4.7 Article

Human Umbilical Cord Blood-Derived Endothelial Cells Reendothelialize Vein Grafts and Prevent Thrombosis

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.110.207076

关键词

endothelial function; thrombosis; vascular biology; vascular surgery; integrin

资金

  1. American Heart Association [0815029E]
  2. National Institutes of Health [HL077185, HL073005, HL-44972, HL-88825]
  3. Edna and Fred L. Mandel, Jr., Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To accelerate vein graft reendothelialization and reduce vein graft thrombosis by infusing human umbilical cord blood-derived endothelial cells (hCB-ECs) because loss of endothelium contributes to vein graft thrombosis and neointimal hyperplasia. Methods and Results-Under steady flow conditions in vitro, hCB-ECs adhered to smooth muscle cells 2.5 to 13 times more than ECs derived from peripheral blood or human aorta (P<0.05). Compared with peripheral blood and human aorta ECs, hCB-ECs had 1.4-fold more cell surface alpha(5)beta(1) integrin heterodimers per cell (P<0.05) and proliferated on fibronectin 4-to 10-fold more rapidly (P<0.05). Therefore, we used hCB-ECs to enhance reendothelialization of carotid interposition vein grafts implanted in NOD.CB17-Prkdc(scid)/J mice. Two weeks postoperatively, vein grafts from hCB-EC-treated mice demonstrated approximately 55% reendothelialization and no luminal thrombosis. In contrast, vein grafts from sham-treated mice demonstrated luminal thrombosis in 75% of specimens (P<0.05) and only approximately 14% reendothelialization. In vein grafts from hCB-EC-treated mice, 33+/-10% of the endothelium was of human origin, as judged by human major histocompatibility class I expression. Conclusion-The hCB-ECs adhere to smooth muscle cells under flow conditions in vitro, accelerate vein graft reendothelialization in vivo, and prevent vein graft thrombosis. Thus, hCB-ECs offer novel therapeutic possibilities for vein graft disease. (Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2010; 30: 2150-2155.)

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