4.5 Article

Conversion of human cardiac progenitor cells into cardiac pacemaker-like cells

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2019.09.015

关键词

hADMSCs; CPCs; Sinoatrial node; HCN; Pacemaker cells

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R15HL141963, R15HL124458]
  2. American Heart Association (AHA) [18AIREA33960175]
  3. Robert J. Kleberg, Jr. and Helen C. Kleberg Foundation
  4. Center for Advanced Science in Space

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We used a screening strategy to test for reprogramming factors for the conversion of human cardiac progenitor cells (CPCs) into Pacemaker-like cells. Human transcription factors SHOX2, TBX3, TBX5, TBX18, and the channel protein HCN2, were transiently induced as single factors and in trio combinations into CPCs, first transduced with the connexin 30.2 (CX30.2) mCherry reporter. Following screens for reporter CX30.2 mCherry gene activation and FACS enrichment, we observed the definitive expression of many pacemaker specific genes; including, CX30.2, KCNN4, HCN4, HCN3, HCNI, and SCN3b. These findings suggest that the SHOX2, HCN2, and TBX5 (SHT5) combination of transcription factors is a much better candidate in driving the CPCs into Pacemaker-like cells than other combinations and single transcription factors. Additionally, single-cell RNA sequencing of SHT5 mCherry + cells revealed cellular enrichment of pacemaker specific genes including TBX3, KCNN4, CX30.2, and BMP2, as well as pacemaker specific potassium and calcium channels (KCND2, KCNK2, and CACNB1). In addition, similar to human and mouse sinoatrial node (SAN) studies, we also observed the down-regulation of NKX2.5. Patch-clamp recordings of the converted Pacemaker-like cells exhibited HCN currents demonstrated the functional characteristic of pacemaker cells. These studies will facilitate the development of an optimal Pacemaker-like cell-based therapy within failing hearts through the recovery of SAN dysfunction.

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