| Literature DB >> 27841293 |
Isotta Chimenti1, Francesca Pagano1, Elena Cavarretta1, Francesco Angelini1, Mariangela Peruzzi1, Antonio Barretta2, Ernesto Greco2, Elena De Falco1, Antonino G M Marullo1, Sebastiano Sciarretta1,3, Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai1,3, Giacomo Frati1,3.
Abstract
Β-blockers (BB) are a primary treatment for chronic heart disease (CHD), resulting in prognostic and symptomatic benefits. Cardiac cell therapy represents a promising regenerative treatment and, for autologous cell therapy, the patients clinical history may correlate with the biology of resident progenitors and the quality of the final cell product. This study aimed at uncovering correlations between clinical records of biopsy-donor CHD patients undergoing cardiac surgery and the corresponding yield and phenotype of cardiospheres (CSs) and CS-derived cells (CDCs), which are a clinically relevant population for cell therapy, containing progenitors. We describe a statistically significant association between BB therapy and improved CSs yield and CDCs phenotype. We show that BB-CDCs have a reduced fibrotic-like CD90 + subpopulation, with reduced expression of collagen-I and increased expression of cardiac genes, compared to CDCs from non-BB donors. Moreover BB-CDCs had a distinctive microRNA expression profile, consistent with reduced fibrotic features (miR-21, miR-29a/b/c downregulation), and enhanced regenerative potential (miR-1, miR-133, miR-101 upregulation) compared to non-BB. In vitro adrenergic pharmacological treatments confirmed cytoprotective and anti-fibrotic effects of β1-blocker on CDCs. This study shows anti-fibrotic and pro-commitment effects of BB treatment on endogenous cardiac reparative cells, and suggests adjuvant roles of β-blockers in cell therapy applications.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27841293 PMCID: PMC5107949 DOI: 10.1038/srep36774
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Comparative analysis of baseline features of patients, overall or according to β-blocker therapy.
| Feature | Overall | No β-blocker therapy | Β-blocker therapy | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 12/41 (29.3%) | 5/19 (26.3%) | 7/22 (31.8%) | 0.744 |
| Age, years | 73 (64; 76) | 74 (67; 76) | 70 (61; 76) | 0.402 |
| Body mass index, Kg/cm2 | 27.0 (24.0; 28.4) | 25.0 (23.7; 27.7) | 27.5 (24.5; 28.5) | 0.178 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 13/41 (31.7%) | 6/19 (31.6%) | 7/22 (31.8%) | 1.0 |
| Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus | 3/41 (7.3%) | 0/19 | 3/22 (13.6%) | 0.235 |
| Hypertension | 36/41 (87.8%) | 17/19 (89.5%) | 19/22 (86.4%) | 1.0 |
| Smoking history | 0.652 | |||
| Never | 25/41 (60.9%) | 10/19 (52.6%) | 15/22 (68.2%) | |
| Former | 12/41 (29.3%) | 7/19 (36.8%) | 5/22 (22.7%) | |
| Current | 4/41 (9.7%) | 2/19 (10.5%) | 2/22 (9.1%) | |
| Atrial fibrillation | 6/41 (14.6%) | 3/19 (15.8%) | 3/22 (13.6%) | 1.0 |
| Prior or recent acute myocardial infarction | 12/41 (29.3%) | 5/19 (26.3%) | 7/22 (31.8%) | 0.744 |
| Recent acute myocardial infarction | 8/41 (19.5%) | 3/19 (15.8%) | 5/22 (22.7%) | 0.703 |
| Surgical indication | ||||
| Ischemic heart disease | 29/41 (70.7%) | 12/19 (63.2%) | 17/22 (77.3%) | 0.493 |
| Valvular heart disease | 21/41 (51.2%) | 14/19 (73.7%) | 7/22 (31.8%) | 0.012 |
| Vascular disease | 6/41 (14.6%) | 2/19 (10.5%) | 4/22 (18.2%) | 0.668 |
| Other | 2/41 (4.9%) | 2/19 (10.5%) | 0/22 | 0.209 |
| Heart rate, bpm | 75 (64; 86) | 75 (65; 86) | 75 (60; 87) | 0.931 |
| Systolic blood pressure, mmHg | 130 (110; 132) | 130 (110; 140) | 120 (110; 130) | 0.322 |
| Diastolic blood pressure, mmHg | 70 (70; 80) | 70 (70; 80) | 80 (70; 80) | 0.598 |
| ACEF score | 1.5 (1.1; 1.8) | 1.4 (1.1; 1.6) | 1.5 (1.3; 1.8) | 0.177 |
| EuroSCORE II | 3.1 (1.9; 6.5) | 3.4 (1.9; 5.3) | 2.7 (2.1; 9.6) | 0.356 |
| STS score | 1.9 (1.0; 3.8) | 2.2 (1.4; 3.6) | 1.8 (0.9; 4.7) | 0.632 |
| Blood analysis | ||||
| Glucose, mg/dl | 106 (89; 121) | 98 (85; 119) | 110 (95; 123) | 0.364 |
| Total cholesterol, mg/dl | 173 (142; 229) | 187 (171; 237) | 155 (131; 203) | 0.123 |
| High density lipoprotein cholesterol, mg/dl | 48 (36; 62) | 48 (46; 58) | 40 (35; 68) | 0.413 |
| Creatinine, mg/dl | 1.0 (0.9; 1.1) | 1.0 (0.8; 1.1) | 1.1 (0.9; 1.2) | 0.371 |
| Estimated glomerular filtration rate, mL/min/1.73 m2 | 71 (57; 88) | 75 (63; 92) | 71 (57; 81) | 0.388 |
| Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, mm | 21 (11; 39) | 25 (7; 44) | 21 (19; 24) | 1.0 |
*Reported as median (1st; 3rd quartile) for continuous variables and count/total (percentage) for categorical variables.
†Computed with unpaired Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for categorical variables.
Comparative analysis of pre-operative echocardiographic parameters according to β-blocker therapy.
| Variable | Overall | No β-blocker therapy | Β-blocker therapy | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDD, mm | 51 (49; 54) | 51 (47; 55) | 52 (49.2; 53.7) | 0.612 |
| ESD, mm | 33 (30; 36) | 33 (29.5; 35.2) | 33 (30; 37) | 0.525 |
| EDV, ml | 123 (112; 141) | 123 (102; 147) | 129 (113; 139) | 0.612 |
| ESV, ml | 44 (35; 54) | 44 (33; 52) | 44 (35; 58) | 0.525 |
| EF, % | 63.4 (60; 69) | 63.6 (58.8; 71.9) | 63.1 (60.4; 68.5) | 0.602 |
EDD: end diastolic diameter. EDV: end diastolic volume. EF: ejection fraction. ESD: end systolic diameter. ESV: end systolic volume.
*Reported as median (1st; 3rd quartile) for continuous variables and count/total (percentage) for categorical variables.
†Computed with unpaired Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for categorical variables.
Comparative analysis of medical therapy of patients, overall or according to β-blocker therapy.
| Drug | Overall | No β-blocker therapy | Β-blocker therapy | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Angiotensinogen converting enzyme inhibitor | 18/41 (43.9%) | 9/19 (47.4%) | 9/22 (40.9%) | 0.758 |
| Aldosterone receptor antagonist | 8/41 (19.5%) | 2/19 (10.5%) | 6/22 (27.3%) | 0.249 |
| Angiotensin II receptor antagonist | 12/41 (29.3%) | 6/19 (31.6%) | 6/22 (27.3%) | 1.0 |
| Antiarrhythmic | 4/41 (9.7%) | 1/19 (5.3%) | 3/22 (13.6%) | 0.610 |
| Aspirin | 22/41 (53.6%) | 11/19 (57.9%) | 11/22 (50.0%) | 0.756 |
| Calcium-channel antagonist | 10/41 (24.4%) | 7/19 (36.8%) | 3/22 (13.6%) | 0.144 |
| Diuretic | 22/41 (53.6%) | 9/19 (47.4%) | 13/22 (59.1%) | 0.538 |
| Statin | 26/41 (63.4%) | 12/19 (63.2%) | 14/22 (63.6%) | 1.0 |
*Reported as median (1st; 3rd quartile) for continuous variables and count/total (percentage) for categorical variables.
†Computed with unpaired Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for categorical variables.
Comparative analysis of cardiac progenitor cell isolation success and yield according to β-blocker therapy of donor patients.
| Variable | No β-blocker therapy | Β-blocker therapy | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cardiospheres | 7/19 (36.8%) | 18/22 (81.2%) | 0.005 |
| Cumulative yield (EDCs/mg) | 0 (0; 1,308) | 3,319 (464; 6,012) | 0.010 |
EDC: explant-derived cells. P1: first EDC collection.
*Reported as median (1st; 3rd quartile) for continuous variables and count/total (percentage) for categorical variables.
†Computed with unpaired Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for categorical variables.
Multivariable linear regression analysis for the association of EDCs cumulative yield and β-blocker therapy, adjusting for valvular disease.
| Independent variable | Regression coefficient (95% confidence interval) | P |
|---|---|---|
| Β-blocker | 3450.14 (315.52; 6584.76) | 0.032 |
| Valvular disease | 440.58 (−2682.49; 3563.66) | 0.775 |
Figure 1Cardiac progenitor cells phenotype differ between β-blocker and non-β-blocker patients.
Representative cell culture images and corresponding CS yield quantification (a) show how β-blocker (BB) patients were significantly more efficient in giving CSs compared to non β-blocker (NBB) patients (when considering only the few successful NBB explants) (n = 3 biological replicates). Consistently with the CS-formation process being TGFβ-dependent, BB CPCs have significantly higher expression levels of TGFBR2 (b) (n = 3–7). The immunophenotypes of BB and NBB-CDCs were significantly different in the abundance of the CD90 + subpopulation (c) (n = 4–9), also shown by the representative flow cytometry histograms (d). BB and NBB CDCs also significantly differed in their expression levels of collagen I (COL-A1) and III (COL3) (e) (n = 3–7), and in their expression ratio (f). *P < 0.05. **P < 0.01. Scale bars = 250 μm.
Figure 2Gene expression levels and immunofluorescence phenotype of CDCs from β-blocker (BB) and non-β-blocker (NBB) patients.
BB-CDCs displayed significantly higher expression levels of the cardiac specific genes MHC and Nkx2.5 (a) compared to NBB (NBB n = 4, BB n = 8). Representative CDC immunofluorescence images (b) showing a higher Nkx2.5 nuclear expression in BB cells, consistently with the qRTPCR results. Albeit no differences between BB and NBB were detectable in its expression level, intracellular staining for SMA displayed significant differences at morphological and cytoskeletal levels between BB and NBB (b). ADRB1 was detectable in both BB and NBB-CDCs (b). *P < 0.05. Scale bars = 100 μm.
Figure 3MicroRNA expression in β-blocker versus non-β-blocker CDCs.
Heatmap showing hierarchical clustering analysis of miRNAs that displayed significantly different euclidean distance (a). Analysis was performed using averaged euclidean distance. Comparative gene expression analyses of selected miRNAs between β-blocker (BB) and non β-blocker (NBB) CDCs (b–e). Bar graphs show the 2^−Δct value. N = 8–9 experimental replicates, from 3 biological replicates each. *P < 0.05. **P < 0.01. ***P < 0.001.
Figure 4Adrenergic pharmacological treatments in vitro affect CDC immunophenotype and gene expression levels.
The immunophenotype of BB-CDCs after 4 days of pharmacological treatment with metoprolol (METO) showed a significant reduction in CD90 + cells, expressed as percentage of effect versus control (CTR), compared to isoproterenol (ISO)-treated cells (a), as also shown by the representative cytofluorimetry dot plots (b–d). Gene expression analyses by realtime PCR consistently showed significantly lower normalized gene expression levels of Thy-1 in METO-treated cells compared to both control (CTR) and ISO-treated cells (e). These latter also expressed significantly higher levels of Thy1 (e). Moreover, METO-treated CDCs expressed significantly lower levels of collagen I (COL-A1) and higher levels of collagen III (COL3) compared to both CTR and ISO-treated cells (e), as also shown by their expression ratio (f). (n = 4). *P < 0.05.