RATIONALE: Although bone marrow endothelial progenitor cell (EPC)-based therapies improve the symptoms in patients with ischemic heart disease, their limited plasticity and decreased function in patients with existing heart disease limit the full benefit of EPC therapy for cardiac regenerative medicine. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that reprogramming mouse or human EPCs, or both, using small molecules targeting key epigenetic repressive marks would lead to a global increase in active gene transcription, induce their cardiomyogenic potential, and enhance their inherent angiogenic potential. METHOD AND RESULTS: Mouse Lin-Sca1(+)CD31(+) EPCs and human CD34(+) cells were treated with inhibitors of DNA methyltransferases (5-Azacytidine), histone deacetylases (valproic acid), and G9a histone dimethyltransferase. A 48-hour treatment led to global increase in active transcriptome, including the reactivation of pluripotency-associated and cardiomyocyte-specific mRNA expression, whereas endothelial cell-specific genes were significantly upregulated. When cultured under appropriate differentiation conditions, reprogrammed EPCs showed efficient differentiation into cardiomyocytes. Treatment with epigenetic-modifying agents show marked increase in histone acetylation on cardiomyocyte and pluripotent cell-specific gene promoters. Intramyocardial transplantation of reprogrammed mouse and human EPCs in an acute myocardial infarction mouse model showed significant improvement in ventricular functions, which was histologically supported by their de novo cardiomyocyte differentiation and increased capillary density and reduced fibrosis. Importantly, cell transplantation was safe and did not form teratomas. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our results suggest that epigenetically reprogrammed EPCs display a safe, more plastic phenotype and improve postinfarct cardiac repair by both neocardiomyogenesis and neovascularization.
RATIONALE: Although bone marrow endothelial progenitor cell (EPC)-based therapies improve the symptoms in patients with ischemic heart disease, their limited plasticity and decreased function in patients with existing heart disease limit the full benefit of EPC therapy for cardiac regenerative medicine. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that reprogramming mouse or human EPCs, or both, using small molecules targeting key epigenetic repressive marks would lead to a global increase in active gene transcription, induce their cardiomyogenic potential, and enhance their inherent angiogenic potential. METHOD AND RESULTS:Mouse Lin-Sca1(+)CD31(+) EPCs and humanCD34(+) cells were treated with inhibitors of DNA methyltransferases (5-Azacytidine), histone deacetylases (valproic acid), and G9a histone dimethyltransferase. A 48-hour treatment led to global increase in active transcriptome, including the reactivation of pluripotency-associated and cardiomyocyte-specific mRNA expression, whereas endothelial cell-specific genes were significantly upregulated. When cultured under appropriate differentiation conditions, reprogrammed EPCs showed efficient differentiation into cardiomyocytes. Treatment with epigenetic-modifying agents show marked increase in histone acetylation on cardiomyocyte and pluripotent cell-specific gene promoters. Intramyocardial transplantation of reprogrammed mouse and human EPCs in an acute myocardial infarctionmouse model showed significant improvement in ventricular functions, which was histologically supported by their de novo cardiomyocyte differentiation and increased capillary density and reduced fibrosis. Importantly, cell transplantation was safe and did not form teratomas. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our results suggest that epigenetically reprogrammed EPCs display a safe, more plastic phenotype and improve postinfarct cardiac repair by both neocardiomyogenesis and neovascularization.
Authors: M Vasa; S Fichtlscherer; A Aicher; K Adler; C Urbich; H Martin; A M Zeiher; S Dimmeler Journal: Circ Res Date: 2001-07-06 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Debbie S Gipson; Howard Trachtman; Frederick J Kaskel; Tom H Greene; Milena K Radeva; Jennifer J Gassman; Marva M Moxey-Mims; Ronald J Hogg; Sandra L Watkins; Richard N Fine; Susan L Hogan; John P Middleton; V Matti Vehaskari; Patti A Flynn; Leslie M Powell; Suzanne M Vento; June L McMahan; Norman Siegel; Vivette D D'Agati; Aaron L Friedman Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Bodo E Strauer; Michael Brehm; Tobias Zeus; Matthias Köstering; Anna Hernandez; Rüdiger V Sorg; Gesine Kögler; Peter Wernet Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: M B Britten; N D Abolmaali; B Assmus; R Lehmann; J Honold; J Schmitt; T J Vogl; H Martin; V Schächinger; S Dimmeler; A M Zeiher Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-10-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Cindy J M Loomans; Eelco J P de Koning; Frank J T Staal; Maarten B Rookmaaker; Caroline Verseyden; Hetty C de Boer; Marianne C Verhaar; Branko Braam; Ton J Rabelink; Anton-Jan van Zonneveld Journal: Diabetes Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Charles E Murry; Mark H Soonpaa; Hans Reinecke; Hidehiro Nakajima; Hisako O Nakajima; Michael Rubart; Kishore B S Pasumarthi; Jitka Ismail Virag; Stephen H Bartelmez; Veronica Poppa; Gillian Bradford; Joshua D Dowell; David A Williams; Loren J Field Journal: Nature Date: 2004-03-21 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Leora B Balsam; Amy J Wagers; Julie L Christensen; Theo Kofidis; Irving L Weissman; Robert C Robbins Journal: Nature Date: 2004-03-21 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Bryon A Tompkins; Wayne Balkan; Johannes Winkler; Mariann Gyöngyösi; Georg Goliasch; Francisco Fernández-Avilés; Joshua M Hare Journal: Circ Res Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Yujia Yue; Venkata Naga Srikanth Garikipati; Suresh Kumar Verma; David A Goukassian; Raj Kishore Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 3.845