| Literature DB >> 22648662 |
J van Ark1, J Moser, C P H Lexis, F Bekkema, I Pop, I C C van der Horst, C J Zeebregts, H van Goor, B H R Wolffenbuttel, J L Hillebrands.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus have increased rates of macrovascular disease (MVD). Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), circulating angiogenic cells (CACs) and smooth muscle progenitor cells (SMPCs) are suggested to play a role in the pathogenesis of MVD. The relationship between vasoregenerative EPCs or CACs and damaging SMPCs and the development of accelerated MVD in diabetes is still unknown. We tried to elucidate whether EPC, CAC and SMPC numbers and differentiation capacities in vitro differ in patients with and without diabetes or MVD.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22648662 PMCID: PMC3411291 DOI: 10.1007/s00125-012-2590-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetologia ISSN: 0012-186X Impact factor: 10.122
Patient characteristics
| Characteristic | Type 2 diabetes without MVD ( | Type 2 diabetes with PAD ( | Type 2 diabetes with CAD ( | Healthy control ( | Non-type 2 diabetes with PAD ( | Non-type 2 diabetes with CAD ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | |||||||
| Age (years) | 58.6 ± 2.6 | 67.6 ± 1.6a | 66 ± 1.7b | 54.6 ± 1.0 | 59.6 ± 1.7 | 57.1 ± 2.4 | <0.001 |
| Sex (% male) | 7 (44) | 11 (55) | 7 (47) | 11 (58) | 15 (75) | 11 (69) | NS |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 32.9 ± 1.6c | 31.6 ± 1.9c | 31.2 ± 2.0c | 25.2 ± 0.7 | 23.2 ± 0.7 | 27.0 ± 1.0 | <0.001 |
| Type 2 diabetes duration (years) | 17.5 ± 2.2 | 12.1 ± 1.9 | 15.1 ± 2.0 | NS | |||
| Smoking (%) | 5 (31) | 4 (20) | 2 (13) | 3 (16) | 13 (65)j | 9 (56) | <0.01 |
| Hypertension (%) | 13 (81) | 16 (80) | 11 (73) | 3 (16)j | 13 (65) | 9 (56) | <0.001 |
| Metabolic variables | |||||||
| WBC count (106/ml) | 8.1 ± 1.0 | 8.9 ± 0.7 | 6,3 ± 0,4 | 5.9 ± 0.4d | 8.2 ± 0.5 | 6.5 ± 0.6 | <0.01 |
| Glucose (mmol/l) | 6.4 ± 0.4 | 8.6 ± 1.0e | 8.4 ± 0.8e | 5.5 ± 0.2 | 5.5 ± 0.4 | –g | <0.01 |
| HbA1c (%) | 8.0 ± 0.4f | 7.3 ± 0.3f | 7.7 ± 0.3f | 5.7 ± 0.1 | 6.0 ± 0.2 | 5.7 ± 0.1 | <0.001 |
| HbA1c (mmol/mol) | 64 ± 5f | 56 ± 3f | 61 ± 4f | 39 ± 1 | 42 ± 1.9 | 39 ± 1 | <0.001 |
| Cholesterol (mmol/l) | 4.1 ± 0.2 | 4.2 ± 0.2 | 4.4 ± 0.3 | 5.6 ± 0.2i | 4.7 ± 0.4 | 4.4 ± 0.3 | <0.01 |
| Triacylglycerol (mmol/l) | 1.7 ± 0.2 | 1.8 ± 0.1 | 2.5 ± 0.6 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 1.9 ± 0.3 | 1.8 ± 0.3 | NS |
| HDL-cholesterol (mmol/l) | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 1.7 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | NS |
| LDL-cholesterol (mmol/l) | 2.3 ± 0.1 | 2.2 ± 0.2 | 2.5 ± 0.3 | 3.4 ± 0.2j | 2.7 ± 0.3 | 2.7 ± 0.2 | <0.01 |
| Creatinine (μmol/l) | 67.0 ± 4 | 74.2 ± 5.3 | 76.4 ± 5.4 | 77.7 ± 3.7 | 77.8 ± 5.0 | 79.7 ± 3.4 | NS |
| Medication | |||||||
| Insulin (%) | 14 (88) | 10 (50) | 12 (80) | – | – | – | NS |
| Oral glucose-lowering agents (%) | 2 (13) | 4 (20) | 1 (7) | – | – | – | NS |
| Metformin (%) | 7 (44) | 14 (70) | 9 (60) | – | – | – | NS |
| Statins (%) | 11 (69) | 15 (75) | 13 (87) | 2 (11)j | 16 (80) | 16 (100) | <0.001 |
| ACE inhibitors (%) | 6 (38) | 8 (40) | 7 (47) | 1 (5)j | 10 (50) | 12 (75)j | <0.001 |
| Angiotensin II inhibitor (%) | 7 (44)d | 4 (20) | 3 (20) | 0 (0) | 3 (15) | 2 (13) | <0.05 |
| Beta blockers (%) | 3 (19) | 7 (35) | 11 (73)j | 1 (5)j | 3 (15) | 15 (94)j | <0.001 |
| Calcium antagonist (%) | 5 (31) | 6 (30) | 8 (53)j | 0 (0)j | 4 (20) | 1 (6) | <0.01 |
| Diuretics (%) | 9 (56) | 7 (35) | 8 (53) | 1 (5)j | 4 (20) | 4 (25) | <0.05 |
| Antiaggregants (%) | 4 (25) | 11 (55) | 13 (87) | 0 (0)j | 14 (70) | 15 (94)j | <0.001 |
| Anticoagulants (%) | 1 (6) | 4 (20) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (10) | 1 (6) | NS |
Data are presented as mean ± SEM
Statistically significant with ANOVA compared with:
aType 2 diabetic, non-type 2 diabetic with CAD, non-type 2 diabetic with PAD, and healthy
bNon-type 2 diabetic with CAD, and healthy
cNon-type 2 diabetic with PAD, and healthy
dType 2 diabetic with PAD
eHealthy and non-type 2 diabetic with PAD
fAll non-type 2 diabetic groups
gMeasurement not available
Statistically significant with ANOVA compared with:
hType 2 diabetic, type 2 diabetic with PAD, type 2 diabetic with CAD and non-type 2 diabetic with CAD
iType 2 diabetic, type 2 diabetic with PAD and type 2 diabetic with CAD
jStatistically significant with χ 2 test
Fig. 1Circulating EPC levels are reduced in type 2 diabetes. (a) Representative FACS plots and gating profile set on the basis of the isotype control sample as used for the quantification of CD34+ cells and CD34+KDR+ cells. (b) CD34+ cell levels were 1.3-fold lower in type 2 diabetic patients compared with healthy controls. (c) In patients with type 2 diabetes, similar levels of circulating CD34+ cells were observed in patients with and without MVD. (d) In non-diabetic individuals with MVD the total number of CD34+ cells was similar to that in healthy controls. (e) CD34+KDR+ cell levels were 1.7-fold lower in type 2 diabetic patients compared with healthy controls. (f) In type 2 diabetes, similar levels of circulating CD34+KDR+ cells were observed in patients with and without MVD. (g) In non-diabetic individuals with MVD the number of CD34+KDR+ cells was significantly reduced compared with healthy controls. Data are expressed as mean values ± SEM; *p < 0.05. T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus
Fig. 2SMPC levels are increased in patients with MVD but without type 2 diabetes. (a) SMPCs were identified within a monocyte gate based on forward and side scatter characteristics. Within the monocyte gate, CD14+ cells expressing CD105 were quantified based on the isotype (IgG1) control. (b) SMPC levels were similar between type 2 diabetic patients and healthy controls. c Within type 2 diabetic patients there were no differences in the SMPC frequencies between patients with and without MVD. (d) Within non-diabetic patients, individuals with MVD had 2.2-fold higher circulating SMPC levels compared with healthy controls. (e) Only the presence of PAD was associated with increased numbers of SMPCs compared with healthy controls (p < 0.01) and CAD (p < 0.05). Data are expressed as mean values ± SEM; *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus
Fig. 3The phenotype of in vitro cultured HUVECs, HASMCs, CACs and SMPCs. Pictures were taken at × 200 and × 630 (inset) magnification. (a) HUVECs and (b) HASMCs were used as positive controls for the assessment of expression of EC and SMC differentiation markers. (c) CACs contained collagen type 1, KDR and eNOS, but not α-SMA. (d) SMPCs contained α-SMA, collagen type 1, KDR and eNOS. Nuclear staining is shown in blue (DAPI) while positive staining with the respective antibodies is shown in red. Col1, collagen type 1. BF, Bright field
Fig. 4CAC outgrowth in culture is reduced in type 2 diabetic patients. (a,b) Representative images and corresponding scatterplots of DAPI-stained CAC nuclei, which were quantified with the TissueFAXS system. The scatterplots show the total number of nuclei that were quantified in a fixed region in a representative healthy control (a) and a type 2 diabetic patient without MVD (b). (c) CAC outgrowth was reduced 1.5-fold in type 2 diabetic patients compared with healthy controls. (d) Within type 2 diabetic individuals, patients with MVD displayed a 1.5-fold reduction in the number of outgrowth CACs compared with type 2 diabetic patients without MVD. (e) Within non-type 2 diabetic individuals, similar CAC levels were observed in individuals with and without MVD. (f,g) The presence of eNOS was assessed using TissueFAXS analysis: (f) negative control staining; and (g) eNOS staining. (h) The percentage of CACs containing eNOS was increased in type 2 diabetic patients compared with healthy controls (h), but not according to MVD status in type 2 diabetic patients (i). (j) Individuals with MVD but not type 2 diabetes had significantly higher frequencies of CACs containing eNOS compared with healthy controls. Data are expressed as mean values ± SEM; *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001. T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus
Fig. 5SMPC outgrowth is increased in non-type 2 diabetic patients with PAD. (a,b) Representative images and corresponding scatterplots of DAPI-stained SMPC nuclei quantified with the TissueFAXS system. The scatterplots show the total number of nuclei that were quantified in a fixed region in a representative healthy control (a) and a non-type 2 diabetic patient with PAD (b). (c) There was no significant difference in SMPC numbers between type 2 diabetic patients and healthy controls. (d) Within type 2 diabetic patients, similar SMPC numbers were detected in patients with and without MVD. (e) Within non-diabetic individuals, patients with MVD had a 1.8-fold increase in the number of outgrowth SMPCs compared with healthy controls. (f) Within non-diabetic patients, SMPC levels were increased 2.0-fold in PAD patients compared with healthy controls. (g,h) The presence of α-SMA was assessed using TissueFAXS analysis: (g) negative control staining; and (h) α-SMA staining. There was a tendency towards increased percentages of α-SMA+ outgrowth SMPCs in: (i) type 2 diabetic patients with and without MVD compared with healthy controls; (j) type 2 diabetic patients with MVD, compared with those without MVD; and (k) non-type 2 diabetic patients with MVD compared with healthy controls. Data are expressed as mean values ± SEM; *p < 0.05. T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus
Fig. 6The CAC/SMPC ratio (cells per mm2) is decreased in type 2 diabetic patients and individuals with MVD. (a) The CAC/SMPC ratio shows a 2.3-fold decrease in type 2 diabetic patients compared with healthy controls. (b) Within non-diabetic individuals, the CAC/SMPC ratio was decreased 2.9-fold in patients with MVD compared with healthy controls. (c) Within patients with type 2 diabetes there was no difference in the CAC/SMPC ratio between patients with or without MVD. Data are expressed as mean values ± SEM; ***p < 0.001. T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus