4.6 Review

Human Embryonic Stem Cells vs Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells for Cardiac Repair

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 11, Pages 1279-1287

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2014.06.023

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Israel Science Foundation (ISF) [638/09, 292/13]
  2. Israeli Ministry of Health-Chief Scientist
  3. Ministry of Science, Technology and Space [2019093]
  4. Rappaport Institute
  5. Sohnis and Forman Families Stem Cells Center
  6. USPHS-NHLBI [1R01HL111401]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) and human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) have the capacity to differentiate into any specialized cell type, including cardiomyocytes. Therefore, hESC-derived and hiPSC-derived cardiomyocytes (hESC-CMs and hiPSC-CMs, respectively) offer great potential for cardiac regenerative medicine. Unlike some organs, the heart has a limited ability to regenerate, and dysfunction resulting from significant cardiomyocyte loss under pathophysiological conditions, such as myocardial infarction (MI), can lead to heart failure. Unfortunately, for patients with end-stage heart failure, heart transplantation remains the main alternative, and it is insufficient, mainly because of the limited availability of donor organs. Although left ventricular assist devices are progressively entering clinical practice as a bridge to transplantation and even as an optional therapy, cell replacement therapy presents a plausible alternative to donor organ transplantation. During the past decade, multiple candidate cells were proposed for cardiac regeneration, and their mechanisms of action in the myocardium have been explored. The purpose of this article is to critically review the comprehensive research involving the use of hESCs and hiPSCs in MI models and to discuss current controversies, unresolved issues, challenges, and future directions.

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