BACKGROUND: Blood-derived circulatory angiogenic cells (CACs) and resident cardiac stem cells (CSCs) have both been shown to improve cardiac function after myocardial infarction. The superiority of either cell type has long been an area of speculation with no definitive head-to-head trial. In this study, we compared the effect of human CACs and CSCs, alone or in combination, on myocardial function in an immunodeficient mouse model of myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: CACs and CSCs were cultured from left atrial appendages and blood samples obtained from patients undergoing clinically indicated heart surgery. CACs expressed a broader cytokine profile than CSCs, with 3 cytokines in common. Coculture of CACs and CSCs further enhanced the production of stromal cell-derived factor-1α and vascular endothelial growth factor (P ≤ 0.05). Conditioned media promoted equivalent vascular networks and CAC recruitment with superior effects using cocultured conditioned media. Intramyocardial injection of CACs or CSCs alone improved myocardial function and reduced scar burdens when injected 1 week after myocardial infarction (P ≤ 0.05 versus negative controls). Cotransplantation of CACs and CSCs together improved myocardial function and reduced scar burdens to a greater extent than either stem cell therapy alone (P ≤ 0.05 versus CAC or CSC injection alone). CONCLUSIONS: CACs and CSCs provide unique paracrine repertoires with equivalent effects on angiogenesis, stem cell migration, and myocardial repair. Combination therapy with both cell types synergistically improves postinfarct myocardial function greater than either therapy alone. This synergy is likely mediated by the complimentary paracrine signatures that promote revascularization and the growth of new myocardium.
BACKGROUND: Blood-derived circulatory angiogenic cells (CACs) and resident cardiac stem cells (CSCs) have both been shown to improve cardiac function after myocardial infarction. The superiority of either cell type has long been an area of speculation with no definitive head-to-head trial. In this study, we compared the effect of human CACs and CSCs, alone or in combination, on myocardial function in an immunodeficientmouse model of myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: CACs and CSCs were cultured from left atrial appendages and blood samples obtained from patients undergoing clinically indicated heart surgery. CACs expressed a broader cytokine profile than CSCs, with 3 cytokines in common. Coculture of CACs and CSCs further enhanced the production of stromal cell-derived factor-1α and vascular endothelial growth factor (P ≤ 0.05). Conditioned media promoted equivalent vascular networks and CAC recruitment with superior effects using cocultured conditioned media. Intramyocardial injection of CACs or CSCs alone improved myocardial function and reduced scar burdens when injected 1 week after myocardial infarction (P ≤ 0.05 versus negative controls). Cotransplantation of CACs and CSCs together improved myocardial function and reduced scar burdens to a greater extent than either stem cell therapy alone (P ≤ 0.05 versus CAC or CSC injection alone). CONCLUSIONS: CACs and CSCs provide unique paracrine repertoires with equivalent effects on angiogenesis, stem cell migration, and myocardial repair. Combination therapy with both cell types synergistically improves postinfarct myocardial function greater than either therapy alone. This synergy is likely mediated by the complimentary paracrine signatures that promote revascularization and the growth of new myocardium.
Authors: M Gill; S Dias; K Hattori; M L Rivera; D Hicklin; L Witte; L Girardi; R Yurt; H Himel; S Rafii Journal: Circ Res Date: 2001-02-02 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: L C Guarita-Souza; K A T Carvalho; V Woitowicz; C Rebelatto; A Senegaglia; P Hansen; N Miyague; J C Francisco; M Olandoski; J R Faria-Neto; P Brofman Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-07-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: James R Munoz; Brooke R Stoutenger; Andrew P Robinson; Jeffrey L Spees; Darwin J Prockop Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-12-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: John Terrovitis; Riikka Lautamäki; Michael Bonios; James Fox; James M Engles; Jianhua Yu; Michelle K Leppo; Martin G Pomper; Richard L Wahl; Jurgen Seidel; Benjamin M Tsui; Frank M Bengel; M Roselle Abraham; Eduardo Marbán Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Raj R Makkar; Rachel R Smith; Ke Cheng; Konstantinos Malliaras; Louise Ej Thomson; Daniel Berman; Lawrence Sc Czer; Linda Marbán; Adam Mendizabal; Peter V Johnston; Stuart D Russell; Karl H Schuleri; Albert C Lardo; Gary Gerstenblith; Eduardo Marbán Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Elizabeth M Winter; Angelique A M van Oorschot; Bianca Hogers; Linda M van der Graaf; Pieter A Doevendans; Robert E Poelmann; Douwe E Atsma; Adriana C Gittenberger-de Groot; Marie Jose Goumans Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2009-08-06 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Victoria Florea; Sonia S Majid; Rosemeire M Kanashiro-Takeuchi; Ren-Zhi Cai; Norman L Block; Andrew V Schally; Joshua M Hare; Claudia O Rodrigues Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Radwa A Mehanna; Marwa M Essawy; Mona A Barkat; Ashraf K Awaad; Eman H Thabet; Heba A Hamed; Hagar Elkafrawy; Nehal A Khalil; Abeer Sallam; Marwa A Kholief; Samar S Ibrahim; Ghada M Mourad Journal: World J Stem Cells Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 5.326
Authors: Hyun-Ji Park; Kenneth J De Jesus Morales; Sruti Bheri; Brandon P Kassouf; Michael E Davis Journal: Stem Cells Date: 2021-09-04 Impact factor: 6.277
Authors: Nishani S Mabotuwana; Lavinia Rech; Joyce Lim; Sean A Hardy; Lucy A Murtha; Peter P Rainer; Andrew J Boyle Journal: Stem Cell Rev Rep Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 6.692
Authors: Robyn Jackson; Everad L Tilokee; Nicholas Latham; Seth Mount; Ghazaleh Rafatian; Jared Strydhorst; Bin Ye; Munir Boodhwani; Vincent Chan; Marc Ruel; Terrence D Ruddy; Erik J Suuronen; Duncan J Stewart; Darryl R Davis Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-09-11 Impact factor: 5.501