BACKGROUND: Cardiosphere-derived cells (CDCs) are an attractive cell type for tissue regeneration, and autologous CDCs are being tested clinically. However, autologous therapy necessitates patient-specific tissue harvesting and cell processing, with delays to therapy and possible variations in cell potency. The use of allogeneic CDCs, if safe and effective, would obviate such limitations. We compared syngeneic and allogeneic CDC transplantation in rats from immunologically-mismatched inbred strains. METHODS AND RESULTS: In vitro, CDCs expressed major histocompatibility complex class I but not class II antigens or B7 costimulatory molecules. In mixed-lymphocyte cocultures, allogeneic CDCs elicited negligible lymphocyte proliferation and inflammatory cytokine secretion. In vivo, syngeneic and allogeneic CDCs survived at similar levels in the infarcted rat heart 1 week after delivery, but few syngeneic (and even fewer allogeneic) CDCs remained at 3 weeks. Allogeneic CDCs induced a transient, mild, local immune reaction in the heart, without histologically evident rejection or systemic immunogenicity. Improvements in cardiac structure and function, sustained for 6 months, were comparable with syngeneic and allogeneic CDCs. Allogeneic CDCs stimulated endogenous regenerative mechanisms (cardiomyocyte cycling, recruitment of c-kit(+) cells, angiogenesis) and increased myocardial vascular endothelial growth factor, insulin-like growth factor-1, and hepatocyte growth factor equally with syngeneic CDCs. CONCLUSIONS: Allogeneic CDC transplantation without immunosuppression is safe, promotes cardiac regeneration, and improves heart function in a rat myocardial infarction model, mainly through stimulation of endogenous repair mechanisms. The indirect mechanism of action rationalizes the persistence of benefit despite the evanescence of transplanted cell survival. This work motivates the testing of allogeneic human CDCs as a potential off-the-shelf product for cellular cardiomyoplasty.
BACKGROUND: Cardiosphere-derived cells (CDCs) are an attractive cell type for tissue regeneration, and autologous CDCs are being tested clinically. However, autologous therapy necessitates patient-specific tissue harvesting and cell processing, with delays to therapy and possible variations in cell potency. The use of allogeneic CDCs, if safe and effective, would obviate such limitations. We compared syngeneic and allogeneic CDC transplantation in rats from immunologically-mismatched inbred strains. METHODS AND RESULTS: In vitro, CDCs expressed major histocompatibility complex class I but not class II antigens or B7 costimulatory molecules. In mixed-lymphocyte cocultures, allogeneic CDCs elicited negligible lymphocyte proliferation and inflammatory cytokine secretion. In vivo, syngeneic and allogeneic CDCs survived at similar levels in the infarctedrat heart 1 week after delivery, but few syngeneic (and even fewer allogeneic) CDCs remained at 3 weeks. Allogeneic CDCs induced a transient, mild, local immune reaction in the heart, without histologically evident rejection or systemic immunogenicity. Improvements in cardiac structure and function, sustained for 6 months, were comparable with syngeneic and allogeneic CDCs. Allogeneic CDCs stimulated endogenous regenerative mechanisms (cardiomyocyte cycling, recruitment of c-kit(+) cells, angiogenesis) and increased myocardial vascular endothelial growth factor, insulin-like growth factor-1, and hepatocyte growth factor equally with syngeneic CDCs. CONCLUSIONS: Allogeneic CDC transplantation without immunosuppression is safe, promotes cardiac regeneration, and improves heart function in a ratmyocardial infarction model, mainly through stimulation of endogenous repair mechanisms. The indirect mechanism of action rationalizes the persistence of benefit despite the evanescence of transplanted cell survival. This work motivates the testing of allogeneic humanCDCs as a potential off-the-shelf product for cellular cardiomyoplasty.
Authors: Konstantinos E Hatzistergos; Henry Quevedo; Behzad N Oskouei; Qinghua Hu; Gary S Feigenbaum; Irene S Margitich; Ramesh Mazhari; Andrew J Boyle; Juan P Zambrano; Jose E Rodriguez; Raul Dulce; Pradip M Pattany; David Valdes; Concepcion Revilla; Alan W Heldman; Ian McNiece; Joshua M Hare Journal: Circ Res Date: 2010-07-29 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Liudmila Zakharova; Diego Mastroeni; Nezahet Mutlu; Michelle Molina; Steven Goldman; Edward Diethrich; Mohamed A Gaballa Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2010-01-29 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: Rachana Mishra; Kalpana Vijayan; Evan J Colletti; Daniel A Harrington; Thomas S Matthiesen; David Simpson; Saik Kia Goh; Brandon L Walker; Graça Almeida-Porada; Deli Wang; Carl L Backer; Samuel C Dudley; Loren E Wold; Sunjay Kaushal Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-01-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Konstantinos Malliaras; Raj R Makkar; Rachel R Smith; Ke Cheng; Edwin Wu; Robert O Bonow; Linda Marbán; Adam Mendizabal; Eugenio Cingolani; Peter V Johnston; Gary Gerstenblith; Karl H Schuleri; Albert C Lardo; Eduardo Marbán Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Eugenia R Nuzzolo; Sara Capodimonti; Maurizio Martini; Maria G Iachininoto; Maria Bianchi; Alessandra Cocomazzi; Gina Zini; Giuseppe Leone; Luigi M Larocca; Luciana Teofili Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Jae Hyung Cho; Peter J Kilfoil; Rui Zhang; Ryan E Solymani; Catherine Bresee; Elliot M Kang; Kristin Luther; Russell G Rogers; Geoffrey de Couto; Joshua I Goldhaber; Eduardo Marbán; Eugenio Cingolani Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2018-10-04
Authors: Xuwei Hou; Nancy Appleby; Tania Fuentes; Lawrence D Longo; Leonard L Bailey; Nahidh Hasaniya; Mary Kearns-Jonker Journal: J Clin Exp Cardiolog Date: 2012-10-11