AIM: Cell-based therapies are a potential therapeutic alternative for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, transplanted cells undergo significant death in the living subject. Hypoxic preconditioning (HPC) is a potential intervention to increase transplanted cell survival. However, the biological mechanisms of this benefit remain unclear. We hypothesize that the beneficial effect of HPC on stem cell survival is in part due to preservation of oxidant status, an effect that will be monitored using state-of-the-art molecular imaging. METHODS: H9c2 rat cardiomyoblasts expressing the construct CMV-firefly luciferase (h9c2-fluc), with and without HPC, were exposed to hypoxia, and oxidative stress and cell survival were measured. Subsequently, H9c2-fluc cells, with and without HPC, were injected into the myocardium of rats and cell survival was monitored daily with Bioluminescence (BLI) using a CCD camera. RESULTS: Compared to controls, cells exposed to hypoxia had increased amount of reactive oxygen species (ROS, control: 14.1±0.9 vs. hypoxia: 19.5 ± 2.0 RFU/µg protein, P=0.02) and decreased cell survival (control: 0.29 ± 0.005 vs. hypoxia: 0.24 ± 0.005 OD, P<0.001). HPC treatment decreased the amount of hypoxia-induced ROS (HPC: 11.5 ± 0.7RFU/µg protein, P=0.002 vs. hypoxia and P=0.11 vs. control), associated with improved survival (HPC: 0.27 ± 0.004OD/µg protein, P=0.002 vs. hypoxia and P=0.005 vs. control). Most importantly, compared to un-conditioned cells, HPC-cells had increased cell survival after transplantation to the myocardium (C: 34.7 ± 6.7% vs. HPC: 83.4 ± 17.5% at day 5 compared to day 1, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: The beneficial effect of HPC is in part due to preservation of oxidant status. Molecular imaging can assess changes in cell survival in the living subject and has the potential to be applied clinically.
AIM: Cell-based therapies are a potential therapeutic alternative for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, transplanted cells undergo significant death in the living subject. Hypoxic preconditioning (HPC) is a potential intervention to increase transplanted cell survival. However, the biological mechanisms of this benefit remain unclear. We hypothesize that the beneficial effect of HPC on stem cell survival is in part due to preservation of oxidant status, an effect that will be monitored using state-of-the-art molecular imaging. METHODS:H9c2rat cardiomyoblasts expressing the construct CMV-firefly luciferase (h9c2-fluc), with and without HPC, were exposed to hypoxia, and oxidative stress and cell survival were measured. Subsequently, H9c2-fluc cells, with and without HPC, were injected into the myocardium of rats and cell survival was monitored daily with Bioluminescence (BLI) using a CCD camera. RESULTS: Compared to controls, cells exposed to hypoxia had increased amount of reactive oxygen species (ROS, control: 14.1±0.9 vs. hypoxia: 19.5 ± 2.0 RFU/µg protein, P=0.02) and decreased cell survival (control: 0.29 ± 0.005 vs. hypoxia: 0.24 ± 0.005 OD, P<0.001). HPC treatment decreased the amount of hypoxia-induced ROS (HPC: 11.5 ± 0.7RFU/µg protein, P=0.002 vs. hypoxia and P=0.11 vs. control), associated with improved survival (HPC: 0.27 ± 0.004OD/µg protein, P=0.002 vs. hypoxia and P=0.005 vs. control). Most importantly, compared to un-conditioned cells, HPC-cells had increased cell survival after transplantation to the myocardium (C: 34.7 ± 6.7% vs. HPC: 83.4 ± 17.5% at day 5 compared to day 1, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: The beneficial effect of HPC is in part due to preservation of oxidant status. Molecular imaging can assess changes in cell survival in the living subject and has the potential to be applied clinically.
Authors: Dmitri V Baklanov; Ebo D de Muinck; Michael Simons; Karen L Moodie; Brenda E Arbuckle; Craig A Thompson; Robert T Palac Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alejandro R Chade; Oren P Mushin; Xiangyang Zhu; Martin Rodriguez-Porcel; Joseph P Grande; Stephen C Textor; Amir Lerman; Lilach O Lerman Journal: Hypertension Date: 2005-09-19 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Véronique L Roger; Steven J Jacobsen; Susan A Weston; Tauqir Y Goraya; Jill Killian; Guy S Reeder; Thomas E Kottke; Barbara P Yawn; Robert L Frye Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-03-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: D Orlic; J Kajstura; S Chimenti; I Jakoniuk; S M Anderson; B Li; J Pickel; R McKay; B Nadal-Ginard; D M Bodine; A Leri; P Anversa Journal: Nature Date: 2001-04-05 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Martin Rodriguez-Porcel; Olivier Gheysens; Ramasamy Paulmurugan; Ian Y Chen; Karen M Peterson; Jürgen K Willmann; Joseph C Wu; Xiangyang Zhu; Lilach O Lerman; Sanjiv S Gambhir Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Joseph C Wu; Ian Y Chen; Gobalakrishnan Sundaresan; Jung-Joon Min; Abhijit De; Jian-Hua Qiao; Michael C Fishbein; Sanjiv S Gambhir Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-09-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ken Suzuki; Bari Murtuza; Jonathan R Beauchamp; Ryszard T Smolenski; Anabel Varela-Carver; Satsuki Fukushima; Steven R Coppen; Terence A Partridge; Magdi H Yacoub Journal: FASEB J Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Martin Rodriguez-Porcel; Marvin W Kronenberg; Timothy D Henry; Jay H Traverse; Carl J Pepine; Stephen G Ellis; James T Willerson; Lemuel A Moyé; Robert D Simari Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-05
Authors: Karl D Pendergrass; Archana V Boopathy; Gokulakrishnan Seshadri; Kathryn Maiellaro-Rafferty; Pao Lin Che; Milton E Brown; Michael E Davis Journal: Stem Cells Dev Date: 2013-05-25 Impact factor: 3.272
Authors: Alfonso Eirin; Behzad Ebrahimi; Soon Hyo Kwon; Justin A Fiala; Barbara J Williams; John R Woollard; Quan He; Ramech C Gupta; Hani N Sabbah; Y S Prakash; Stephen C Textor; Amir Lerman; Lilach O Lerman Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 5.501