4.6 Article

Maintenance and Repair of the Lung Endothelium Does Not Involve Contributions from Marrow-Derived Endothelial Precursor Cells

Journal

Publisher

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1165/rcmb.2011-0180OC

Keywords

endothelium; vasculature; hyperoxia; EPC; bone marrow

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health grant [1R21HL086610-01A1]
  2. Evans Foundation Pilot Award
  3. Boston University Department of Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lung endothelium is believed to be a quiescent tissue with the potential to exhibit rapid and effective repair after injury. Endothelial progenitor cells derived from the bone marrow have been proposed as one source of new endothelial cells that may directly contribute to pulmonary endothelial cell homeostasis and repair. Here we use bone marrow transplantation models, using purified hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) or unfractionated whole marrow, to assess engraftment of cells in the endothelium of a variety of tissues. We find scant evidence for any contribution of bone marrow-derived cells to the pulmonary endothelium in the steady state or after recovery from hyperoxia-induced endothelial injury. Although a rare population of CD452-/CD311+/VECadherin+ bone marrow-derived cells, originating from HSCs, can be found in lung tissue after transplantation, these cells are not readily found in anatomic locations that define the pulmonary endothelium. Moreover, by tracking transplanted bone marrow cells obtained from donor transgenic mice containing endothelial lineage-selective reporters (Tie2-GFP), no contribution of bone marrow-derived cells to the adult lung, liver, pancreas, heart, and kidney endothelium can be detected, even after prolonged follow-up periods of 11 months or after recovery from hyperoxic pulmonary endothelial injury. Our findings argue against any significant engraftment of bone marrow-derived cells in the pulmonary vascular endothelium.

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