4.7 Article

Reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts into cardiomyocyte-like cells in vitro

Journal

NATURE PROTOCOLS
Volume 8, Issue 6, Pages 1204-1215

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2013.067

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. US National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) [U01 HL100406]
  2. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
  3. William Younger Family Foundation
  4. L.K. Whittier Foundation
  5. Eugene Roddenberry Foundation
  6. NIH National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [C06 RR018928]
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25670394, 23659426, 23390216] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cardiac fibroblasts can be reprogrammed to cardiomyocyte-like cells by the introduction of three transcription factors: Gata4, Mef2c and Tbx5 (collectively referred to here as GMT). Resident cardiac fibroblasts can be converted in vivo into induced cardiomyocyte-like cells (iCMs) that closely resemble endogenous cardiomyocytes and electrically integrate with the host myocardium. In contrast, in vitro reprogramming yields many partially reprogrammed iCMs, with a few that reprogram fully into contracting myocytes (similar to 3 out of 10,000 GMT-transduced cells). iCMs can be observed as early as 3 d after viral infection, and they continue to mature over 2 months before beating is observed. Despite the success of multiple groups, the inefficiency of in vitro reprogramming has made it challenging for others. However, given the advantages of in vitro iCMs for performing mechanistic studies and, if refined, for testing drugs or small molecules for personalized medicine and modeling cardiac disease in a dish, it is important to standardize the protocol to improve reproducibility and enhance the technology further. Here we describe a detailed step-by-step protocol for in vitro cardiac reprogramming using retroviruses encoding GMT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available