4.8 Article

Bone marrow cells adopt the cardiomyogenic fate in vivo

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0706406104

关键词

myocardial infarction; myocardial regeneration; stem cells; transdifferentiation

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL088243, R01 HL088243-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The possibility that adult bone marrow cells (BMCs) retain a remarkable degree of developmental plasticity and acquire the cardiomyocyte lineage after infarction has been challenged, and the notion of BMC transdifferentiation has been questioned. The center of the controversy is the lack of unequivocal evidence in favor of myocardial regeneration by the injection of BMCs in the infarcted heart. Because of the interest in cell-based therapy for heart failure, several approaches including gene reporter assay, genetic tagging, cell geno-typing, PCR-based detection of donor genes, and direct immunofluorescence with quantum dots were used to prove or disprove BMC transdifferentiation. Our results indicate that BMCs engraft, survive, and grow within the spared myocardium after infarction by forming junctional complexes with resident myocytes. BMCs and myocytes express at their interface connexin 43 and N-cadherin, and this interaction may be critical for BMCs to adopt the cardiomyogenic fate. With time, a large number of myocytes and coronary vessels are generated. Myocytes show a diploid DNA content and carry, at most, two sex chromosomes. Old and new myocytes show synchronicity in calcium transients, providing strong evidence in favor of the functional coupling of these two cell populations. Thus, BMCs transdifferentiate and acquire the cardiomyogenic and vascular phenotypes restoring the infarcted heart. Together, our studies reveal that locally delivered BMCs generate de novo myocardium composed of integrated cardiomyocytes and coronary vessels. This process occurs independently of cell fusion and ameliorates structurally and functionally the outcome of the heart after infarction.

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

4.8
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