4.6 Article

Macrophages Improve Survival, Proliferation and Migration of Engrafted Myogenic Precursor Cells into MDX Skeletal Muscle

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046698

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Fondation de France
  2. French Society of Cardiology
  3. INSERM
  4. Association Francaise contre les Myopathies (AFM)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Transplantation of muscle precursor cells is of therapeutic interest for focal skeletal muscular diseases. However, major limitations of cell transplantation are the poor survival, expansion and migration of the injected cells. The massive and early death of transplanted myoblasts is not fully understood although several mechanisms have been suggested. Various attempts have been made to improve their survival or migration. Taking into account that muscle regeneration is associated with the presence of macrophages, which are helpful in repairing the muscle by both cleansing the debris and deliver trophic cues to myoblasts in a sequential way, we attempted in the present work to improve myoblast transplantation by coinjecting macrophages. The present data showed that in the 5 days following the transplantation, macrophages efficiently improved: i) myoblast survival by limiting their massive death, ii) myoblast expansion within the tissue and iii) myoblast migration in the dystrophic muscle. This was confirmed by in vitro analyses showing that macrophages stimulated myoblast adhesion and migration. As a result, myoblast contribution to regenerating host myofibres was increased by macrophages one month after transplantation. Altogether, these data demonstrate that macrophages are beneficial during the early steps of myoblast transplantation into skeletal muscle, showing that coinjecting these stromal cells may be used as a helper to improve the efficiency of parenchymal cell engraftment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available