4.6 Article

Chemokine/ITGA4 Interaction Directs iPSC-Derived Myogenic Progenitor Migration to Injury Sites in Aging Muscle for Regeneration

期刊

CELLS
卷 12, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells12141837

关键词

ITGA4; chemokines; migration; muscle progenitor cell; muscle injury; sarcopenia; aging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The failure of muscle repair in aging may lead to muscle mass loss. Muscle progenitor cells (MPCs) were generated from human iPSC cell lines using small molecules. It was found that ITGA4, heavily expressed in Givi-MPCs, plays a role in directing MPC migration to the injury site.
The failure of muscle to repair after injury during aging may be a major contributor to muscle mass loss. We recently generated muscle progenitor cells (MPCs) from human-induced pluripotent stem-cell (iPSC) cell lines using small molecules, CHIR99021 and Givinostat (Givi-MPCs) sequentially. Here, we test whether the chemokines overexpressed in injured endothelial cells direct MPC migration to the site by binding to their receptor, ITGA4. ITGA4 was heavily expressed in Givi-MPCs. To study the effects on the mobilization of Givi-MPCs, ITGA4 was knocked down by an ITGA4 shRNA lentiviral vector. With and without ITGA4 knocked down, cell migration in vitro and cell mobilization in vivo using aged NOD scid gamma (NSG) mice and mdx/scid mice were analyzed. The migration of shITGA4-Givi-MPCs was significantly impaired, as shown in a wound-healing assay. The knockdown of ITGA4 impaired the migration of Givi-MPCs towards human aortic endothelial cells (HAECs), in which CX3CL1 and VCAM-1 were up-regulated by the treatment of TNF-& alpha; compared with scramble ones using a transwell system. MPCs expressing ITGA4 sensed chemokines secreted by endothelial cells at the injury site as a chemoattracting signal to migrate to the injured muscle. The mobilization of Givi-MPCs was mediated by the ligand-receptor interaction, which facilitated their engraftment for repairing the sarcopenic muscle with injury.

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

4.6
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