4.6 Article

Stimulating Myocardial Regeneration with Periostin Peptide in Large Mammals Improves Function Post-Myocardial Infarction but Increases Myocardial Fibrosis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 8, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059656

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: Mammalian myocardium has a finite but limited capacity to regenerate. Experimentally stimulating proliferation of cardiomyocytes with extracellular regeneration factors like periostin enhances cardiac repair in rodents. The aim of this study was to develop a safe method for delivering regeneration factors to the heart and to test the functional and structural effects of periostin peptide treatment in a large animal model of myocardial infarction (MI). Methods and Results: We developed a controlled release system to deliver recombinant periostin peptide into the pericardial space. A single application of this method was performed two days after experimental MI in swine. Animals were randomly assigned to receive either saline or periostin peptide. Experimental groups were compared at baseline, day 2, 1 month and 3 months. Treatment with periostin peptide increased the EF from 31% to 41% and decreased by 22% the infarct size within 12 weeks. Periostin peptide-treated animals had newly formed myocardium strips within the infarct scar, leading to locally improved myocardial function. In addition the capillary density was increased in animals receiving periostin. However, periostin peptide treatment increased myocardial fibrosis in the remote region at one week and 12 weeks post-treatment. Conclusion: Our study shows that myocardial regeneration through targeted peptides is possible. However, in the case of periostin the effects on cardiac fibrosis may limit its clinical application as a viable therapeutic strategy.

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