Junnan Tang1,2,3, Xiaolin Cui4, Thomas G Caranasos5, M Taylor Hensley2,3, Adam C Vandergriff2,3, Yusak Hartanto4, Deliang Shen1, Hu Zhang4, Jinying Zhang1, Ke Cheng2,3,6. 1. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University , Zhengzhou, Henan 450052, China. 2. Department of Molecular Biomedical Sciences and Comparative Medicine Institute, North Carolina State University , Raleigh, North Carolina 27607, United States. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill & North Carolina State University , Raleigh, North Carolina 27607, United States. 4. School of Chemical Engineering, The University of Adelaide , Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. 5. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States. 6. Pharmacoengineering and Molecular Pharmaceutics, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States.
Abstract
Stem cell transplantation is currently implemented clinically but is limited by low retention and engraftment of transplanted cells and the adverse effects of inflammation and immunoreaction when allogeneic or xenogeneic cells are used. Here, we demonstrate the safety and efficacy of encapsulating human cardiac stem cells (hCSCs) in thermosensitive poly(N-isopropylacrylamine-co-acrylic acid) or P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel in mouse and pig models of myocardial infarction (MI). Unlike xenogeneic hCSCs injected in saline, injection of nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs does not elicit systemic inflammation or local T cell infiltrations in immunocompetent mice. In mice and pigs with acute MI, injection of encapsulated hCSCs preserves cardiac function and reduces scar sizes, whereas injection of hCSCs in saline has an adverse effect on heart healing. In conclusion, thermosensitive nanogels can be used as a stem cell carrier: the porous and convoluted inner structure allows nutrient, oxygen, and secretion diffusion but can prevent the stem cells from being attacked by immune cells.
Stem cell transplantation is currently implemented clinically but is limited by low retention and engraftment of transplanted cells and the adverse effects of inflammation and immunoreaction when allogeneic or xenogeneic cells are used. Here, we demonstrate the safety and efficacy of encapsulating human cardiac stem cells (hCSCs) in thermosensitive poly(N-isopropylacrylamine-co-acrylic acid) or P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel in mouse and pig models of myocardial infarction (MI). Unlike xenogeneic hCSCs injected in saline, injection of nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs does not elicit systemic inflammation or local T cell infiltrations in immunocompetent mice. In mice and pigs with acute MI, injection of encapsulated hCSCs preserves cardiac function and reduces scar sizes, whereas injection of hCSCs in saline has an adverse effect on heart healing. In conclusion, thermosensitive nanogels can be used as a stem cell carrier: the porous and convoluted inner structure allows nutrient, oxygen, and secretion diffusion but can prevent the stem cells from being attacked by immune cells.
As a promising
approach to tissue
repair, multiple types of stem cells have entered the stage of clinical
testing.[1−4] However, their efficacy is limited by low retention and engraftment
of transplanted cells, together with the potential risk of inflammation
and immunoreaction when allogeneic or xenogeneic cells are used.[5−7] Heart diseases including myocardial infarction (MI) and heart failure
remain the leading cause of death worldwide.[8] Even with the most advanced pharmacological and medical device treatment
methods, mortality and morbidity of heart disease stay high.[9] Cardiac tissue engineering and stem cell transplantation
approaches aim at de novo cardiac regeneration after
injury.[10−12] Clinical outcomes of cardiac stem cell (CSC)
therapy are hampered by low cell retention rate and side effects associated
with immune rejection if allogeneic cells are used.[5,13]Injectable hydrogels have been used to treat MI, and the studies
have been demonstrated to improve cardiac function via LaPlace’s Law (increased wall thickness and reduced wall
stress).[14] Various natural polymers such
as fibrin,[15] collagen,[16,17] Matrigel,[18] chitosan,[19,20] keratin,[21] and hyaluronic acid[22,23] have been investigated as injectable hydrogels to treat MI. They
have excellent biocompatibility and can promote cell migration, proliferation,
and/or differentiation, leading to ultimate heart regeneration/repair.[24] However, the drawbacks of natural polymers hampering
their clinical applications are their batch-to-batch variation and
expensive cost.[25] Synthetic polymers hold
the potential to replace natural polymers as injectable hydrogels
to treat MI.[26] For example, the copolymer
of poly(N-isopropylacrylamine-co-acrylic acid) or P(NIPAM-AA) with hydroxyethyl methacrylate/poly(trimethylene
carbonate) (HEMAPTMC) has been used to treat chronic infarcted myocardium
in animal models.[27]One appealing
regenerative medicine strategy for MI is encapsulating
stem cells such as CSCs inside the hydrogels and deliver the cell-laden
hydrogels into the damage tissues.[28−30] Here, we propose the
use of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel, a synthetic injectable carrier to encapsulate
human CSCs in mouse and pig models of MI. The nanogel serves as a
scaffolding material to enhance cell retention and as a barrier to
prevent T cells from entering and attacking the encapsulated CSCs.
The treatment ultimately resulted in augmented cardiac function and
stimulation of endogenous regeneration.
Results
Synthesis and
Characterization of P(NIPAM-AA) Nanogel
As an injectable
hydrogel material, it is a solution at room temperature
but changes into a soft gel at 37 °C. P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel was
synthesized by emulsion polymerization (Figure A). Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy
analysis was employed to identify functional groups of the synthesized
nanogel (Figure B).
Peaks at the bands around 1640 and 1550 cm–1 as
well as the peak of 1450 cm–1 represent the chemical
bonds of NIPAM.[31,32] The band around 1710 cm–1 is assigned to the C=O bond in AA, which is also confirmed
by the titration (Supporting Information Figure S1A), indicating the successful copolymerization with NIPAM.
Dynamic light scattering was applied to determine the hydrodynamic
diameter (dh) of the nanogel dispersions
at different temperatures in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) to demonstrate
that synthesized P(NIPAM-AA) is thermoresponsive (Figure C). The dh value dramatically decreases around a temperature of 30–35
°C, which corresponds to the volume phase transition temperature
(VPTT) of this nanogel. To further illustrate the nanogel phase transition
behaviors with temperature, the shrinkage ratio (dh(T)/dh (20
°C) was plotted against temperature (Figure D). For a temperature beyond 30 °C,
the shrinkage ratio decreases, signifying that the size of the nanogel
shrinks. The nanogel sol–gel phase change was also observed
(Figure E). At 37
°C, the balance between hydrophobic attractions and electrostatic
repulsions offered by the carboxyl groups of the nanogel results in
a gel state for the hydrogel.[31] The rheological
study was further conducted to characterize the mechanical properties
of the nanogel shown in Figure F. At a lower temperature, the nanogel dispersions are at
the sol state, where the loss modulus (G″)
is greater than the elastic modulus (G′).
The point at which the value of G′ is greater
than G″ is considered as gelation temperature Tgel. From Figure F, the Tgel of the nanogels
is around 32–33 °C, which is close to their VPTT. Scanning
election microscopy (SEM) was utilized to analyze the structure of
the resultant hydrogel network (Supporting Information Figure S1B), which reveals the minuscule pore size of the network.
Figure 1
Synthesis
of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel and characterization of nanogel-encapsulated
CSCs. (A) Schematic showing the synthesis of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel by
emulsion polymerization. (B) FTIR spectra of P(NIPAM-AA) thermoresponsive
nanogel. (C) Temperature-dependent hydrodynamic diameter, dh, for 1 mg/mL of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel in PBS.
(D) Temperature-dependent shrinkage ratio dh(T)/dh (25 °C)
in PBS. (E) Comparison of 30 mg/mL of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel in PBS at
sol state (25 °C) and gel state (37 °C). (F) Temperature-dependent
dynamic rheological moduli of 30 mg/mL of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel. Black
closed circle corresponds to the elastic (or storage) modulus (G′), and the red circle corresponds to the viscous
(or lose) modulus (G″). (G) Color-depth projection
confocal image showing the morphology of CSCs encapsulated in the
nanogel. Scale bar, 20 μm. (H) SEM image showing CSCs in the
P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel. Scale bar, 20 μm. (I) Representative fluorescent
image showing the morphology of CSCs cultured in nanogel. Scale bar,
10 μm. (J) Proliferation of CSCs cultured in P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel
(red line) or on tissue culture plate (TCP) (blue line). (K–M)
Release of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1, vascular endothelial
growth factor (VEGF), and stromal cell-derived factor (SDF)-1 from
hCSCs encapsulated in nanogel (red bar) or on TCP (blue bar) at various
time points determined by ELISA; * indicates P <
0.05 when compared to the other group.
Synthesis
of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel and characterization of nanogel-encapsulated
CSCs. (A) Schematic showing the synthesis of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel by
emulsion polymerization. (B) FTIR spectra of P(NIPAM-AA) thermoresponsive
nanogel. (C) Temperature-dependent hydrodynamic diameter, dh, for 1 mg/mL of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel in PBS.
(D) Temperature-dependent shrinkage ratio dh(T)/dh (25 °C)
in PBS. (E) Comparison of 30 mg/mL of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel in PBS at
sol state (25 °C) and gel state (37 °C). (F) Temperature-dependent
dynamic rheological moduli of 30 mg/mL of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel. Black
closed circle corresponds to the elastic (or storage) modulus (G′), and the red circle corresponds to the viscous
(or lose) modulus (G″). (G) Color-depth projection
confocal image showing the morphology of CSCs encapsulated in the
nanogel. Scale bar, 20 μm. (H) SEM image showing CSCs in the
P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel. Scale bar, 20 μm. (I) Representative fluorescent
image showing the morphology of CSCs cultured in nanogel. Scale bar,
10 μm. (J) Proliferation of CSCs cultured in P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel
(red line) or on tissue culture plate (TCP) (blue line). (K–M)
Release of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1, vascular endothelial
growth factor (VEGF), and stromal cell-derived factor (SDF)-1 from
hCSCs encapsulated in nanogel (red bar) or on TCP (blue bar) at various
time points determined by ELISA; * indicates P <
0.05 when compared to the other group.
P(NIPAM-AA) Nanogel-Encapsulated Human Cardiac Stem Cells
Confocal microscopy (Figure G) and SEM (Figure H) revealed the morphology of human cardiac stem cells (hCSCs)
in the P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel. Live/dead staining (Figure I; red = dead, green = live) showed 3D CSC
clusters in the nanogel, distinct from the cell morphology on tissue
culture plates (TCP, as control) (Supporting Information Figure S2A,B). Nevertheless, cell viability was not compromised
by the nanogel (Supporting Information Figure S2C). Nanogel encapsulation did not affect the proliferation
of CSCs (Figure J)
and the release of various regenerative factors (Figure K–M), including insulin-like
growth factor (IGF)-1, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF),
and stromal cell-derived factor (SDF)-1 from CSCs.[12] To test the biocompatibility of the nanogel with cardiomyocytes,
neonatal rat cardiomyocytes (NRCMs) were cultured in the nanogel or
on TCP for 7 days. Although NCRMs exhibited a unique morphology in
the nanogel (Supporting Information Figure S3A–C) compared to their counterparts cultured on TCP, their viability
was not compromised (Supporting Information Figure S3D). In addition, NRCMs exhibited similar cell viability when
cultured in conditioned media collected from CSCs cultured on TCP
or in nanogel (Supporting Information Figure S4A–C). The nanogel had no negative effects on NRCM contractility, which
is an important cellular function of NRCMs (Supporting Information Figure S4D). These compound data sets indicated
that the P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel was nontoxic to cardiac stem cells and
cardiomyocytes.
Injection of Nanogel-Encapsulated CSCs Does
Not Elicit Rejection
in Normal Mice and in Pigs
To evaluate the systemic inflammation
and local T cell infiltration to P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel-encapsulated
hCSCs, immunocompetent CD1 mice were intramyocardially injected with
hCSCs in PBS or hCSCs encapsulated in the nanogel. Mice were sacrificed
7 days after injection. Hearts and blood were collected for cell engraftment
and systemic/local immune response analysis (Figure A). Ex vivo fluorescent
imaging revealed that nanogel encapsulation significantly boosted
cell retention (Figure B) in the heart. To have an accurate analysis of cell retention,
quantitative PCR on human SRY gene was performed (Figure C). The results confirmed boosted
cell retention from nanogel encapsulation. Mouse inflammatory protein
array showed that the plasma levels of pro-inflammatory factors were
remarkably elevated in mice treated with hCSCs in PBS compared to
those treated with hCSCs encapsulated in nanogel (Figure D). This is consistent with
previous studies indicating that xenogeneic CSC transplantation could
induce systemic inflammatory response.[13] Histology revealed greater numbers of DiI-labeled CSCs detected
in heart (Figure E–G),
confirming the ex vivo imaging data. Micrographs
of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining also indicated no structure
damage and T cell infiltration on spleen and heart sections obtained
from mice injected with P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel at 21 days (Supporting Information Figure S5A,B). These data sets also confirmed that
nanogel-encapsulated hCSC treatment did not elicit local T cell infiltration
or exacerbate cardiac inflammation as only negligible amounts of CD3+ T 175 cells, CD8+ T cells, or CD68+ macrophage cells (green) were 176 identified in the heart (Figure E−G). Severe
rejection was observed evidently in mouse hearts intramyocardially
injected with human CSCs in PBS contrastively (Figure E−G). Additionally, injection of nanogel-encapsulated
hCSCs in pig heart did not induce structural or functional damage
of the kidney and the liver (Supporting Information Figure S5C–H).
Figure 2
Impact of nanogel-encapsulated xenogeneic cardiac
stem cells on
cell retention and systemic inflammation in mice. (A) Schematic image
indicating the general animal study design. (B) Ex vivo fluorescent imaging of mouse hearts at day 7 after injection of
hCSCs in PBS or hCSCs in nanogel. (C) Quantitative PCR analysis of
human cell retention in the mouse hearts (n = 3 animals
per group). (D) Circulating levels of pro-inflammatory factors were
remarkably elevated in mice treated with hCSCs in PBS compared to
those treated with hCSCs encapsulated in polymer. (E–G) Fluorescent
images revealing the presence of CD3+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and CD68+ macrophage cells (green) in
hearts injected with hCSCs (red) in PBS or nanogel at day 7 (n = 3 animals per group). Scale bar, 100 μm; * indicates P < 0.05.
Impact of nanogel-encapsulated xenogeneic cardiac
stem cells on
cell retention and systemic inflammation in mice. (A) Schematic image
indicating the general animal study design. (B) Ex vivo fluorescent imaging of mouse hearts at day 7 after injection of
hCSCs in PBS or hCSCs in nanogel. (C) Quantitative PCR analysis of
human cell retention in the mouse hearts (n = 3 animals
per group). (D) Circulating levels of pro-inflammatory factors were
remarkably elevated in mice treated with hCSCs in PBS compared to
those treated with hCSCs encapsulated in polymer. (E–G) Fluorescent
images revealing the presence of CD3+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and CD68+ macrophage cells (green) in
hearts injected with hCSCs (red) in PBS or nanogel at day 7 (n = 3 animals per group). Scale bar, 100 μm; * indicates P < 0.05.
Nanogel-Encapsulated CSC Therapy Reduces Apoptosis but Promotes
Angiomyogenesis
Mouse model of MI was created by ligation
of the left anterior descending artery (LAD) (Figure A). Immunocompetent normal CD1 mice were
used. Immediately after MI induction, animals were randomized into
the following four groups: (1) MI + hCSCs in nanogel, intramyocardially
injected with 1 × 105 hCSCs in 50 μL of P(NIPAM-AA)
nanogel; (2) MI + hCSCs in PBS, intramyocardially injected with 1
× 105 hCSCs in 50 μL of PBS; (3) MI + nanogel
alone, intramyocardially injected with 50 μL of P(NIPAM-AA)
nanogel; (4) MI control MI surgery without any treatment. Echocardiography
was performed 4 h post-MI as the baseline and 3 weeks afterward as
the end point. Less apoptotic nuclei were detected by TUNEL staining
in hearts treated with nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs (red nuclei, Figure B,C). In addition,
cycling cardiomyocytes (Ki67+/alpha-SA+ cells;
green nuclei, Figure D,E) were more evident in the hearts treated with nanogel-encapsulated
hCSCs. Furthermore, treatment with nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs augmented
capillary densities in the post-MI heart (Figure F–H). Also, patent blood vessels could
be detected surrounding the injected nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs (Figure G).
Figure 3
Injection of nanogel-encapsulated
human cardiac stem cells reduces
myocardial apoptosis and promotes angiomyogenesis. (A) General design
of animal study to explore the possible treatment of nanogel-encapsulated
hCSCs in a mouse model of MI. (B) Fluorescent images of TUNEL+ apoptotic cells (red) in nanogel alone or hCSCs in nanogel-treated
hearts at 3 weeks. (C) Quantitative analysis of TUNEL+ apoptotic
cells (n = 3 animals per group). Scale bar, 100 μm.
(D) Representative images revealing Ki67-positive cardiomyocyte nuclei
(green) in nanogel or hCSCs in nanogel-treated hearts at 3 weeks.
(E) Quantitative analysis of Ki67-positive nuclei both in scar zone
and border zone (n = 3 hearts per group). Scale bar,
100 μm. (F) Representative images showing vWF-positive endothelial
cells (green) in nanogel or hCSCs in nanogel-treated hearts at 3 weeks.
Scale bar, 200 μm. (G) High-magnification image showing vessel
formation (green) surrounding the injected nanogel-encapsulated CSCs
(red). Scale bar, 50 μm. (H) Numbers of vWF-positive endothelial
cells were quantified both in scar zone and border zone (n = 3 hearts per group); * indicates P < 0.05.
Injection of nanogel-encapsulated
human cardiac stem cells reduces
myocardial apoptosis and promotes angiomyogenesis. (A) General design
of animal study to explore the possible treatment of nanogel-encapsulated
hCSCs in a mouse model of MI. (B) Fluorescent images of TUNEL+ apoptotic cells (red) in nanogel alone or hCSCs in nanogel-treated
hearts at 3 weeks. (C) Quantitative analysis of TUNEL+ apoptotic
cells (n = 3 animals per group). Scale bar, 100 μm.
(D) Representative images revealing Ki67-positive cardiomyocyte nuclei
(green) in nanogel or hCSCs in nanogel-treated hearts at 3 weeks.
(E) Quantitative analysis of Ki67-positive nuclei both in scar zone
and border zone (n = 3 hearts per group). Scale bar,
100 μm. (F) Representative images showing vWF-positive endothelial
cells (green) in nanogel or hCSCs in nanogel-treated hearts at 3 weeks.
Scale bar, 200 μm. (G) High-magnification image showing vessel
formation (green) surrounding the injected nanogel-encapsulated CSCs
(red). Scale bar, 50 μm. (H) Numbers of vWF-positive endothelial
cells were quantified both in scar zone and border zone (n = 3 hearts per group); * indicates P < 0.05.
Nanogel-Encapsulated CSC
Therapy Ameliorates Ventricular Dysfunction
and Fibrosis in Mice with Acute MI
Masson’s trichrome
staining was performed 3 weeks after treatment (Figure A); the results showed that nanogel-alone
treated heart (orange bars, Figure B–D) exhibited heart protection as compared
to the MI (control) group (white bars, Figure B–D) to some extent. hCSCs injected
in PBS did not confer any therapeutic benefits (blue bars, Figure B–D). Injection
of hCSCs encapsulated in nanogel generated the largest therapeutic
benefit in the MI heart (red bars, Figure B–D). Left ventricular ejection fractions
(LVEFs) were detected at baseline (4 h post-infarct) and 3 weeks post-MI.
LVEFs from the four treatment groups were similar at baseline (Figure E). Three weeks later,
the LVEFs in MI alone or hCSC-treated animals deteriorated continuously
(white and blue bars, Figure F), whereas the nanogel-treated animals exhibited some degree
of LVEF preservation (orange bar, Figure F). Injection of hCSCs in nanogel led to
the highest LVEFs at 3 weeks (red bar, Figure F). When we calculated the treatment effects
(i.e., change of LVEFs from baseline), it was clear
that both MI alone and MI + hCSCs had negative treatment effects;
nanogel alone preserved cardiac functions, and hCSCs in nanogel robustly
boosted cardiac functions (Figure G).
Figure 4
Injection of nanogel-encapsulated human cardiac stem cells
augments
cardiac function in a mouse model of MI. (A) Representative Masson’s
trichrome-stained myocardial sections 3 weeks after treatment. (B–D)
Quantitative analyses of viable myocardium (B), scar size (C), and
infarct thickness (D) from the Masson’s trichrome images (n = 5 animals per group). (E,F) LVEFs determined by echocardiography
at baseline (4 h post-MI) (E) and 3 weeks afterward (F) (n = 6 animals per group). (G) Treatment effects calculated as the
change of LVEFs from baseline to end point; * indicates P < 0.05 when compared to “MI” group; # indicates P < 0.05 when compared to “MI + hCSCs”
group; & indicates P < 0.05 when compared
to “MI + nanogel” group.
Injection of nanogel-encapsulated human cardiac stem cells
augments
cardiac function in a mouse model of MI. (A) Representative Masson’s
trichrome-stained myocardial sections 3 weeks after treatment. (B–D)
Quantitative analyses of viable myocardium (B), scar size (C), and
infarct thickness (D) from the Masson’s trichrome images (n = 5 animals per group). (E,F) LVEFs determined by echocardiography
at baseline (4 h post-MI) (E) and 3 weeks afterward (F) (n = 6 animals per group). (G) Treatment effects calculated as the
change of LVEFs from baseline to end point; * indicates P < 0.05 when compared to “MI” group; # indicates P < 0.05 when compared to “MI + hCSCs”
group; & indicates P < 0.05 when compared
to “MI + nanogel” group.
Nanogel-Encapsulated CSC Therapy in Pigs with Acute MI
We
then evaluated the therapeutic effects of nanogel-encapsulated
hCSCs in a pig model of acute MI induced by LAD ligation (Figure A). Twenty minutes
after ligation, mini-pigs were intramyocardially injected with PBS,
hCSCs in PBS, or nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs. (Figure B). Injection of nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs
did not increase the numbers of CD3-positive T cells in the post-MI
heart (Figure C,D).
Macroscopic images of pig heart indicated the infarct area on each
heart slice (Figure E). Ex vivo fluorescent imaging revealed that nanogel
encapsulation significantly boosted acute cell retention (Figure F) 24 h after injection
in the pig heart. Four weeks after treatment, Masson’s trichrome
staining revealed that nanogel-encapsulated CSC therapy reduced scar
transmurality (Figure A). As an indicator of cardiac function, LVEFs were measured at baseline
(before infarct), post-infarct (48 h post-infarct), and end point
(4 weeks post-MI). LVEFs were similar at baseline for all groups and
4 h post-MI (Figure B). LVEF deterioration was evident in hearts treated with hCSCs but
not in those treated with nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs over the 4 week
time course (Figure C). Four weeks after treatment, cycling cardiomyocytes (alpha-SA+ cells; green nuclei, Figure D) were more evident in the hearts treated with nanogel-encapsulated
hCSCs. Furthermore, treatment with nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs increased
the numbers of alpha-SMA+ vasculatures in the post-MI heart
(Figure E).
Figure 5
Nanogel encapsulation
boosted cell retention in pig hearts. (A)
Study design of the pig experiment. (B) Schematic images showing intramyocardial
injection of nanogel-encapsulated CSCs in a pig heart. (C) Fluorescent
micrograph and (D) quantitative analysis showing the presence of CD3+ T cells (red) in MI alone (white bar) or nanogel-encapsulated
CSC (red bar)-treated hearts at 24 h (n = 3 animals
per group). Scale bar, 100 μm. (E) Macroscopic images revealing
infarct area on multiple slices of an infarcted pig heart. (F) Representative ex vivo fluorescent images and quantitative analysis of
fluorescent intensities of pig hearts 24 h after injection of hCSCs
in PBS (blue bar) or hCSCs in nanogel (red bar); * indicates P < 0.05.
Figure 6
Nanogel-encapsulated CSC therapy reduces scar and preserves cardiac
function in pigs with acute MI. (A) Featured Masson’s trichrome-stained
myocardial sections 4 weeks after treatment in the infarct area and
quantitative analysis of scar transmurality. (B) LVEFs determined
by echocardiography at baseline (before infarct), post-MI (48 h post-infarct),
and 4 weeks afterward. (C) Treatment effects calculated as the change
of LVEFs from post-MI to end point. (D) Representative images indicating
alpha-SA+ cardiomyocyte (green) in hearts treated with
hCSCs in PBS or hCSCs in nanogel (n = 3 hearts per
group) at 4 weeks. Quantitative analysis of alpha-SA+ cardiomyocyte.
Scale bar, 100 μm. (E) Representative images exhibiting alpha-SMA+ vasculatures (green) in hearts treated with hCSCs in PBS
or hCSCs in nanogel (n = 3 hearts per group) at 4
weeks. The numbers of alpha-SMA+ vasculatures were quantified.
Scale bar, 200 μm; * indicates P < 0.05.
Nanogel encapsulation
boosted cell retention in pig hearts. (A)
Study design of the pig experiment. (B) Schematic images showing intramyocardial
injection of nanogel-encapsulated CSCs in a pig heart. (C) Fluorescent
micrograph and (D) quantitative analysis showing the presence of CD3+ T cells (red) in MI alone (white bar) or nanogel-encapsulated
CSC (red bar)-treated hearts at 24 h (n = 3 animals
per group). Scale bar, 100 μm. (E) Macroscopic images revealing
infarct area on multiple slices of an infarcted pig heart. (F) Representative ex vivo fluorescent images and quantitative analysis of
fluorescent intensities of pig hearts 24 h after injection of hCSCs
in PBS (blue bar) or hCSCs in nanogel (red bar); * indicates P < 0.05.Nanogel-encapsulated CSC therapy reduces scar and preserves cardiac
function in pigs with acute MI. (A) Featured Masson’s trichrome-stained
myocardial sections 4 weeks after treatment in the infarct area and
quantitative analysis of scar transmurality. (B) LVEFs determined
by echocardiography at baseline (before infarct), post-MI (48 h post-infarct),
and 4 weeks afterward. (C) Treatment effects calculated as the change
of LVEFs from post-MI to end point. (D) Representative images indicating
alpha-SA+ cardiomyocyte (green) in hearts treated with
hCSCs in PBS or hCSCs in nanogel (n = 3 hearts per
group) at 4 weeks. Quantitative analysis of alpha-SA+ cardiomyocyte.
Scale bar, 100 μm. (E) Representative images exhibiting alpha-SMA+ vasculatures (green) in hearts treated with hCSCs in PBS
or hCSCs in nanogel (n = 3 hearts per group) at 4
weeks. The numbers of alpha-SMA+ vasculatures were quantified.
Scale bar, 200 μm; * indicates P < 0.05.
Discussion
Ischemic
heart disease, especially MI, is the major reason for
morbidity and mortality worldwide.[8] Ischemia
can cause irreversible loss of cardiomyocytes, followed by inflammation,
fibrosis, and cardiac dysfunction.[33] Despite
the development of new medications and devices, heart failure can
occur in a large number of MI patients. The therapeutic effects of
stem cells in heart repair have been investigated in the last two
decades. It has been clear that short-term cell retention rate and
long-term cell engraftment rate were consistently poor in the heart
regardless of the delivery routes and cell types. The poor vascularization
of the injected area and the inflammation and immune reaction associated
with allogeneic cell transplantation are the major hurdles for cell
retention after delivery.[34] We hypothesize
that cell encapsulation technologies may overcome these hurdles.[6,35,36]Here, we synthesized thermosensitive
poly(NIPAM-AA) nanogel with
enhanced −COOH, which could provide a hydrophilic environment
for cells proliferation and engraftment (Figure ). It has been demonstrated that this material
is able to promote stem cell proliferation and clustering,[37,38] which leads to enhanced cell function and survival rate.[25] The porous structure of the nanogel can maximize
mass transport of nutrients, oxygen, and secretion of regenerative
factors from the encapsulated cells (Figure and Supporting Information Figure S1).CSCs have been tested in laboratory animal
model studies[10] and in recent clinical
trials[1,39] for
the treatment of MI. Like other cell types, CSCs also suffer from
low retention after injection into the heart. In the present study,
we investigated the potential of thermosensitive P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel-encapsulated
human CSCs for the treatment of MI in both small (mouse) and large
(pig) models.Mounting lines of evidence have suggested that
paracrine mechanisms
play vital roles in CSC-mediated cardiac repair. CSCs secrete VEGF,
IGF-1, and SDF-1, which can contribute to the neovascularization,
inhibition of apoptosis, and recruitment of endogenous stem cells
into the injured area.[40] Nanogel encapsulation
did not affect the viability and proliferation of CSCs and cardiomyocytes,
suggesting its excellent biocompatibility (Figure and Supporting Information Figures S2–S4). In addition, the release of various
regenerative factors (including VEGF, IGF-1, and SDF-1) by CSCs was
not affected by nanogel encapsulation (Figure ).One potential risk of allogeneic
stem cell (including CSCs) transplantation
is the possibility of triggering immune rejection and inflammation.
Previous studies have demonstrated the benefit of using hydrogels
to encapsulate and deliver stem cells to treat MI.[30,32,41−43] However, in those approaches,
either syngeneic models were used to avoid immune responses or the
host immune system was suppressed to tolerate allogeneic or xenogeneic
stem cells. Particularly, the test of human cells was normally done
in immunodeficient animals. Here, we showed that injection of P(NIPAM-AA)
nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs in immunocompetent mice did not trigger
significant systemic inflammation or local infiltration of T cells
and macrophages (Figure and Supporting Information Figure S5A). In line with the absence of immune reaction, a larger amount of
nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs was observed in the injected heart (Figure B,C,E–G),
suggesting that nanogel encapsulation could enhance cell retention.
In addition, injection of nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs in pig heart
is nontoxic to the kidney and the liver (Supporting Information Figure S5C–H). These compound data sets
suggested that the nanogel scaffolding material provided a barrier
to prevent the entrance of T cells by the small pore size and capillary
force generated by the porous structure.The mechanisms underlying
the therapeutic benefits of nanogel-encapsulated
CSC therapy are likely to be complicated. Our findings indicated that
the P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs promoted post-MI cardiac
repair by the inhibition of apoptosis and promotion of angiomyogenesis
(Figure ). Collectively,
these favorable actions lead to reduced fibrosis and improved cardiac
function (Figure ).
Fast degrading natural polymers do not support long-term support to
the heart.[34,35] In contrast, synthetic polymers
cannot be quickly removed by enzyme activities.Before one can
start an IND-enabled human trial, normally large
animal studies are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy end points
observed in rodent models. We select the pig acute MI model because
this model has been widely employed for stem-cell-based therapies
for cardiac regeneration. In the pilot pig study, we confirmed that
nanogel-encapsulated human CSCs did not elicit T cell infiltration
but promoted cardiac function and angiomyogenesis in the post-MI heart
(Figure and Figure ). Xenogeneic cells
were used in our study to exaggerate the immune reaction. In real
scenarios, we expect the nanogel will provide a shield for allogeneic
stem cells or induced pluripotent cells, which are likely to trigger
immune reaction in the host tissue. In addition, the polymer carrier
can drastically improve cell retention rate.Our study has several
limitations. First, we applied permanent
vessel ligation in both mouse and pig models. Certainly, this is not
what happens in real clinical situations where patients normally get
coronary reperfusion. Second, minimally invasive delivery of biomaterials
to the heart has been a challenge. In the current setting, open chest
surgery is needed to expose the heart for direct muscle injection
of the biomaterial/stem cell construct. Nevertheless, advanced equipment
and technology have been developed to perform percutaneous endomyocardial
injection (e.g., NOGA-Myostar injection).
Conclusion
Our findings indicated that synthetic porous nanogel can act as
a favorable cell carrier for allogeneic/xenogeneic cell therapies.
In particular, P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel blocks immune cells from entering
while permitting the release of regenerative factors to promote regeneration.
Taken together, nanogel-encapsulated hCSC therapy represents a safe
and effective method for heart repair.
Materials
and Methods
Synthesis of Poly(P)(NIPAM-AA) Nanogel
N-Isopropylacrylamide (NIPAM,99%+), N,N-methylenebis(acrylamide) (MBA, 98%+), potassium persulfate (KPS,
99%+), and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS, 98.5%+) were bought from Sigma-Aldrich.
Acrylic acid (AA, 99.5%) was purchased from Acros Organics Co. (New
Jersey, USA). NIPAM was purified prior to synthesis through recrystallization
in n-hexane and dried in vacuum at room temperature.
Free radical emulsion polymerization was carried out to synthesize
P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel. Based on the recipe in Table , 9.9 mmol (1.1203 g) of NIPAM, 0.1 mmol
(6.86 μL) of AA, 0.2 mmol (31 mg) of MBA, and 0.2 mmol of SDS
(57.9 mg) were dissolved in 97 mL of water. Then we poured the liquid
into a 250 mL three-necked flask attached with a condenser and a mechanical
stirrer. Before being moved to a 70 °C oil bath, the system was
degassed for 30 min. Three milliliters of KPS aqueous solution (0.1
mmol, 27 mg) was injected into the system to start the polymerization.
The polymer synthesis was carried out for 5 h with continuous stirring
under the protection of a nitrogen atmosphere at 70 °C. Once
the polymerization was finished, the solution was purified by membrane
dialysis (cutoff Mw of 12–14 kDa)
against Milli-Q water for a week with daily water change. After purification,
nanogels were concentrated by heating to 70 °C. Two hundred microliters
of the concentrated nanogel dispersion was dried at 70 °C for
48 h. The concentration was calculated.
Table 1
Protocol
for the Synthesis of P(NIPAM-AA)
Nanogel
ζ-potential (mV)a
nanogel
NIPAM (mmol)
AA (mmol)
MBA (mmol)
SDS (mmol)
KPS (mmol)
25 °C
37 °C
VPTT (°C)
P(NIPAM-AA)
9.9
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
–7.36 ± 0.07
–9.31 ± 0.9
33
Determined from
DSL in water, ζ-potential:
mean ± SE, n = 5.
Determined from
DSL in water, ζ-potential:
mean ± SE, n = 5.
Dynamic Light Scattering Measurement
A Zetasizer (Malvern,
Nano-ZS) was utilized to measure the hydrodynamic diameter (dh) and ζ-potential of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogels
(1.0 mg/mL in PBS buffer) at different temperatures. An autocorrelator
was used to collect dynamic light scattering data.
Rheological
Characterization
A universal stress rheometer
SR5 (Rheometric Scientific) with a 40 mm cone plate geometry was used
to perform dynamic oscillation experiments for 30 mg/mL nanogel dispersions.
The gap was setup at 0.0483 mm, and the temperature was controlled
by a Peltier system connected with a water bath. The elastic (storage)
modulus G′ and viscous (loss) modulus G″ were examined at different temperatures from 20
to 40 °C. The stress was fixed at 0.1 Pa and the frequency at
0.1 Hz. The experiment was carried out in the linear viscoelastic
region.
Hydrogel Morphologies
Nanogel dispersions (30 mg/mL)
in physiological saline buffer (pH is approximately 7.2) were put
into a 37 °C water bath to form physical gel. Once the gel was
formed, the sample was quenched by liquid nitrogen and then under
vacuum using a Christ Alpha 2-4 LD free dryer. A Philips XL 30 FEG
scanning electron microscopy was used to observe the hydrogel morphology
after being coated with platinum at an acceleration voltage of 20
kV.
Derivation and Culture of Human Cardiac Stem Cells
Human CSCs were derived as previously descried using the cardiosphere
method.[44] In brief, heart tissues were
cut into tiny pieces and washed with PBS and digestion of collagenase
(Sigma, St. Louis, MO). Tissue fragments were cultured as “cardiac
explants” on a plate coated with 0.5 mg/mL fibronectin (BD
Biosciences, San Jose, CA) in IMDM supplemented with FBS, 0.5% gentamicin
(Gibco, Life Technologies, California, USA), 0.1 mM 2-mercaptoethanol
(Invitrogen), and 1% l-glutamine (Invitrogen). After about
7–14 days, we collected cardiac explanted-derived cells with
0.25% trypsin (Gibco) and then seeded them in ultralow attachment
flasks (Corning) for cardiospheres. After several days, cardiosphere-derived
cardiac stem cells were formed by seeding harvested cardiospheres
on fibronectin-coated plates and being incubated in 5% CO2 at 37 °C.
P(NIMAP-AA) Nanogel Encapsulation of Human
CSCs
Human
CSCs were collected in culture media and mixed with 10× PBS and
50 mg/mL P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel liquid in a ratio of 1:1:3 and then warmed
in a 37 °C incubator for gelation to occur. The culture was maintained
in IMDM (Invitrogen) containing 20% FBS. Human CSC morphology, viability,
and proliferation in the nanogel were compared to that of hCSCs cultured
on normal TCP. For cell viability, 1 × 105 hCSCs were
cultured in 125 μL of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel or on TCP on a 96-well
plate for 7 days and then detected with the live/dead viability/cytotoxicity
kit (Invitrogen). Cell morphology (e.g., cell body
elongation) was calculated according to the image analysis results
from ImageJ software. For cell proliferation, 1 × 105 hCSCs were seeded in 125 μL of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel or on TCP
on a 96-well plate, and we used counting kit-8 (Dojindo Molecular
Technologies, Rockville, MD) to quantify cellular proliferation at
days 1, 3, and 5. Absorbance rate was read by a microplate reader
(Tecan Sunrise, Switzerland). Confocal images were captured by a ZEISS
LSM 880 confocal microscope (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany).
Scanning
Electron Microscopy for P(NIPAM-AA) Nanogel-Encapsulated
Human CSCs
The morphology of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel-encapsulated
hCSCs was studied by SEM (Philips XL30 scanning microscope, The Netherlands).
The specimen was scanned and photographed under the microscope at
an acceleration voltage of 15 kV.
In Vitro Cytokine Release of P(NIPAM-AA) Nanogel-Encapsulated
Human CSCs
Three hundred microliters of 50 mg/mL of P(NIPAM-AA)
nanogel (with 1× 105 hCSCs) was placed into one well
of a 24-well plate and incubated with 1 mL of FBS-free media. To study
the continuous release of growth factors, we collected the conditioned
media at day 3, 5, and 9 and added back fresh media into the well
to be conditioned for the next time point. The expressions of IGF-1,
VEGF, and SDF-1 in the conditioned media were determined by ELISA
kits (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN; B-Bridge International, Cupertino,
CA).
Biocompatibility of P(NIPAM-AA) Nanogel with Cardiomyocytes
To examine the biocompatibility of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel, 1.5 ×
105 neonatal rat cardiomyocytes (NRCMs) were collected
in 25 μL of IMDM containing 10% FBS and mixed with 25 μL
of 10× PBS and 50 mg/mL of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel solution and then
cultured on a 96-well plate in a 37 °C incubator for 3 days.
NRCM morphology and viability in the polymer nanogel were characterized
and compared to the NRCMs cultured on TCPs. The live/dead viability/cytotoxicity
kit (Invitrogen) was applied to reflect cell viability and morphology.
Beating NRCMs were observed using time-lapse imaging.
Secretion
of CSCs Cultured in P(NIPAM-AA) Nanogel
Three
hundred microliters of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel (with 1× 105 hCSCs) was placed into each well of a 24-well plate and incubated
with 1 mL of FBS-free media. As the control, 1 × 105 hCSCs were seeded onto conventional TCPs. Conditioned media were
collected at day 3 and plated onto NRCMs for 3 days. A live/dead viability/cytotoxicity
kit (Invitrogen) was used for the determination of cell viability
and morphology.
Immunogenicity of Polymer-Encapsulated hCSCs
in Immunocompetent
Mice
Male CD1 mice received one of the two treatments randomly:
(1) “hCSCs in PBS” group, intramyocardial injection
of 1 × 105 human CSCs in 50 μL of PBS; (2) “hCSCs
in nanogel” group, intramyocardial injection of 1 × 105 human CSCs encapsulated in 50 μL of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel.
To enable fluorescent imaging and histological detection, hCSCs were
labeled with red fluorophore DiI. Seven days after injection, mice
were sacrificed to harvest the heart and blood. IVIS Xenogen In Vivo Imager (Caliper Lifesciences, Waltham, MA) was used
for ex vivo fluorescent imaging. Afterward, the heart
was frozen in OCT compound and sectioned at 10 μm thickness
for histology analysis. Vein blood was harvested in a EDTA tube and
centrifuged for 20 min at 2000 rpm to get plasma and stored in −80
°C. Mouseinflammation antibody array C1 (Raybio, Norcross, GA)
was used for the evaluations of inflammatory proteins in the plasma.
Mouse Model of Acute Myocardial Infarction
All animal
work was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
at North Carolina State University. Mouse MI model was generated as
previously described.[45,46] Generally, male CD1 mice were
anesthetized with isoflurane mixed with oxygen inhalation. The heart
was exposed by a minimally invasive left thoracotomy, and LAD was
ligated permanently for induction of acute MI. After LAD ligation,
the heart was to receive one of the following four treatments randomly:
(1) MI + hCSCs in nanogel, intramyocardially injected with 1 ×
105 hCSCs in 50 μL of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel; (2) MI
+ hCSCs in PBS, intramyocardially injected with 1 × 105 hCSCs in 50 μL of PBS; (3) MI + nanogel, intramyocardially
injected with 50 μL of P(NIPAM-AA) nanogel; (4) MI alone, MI
surgery without any injection. The hCSCs or nanogels were prelabeled
with Texas Red-X succinimidyl ester (1 mg/mL, Invitrogen) for detection.
Cell Engraftment Assay by Quantitative PCR
Animals
were sacrificed, and their hearts were excised to obtain an actual
measurement of the number of cells engrafted. Real-time PCR experiments
using the human-specific repetitive Alu sequences were conducted.
The whole heart was weighed and homogenized. Genomic DNA was isolated
from aliquots of the homogenate with the DNAeasy minikit (Qiagen).
The TaqMan assay (Applied Biosystems) was used to quantify the number
of transplanted cells with the human Alu sequence as the template.
Hematoxylin and Eosin Staining
To evaluate possible
immune responses to the injected nanogel, major organs from the injected
mice and pigs were harvested. H&E staining was performed on tissue
sections. Slides were fixed in hematoxylin (Sigma-Aldrich, MO, USA)
for 5 min at room temperature and then rinsed in running water for
2 min. Afterward, the slides were decolorized in acid alcohol for
2 s and rinsed again in sodium bicarbonate for 5 dips, and the container
was rinsed out with dehydrant after 95% iso for 30 s. Slides were
then fixed in eosin solution (Sigma-Aldrich, MO, USA) for 2 min and
then washed in 100% dehydrant (Richard-Allan Scientific, MI, USA)
and subsequent xylene solution (VWR, PA, USA) three times. The slides
were digitally photographed and analyzed by independent pathologists
blinded to treatment allocations.
Heart Morphometry
After the echocardiography detection
at 3 weeks, mice were euthanized and hearts were harvested and frozen
in OCT compound. Specimens were sectioned at 10 μm thickness
with 100 μm intervals. Masson’s trichrome staining was
performed with a HT15 trichrome staining (Masson) kit (Sigma-Aldrich).
Stained slides were placed in PathScan Enabler IV slide scanner (Advanced
Imaging Concepts, Princeton, NJ) for image collection. NIH ImageJ
software was used for the measurement of morphometric parameters in
each section.[47] Values from three sections
per heart (5 hearts from each group) were determined and averaged.
Cardiac Function Evaluation
Under inhaled isoflurane–oxygen
mixture anesthesia, the transthoracic echocardiography procedure was
performed by a cardiologist and detected by a Philips CX30 ultrasound
system coupled with a L15 high-frequency probe. Hearts were imaged
2D in long-axis views at the level of the greatest LV diameter. LVEFs
were determined by measurement from views taken from the infarcted
area.
Immunohistochemistry Staining
Heart cryosections were
fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde, permeabilized, and blocked with protein
block solution (DAKO, Carpinteria, CA) with 0.1% saponin (Sigma) and
then incubated with the primary antibodies overnight at 4 °C.
Primary antibodies were listed as follows: rabbit anti-CD3 (ab16669,
Abcam, Cambridge, United Kingdom), mouse anti-CD8 alpha (mca48r, abd
Serotec, Raleigh, NC), mouse anti-CD68 (ab955, Abcam), mouse anti-alpha
sarcomeric actin (a7811, Sigma), rabbit anti-Ki67 (ab15580, Abcam),
rabbit anti-vWF (ab6994, Abcam), and a smooth muscle actin antibody
(A5228, Sigma). FITC- or Texas-Red secondary antibodies obtained from
Abcam Company were incubated and conjoined with related primary antibodies.
For evaluation of cell apoptosis, heart cryosections were incubated
with TUNEL solution (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) and
counter-stained with DAPI (Life Technology, NY, USA). Images were
taken by an Olympus epi-fluorescence microscopy system as previously
described.[48,49]
Pig Studies
Acute
MI was induced in female mini-pigs
(8–10 kg) by permanent ligation of LAD. Twenty minutes later,
10 million nanogel-encapsulated hCSCs were injected into the peri-infarct
area in 10 sites (1 million for each site). Control animals received
injection of hCSCs suspended in PBS. After the procedures, the animals
recovered. Successful induction of MI was verified by ST elevation
on an ECG. At three time points (baseline, 48 h post-MI, and 4 weeks
after treatment), LVEFs were determined by echocardiography using
a SIUI Apogee 1200v veterinary ultrasound system. Blood was collected
at day 0 and day 28 for ALT, AST, urea, and creatinine analysis (DiaSys
Diagnostic Systems). From the cryosections, Masson’s trichrome
staining was performed, and images were taken from the infarct area.
Scar transmurality was analyzed.
Statistical Analysis
All results are expressed as mean
± standard deviation. Comparison between two groups was performed
by a two-tailed Student’s t test. One-way
ANOVA test was used for comparison among three or more groups with
Bonferroni post-hoc correction. Differences were
considered statistically significant when P values
were <0.05.
Authors: Jamie L Ifkovits; Elena Tous; Masahito Minakawa; Masato Morita; J Daniel Robb; Kevin J Koomalsingh; Joseph H Gorman; Robert C Gorman; Jason A Burdick Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-06-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: So Jeong Yoon; Yong Hu Fang; Choon Hak Lim; Bum Shik Kim; Ho Sung Son; Yongdoo Park; Kyung Sun Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.368
Authors: Anna Blocki; Sebastian Beyer; Jean-Yves Dewavrin; Anna Goralczyk; Yingting Wang; Priscilla Peh; Michael Ng; Shehzahdi S Moonshi; Susmitha Vuddagiri; Michael Raghunath; Eliana C Martinez; Kishore K Bhakoo Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Lailiang Ou; Wenzhong Li; Yue Zhang; Weiwei Wang; Jun Liu; Heiko Sorg; Dario Furlani; Ralf Gäbel; Peter Mark; Christian Klopsch; Liang Wang; Karola Lützow; Andreas Lendlein; Klaus Wagner; Doris Klee; Andreas Liebold; Ren-Ke Li; Deling Kong; Gustav Steinhoff; Nan Ma Journal: J Cell Mol Med Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 5.310
Authors: Teng Su; Ke Huang; Kyle G Mathews; Valery F Scharf; Shiqi Hu; Zhenhua Li; Brianna N Frame; Jhon Cores; Phuong-Uyen Dinh; Michael A Daniele; Frances S Ligler; Ke Cheng Journal: ACS Biomater Sci Eng Date: 2020-10-05
Authors: Teng Su; Ke Huang; Hong Ma; Hongxia Liang; Phuong-Uyen Dinh; Justin Chen; Deliang Shen; Tyler A Allen; Li Qiao; Zhenhua Li; Shiqi Hu; Jhon Cores; Brianna N Frame; Ashlyn T Young; Qi Yin; Jiandong Liu; Li Qian; Thomas G Caranasos; Yevgeny Brudno; Frances S Ligler; Ke Cheng Journal: Adv Funct Mater Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 18.808
Authors: Ke Huang; Emily W Ozpinar; Teng Su; Junnan Tang; Deliang Shen; Li Qiao; Shiqi Hu; Zhenhua Li; Hongxia Liang; Kyle Mathews; Valery Scharf; Donald O Freytes; Ke Cheng Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 17.956