values of N, definitions of center, methods of multiple test correction, and dispersion and precision measures (e.g., mean, median, SD, SEM, confidence intervals; and, for the major substantive results, a measure of effect size (e.g., Pearson's r, Cohen's d) • Report exact p-values wherever possible alongside the summary statistics and 95% confidence intervals. These should be reported for all key questions and not only when the p-value is less than 0.05.

Group allocation
• Indicate how samples were allocated into experimental groups (in the case of clinical studies, please specify allocation to treatment method); if randomization was used, please also state if restricted randomization was applied • Indicate if masking was used during group allocation, data collection and/or data analysis