4.2 Article

Bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells do not contribute significantly to new vessels during incisional wound healing

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL HEMATOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 500-506

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.exphem.2006.10.016

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To assess the contribution of bone marrow (BM)-derived endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) to the neovascularisation of cutaneous incisional wounds. Methods. Lethally irradiated C57B1/6 mice were transplanted with BM mommuclear cells from Tie2/lacZ mice, which constitutively overexpressed beta-galactosidase (beta-gal) in endothelial cells (ECs). Chimeras were wounded and the number of X-gal-stained (beta-gal(+)) BM-derived EPCs were calculated in histological wound sections. Results. EPCs were measured in skin sections from unwounded BM transplant (BMT) mice, or at day 1 and 3 postwounding, at the level of 0.1 +/- 0.1 (mean +/- SEM) per skin/wound section. In day-5 to day-14 wounds, the number of EPCs increased gradually (1.3 +/- 0.5 at day 5 and 4.8 +/- 0.9 at day 10), peaking at day 14, when there was a significant increase in the number of EPCs per wound section (6.5 +/- 1.7) when compared to unwounded skin. Between days 14 and 18 postwounding, there was a rapid fall-off in the number of beta-gal(+) EPCs (0.8 +/- 0.5 at day 18) and numbers returned to baseline by day 21 (0.1 0.1). No evidence of vascular structures derived from BM-derived EPCs (in situ vasculogenesis) was observed and it was calculated that these cells contributed only 4.4% +/- 1.5% to total wound ECs at their peak. Conclusion. These findings indicate that the revascularization of dermal incisional wounds primarily occurs through angiogenesis because the low frequency and temporal expression of EPCs suggests that they do not make a significant contribution to the neovascularization process. (c) 2007 International Society for Experimental Hematology. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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