4.6 Article

Cell composition of the human pulmonary valve: A comparative study with the aortic valve - The VESALIO* project

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 70, Issue 5, Pages 1594-1600

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-4975(00)01979-2

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Cell populations present in human semilunar valves have not been investigated thoroughly. The aim of this study was to characterize the cell phenotypes in pulmonary valve leaflets (PVL) in comparison with aortic (AVL) valve leaflets. Methods. AVL and PVL were dissected from hearts (n = 4) harvested from transplanted patients. Leaflets were processed for immunocytochemistry analysis and Western blotting procedures using a panel of monoclonal antibodies specific for cytoskeletal/contractile antigens. Results. The fibrosa and the ventricularis layers of AVL had a higher cellularity than PVL. In PVL and AVL most cells were reactive for vimentin and nonmuscle (NM) myosin, though vimentin-positive cells were more abundant in AVL than in PVL. Sparse cells positive to antismooth muscle (SM) alpha -actin, calponin, and anti-SM myosin antibodies were found only at the outer edge of fibrosa. In Western blotting, AVL and PVL extracts were shown to be equally reactive for vimentin, SM alpha -actin, and NM myosin, whereas both valves were negative for SM myosin and SM22. Conclusions. Three distinct cell phenotypes have been identified in both valves: fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, and fetal-type SM cells whose distribution is specifically related to the valve layers. Although PVL and AVL cell populations differ quantitatively, some minor qualitative differences exist for vimentin and NM myosin distribution. These data are essential for studies aimed at repopulating valve scaffolds by using tissue engineering technology. (Ann Thorac Surg 2000;70:1594-600) (C) 2000 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

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