4.7 Article

Circulating progenitor cells can be reliably identified on the basis of aldehyde dehydrogenase activity

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 50, 期 23, 页码 2243-2248

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.08.033

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [K-18 HL081419-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Our objective was to develop and assess a novel endogenous progenitor cell (EPC) assay based on aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) activity, and to define the relationship of ALDH-bright (ALDH br) cells with previously defined EPCs, patient age, and extent of coronary artery disease. Background Accurate assessment of circulating EPCs is of significant interest, yet current assays have limitations. Progenitor cells display high levels of ALDH activity. An assay based on ALDH activity may offer a simple means for enumerating EPCs. Methods We simultaneously determined the numbers of EPCs based on ALDH activity and cell surface expression of CD133, CD34, and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 in :110 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. We assessed the reproducibility of these estimates, correlation among EPC assays, and the association of ALDH br numbers with age and disease severity. Results Aldehyde dehydrogenase-bright cells were easily identified in nonmobilized peripheral blood with median and mean frequencies of 0.041% and 0.074%, respectively. Aldehyde dehydrogenase-bright cells expressed CD34 or CD133 cell surface markers (57.0% and 27.1%, respectively), correlated closely with CD133'CD34' cells (r = 0.72; p < 0.001), and differentiated into endothelial cells with greater efficiency than CD133(+)CD34(+) cells. Aldehyde dehydrogenasebright cell numbers were inversely associated with patient age and coronary disease severity. Conclusions Aldehyde dehydrogenase activity represents a novel simplified method for quantifying EPCs. The correlation of ALDH br cells with clinical factors and outcomes warrants further study.

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

4.7
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