4.5 Article

A distinct type of cell in myocardium: interstitial Cajal-like cells (ICLCs)

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR MEDICINE
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 295-308

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00668.x

关键词

interstial Cajal-like cells (ICLCs); myocardium; adult mesenchymal stem cells; cardiac repair; shedding (micro)vesicles; arrhytmogenesis; vimentin; c-kit; CD34; chemo-mechanical transducers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The existence of a novel type of interstitial cells in the heart, interstitial Cajal-like cells (ICLCs), had been described for the first time in 2005. Their identification was mainly based on ultrastructural criteria: very long (tens up to hundreds of micrometres) and moniliform prolongations, which are extremely thin (less than 0.2 mu m), below the resolving power of light microscopy. Myocardial ICLCs were also identified by methylene-blue vital staining, silver impregnation, and immunoreactivity for CD 34, vimentin, CD117/c-kit, etc. Although a series of studies provided evidence for the existence of ICLCs in human atria and rat ventricles, further investigations in other laboratories, using additional techniques, are required to substantiate the consistency of these findings. Here we provide further evidence for the existence of ICLCs in human and mammalian hearts (by transmission and scanning electron microscopy, as well as confocal laser scanning microscopy). Noteworthy, we confirm that ICLCs communicate with neighbouring cells via shedding (micro) vesicles. Although these so-called ICLCs represent a distinct type of cells, different from classical interstitial cells of Cajal, or fibroblasts, their role(s) in myocardium remain(s) to be established. Several hypotheses are proposed: (i) adult stromal (mesenchymal) stem cells, which might participate in cardiac repair/remodelling; (ii) intercellular signalling (e. g. via shedding microvesicles); (iii) chemo-mechanical transducers and (iv) players in pacemaking and/or arrhytmogenesis, and so on.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据