4.2 Article

Mesenchymal Stem Cell Delivery into Rat Infarcted Myocardium Using a Porous Polysaccharide-Based Scaffold: A Quantitative Comparison With Endocardial Injection

Journal

TISSUE ENGINEERING PART A
Volume 18, Issue 1-2, Pages 35-44

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.tea.2011.0053

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Inserm
  2. University Paris 7
  3. University Paris 13
  4. Fondation de France, Fondation de l'Avenir [IM7-475]
  5. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-09-EBIO-001 3D, ANR-08-BIOT-012]
  6. DIM STEM-Pole

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for tissue regeneration is often hampered by modest engraftment in host tissue. This study was designed to quantitatively compare MSCs engraftment rates after delivery using a polysaccharide-based porous scaffold or endocardial (EC) injection in a rat myocardial infarction model. Cellular engraftment was measured by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction using MSCs previously transduced with a lentiviral vector that expresses green fluorescent protein (GFP). The use of a scaffold promoted local cellular engraftment and survival. The number of residual GFP(+) cells was greater with the scaffold than after EC injection (9.7% vs. 5.1% at 1 month and 16.3% vs. 6.1% at 2 months, respectively [n = 5]). This concurred with a significant increase in mRNA vascular endothelial growth factor level in the scaffold group (p < 0.05). Clusters of GFP(+) cells were detected in the peri-infarct area, mainly phenotypically consistent with immature MSCs. Functional assessment by echocardiography at 2 months postinfarct also showed a trend toward a lower left ventricular dilatation and a reduced fibrosis in the scaffold group in comparison to direct injection group (n = 10). These findings demonstrate that using a porous biodegradable scaffold is a promising method to improve cell delivery and engraftment into damaged myocardium.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available