4.6 Article

Lack of specificity of fibroblast-specific protein 1 in cardiac remodeling and fibrosis

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00395.2013

关键词

cardiac fibrosis; myocardial infarction; fibroblast; cardiac remodeling; periostin

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [R01-HL-85440, R01-HL-76246]
  2. Wilf Family Cardiovascular Research Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the role of fibroblasts in pathologic conditions is hampered by the absence of specific markers. Fibroblast-specific protein (FSP) 1 has been suggested as a fibroblast-specific marker in normal and fibrotic tissues; FSP1 reporter mice and FSP1-Cre-driven gene deletion are considered reliable strategies to investigate fibroblast biology. Because fibroblasts are abundant in normal and injured mammalian hearts, we studied the identity of FSP1(+) cells in the infarcted and remodeling myocardium using mice with green fluorescent protein (GFP) expression driven by the FSP1 promoter. Neonatal and adult mouse hearts had low numbers of FSP+ cells. Myocardial infarction induced marked infiltration with FSP1-expressing cells that peaked after 72 h of reperfusion. Using flow cytometry, we identified 50% of FSP1(+) cells as hematopoietic cells; many endothelial cells were also FSP1(+). Increased infiltration with FSP1(+) cells was also noted in the pressure-overloaded myocardium. Although some FSP1(+) cells had fibroblast morphology, > 30% were identified as hematopoietic cells, endothelial cells, or vascular smooth muscle cells. In contrast, periostin did not stain leukocytes or vascular cells but labeled spindle-shaped interstitial cells and, as a typical matricellular protein, was deposited in the matrix. CD11b(+) myeloid cells sorted from the infarcted heart had higher FSP1 expression than corresponding CD11b-negative cells, highlighting the predominant expression by hematopoietic cells. FSP1 is not a specific marker for fibroblasts in cardiac remodeling and fibrosis.

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