| Literature DB >> 30460245 |
Eva Jover1, Marco Fagnano1, Gianni Angelini1, Paolo Madeddu1.
Abstract
Cardiovascular calcification is an independent risk factor and an established predictor of adverse cardiovascular events. Despite concomitant factors leading to atherosclerosis and heart valve disease (VHD), the latter has been identified as an independent pathological entity. Calcific aortic valve stenosis is the most common form of VDH resulting of either congenital malformations or senile "degeneration." About 2% of the population over 65 years is affected by aortic valve stenosis which represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the elderly. A multifactorial, complex and active heterotopic bone-like formation process, including extracellular matrix remodeling, osteogenesis and angiogenesis, drives heart valve "degeneration" and calcification, finally causing left ventricle outflow obstruction. Surgical heart valve replacement is the current therapeutic option for those patients diagnosed with severe VHD representing more than 20% of all cardiac surgeries nowadays. Tissue Engineering of Heart Valves (TEHV) is emerging as a valuable alternative for definitive treatment of VHD and promises to overcome either the chronic oral anticoagulation or the time-dependent deterioration and reintervention of current mechanical or biological prosthesis, respectively. Among the plethora of approaches and stablished techniques for TEHV, utilization of different cell sources may confer of additional properties, desirable and not, which need to be considered before moving from the bench to the bedside. This review aims to provide a critical appraisal of current knowledge about calcific VHD and to discuss the pros and cons of the main cell sources tested in studies addressing in vitro TEHV.Entities:
Keywords: calcification; heterotopic bone formation; in vitro; tissue engineering heart valves; valve heart disease
Year: 2018 PMID: 30460245 PMCID: PMC6232262 DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2018.00155
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med ISSN: 2297-055X
Figure 1Differential pathology and clinical impact of valvular vs. vascular calcification flowchart. Cardiovascular calcification is an active and degenerative bone-like process affecting the cardiovascular tissues. Both vessels and valves show an athero-inflammatory background and, despite the commonalities and overlap of several risk factors (such as aging, hyperlipidaemia or kidney disease), both atherosclerosis and calcific VHD are two independent pathologic entities. The biological progression of the disease, tissue characteristics and clinical impact stand those differences. The result is the independent plaque rupture primary outcome found in the progression of VHD. An increased stiffness or sclerosis induces an increased aortic pulse wave, triggering hypertension, and a reduction in coronary perfusion. Besides, the pressure overload caused by a sclerotic pre-stadium and observed in the progression of the VHD leads to LV structural and hemodynamic changes. Symptomatology onset and calcification burden are poor prognosis predictors associated with multiple adverse cardiovascular complications, such as left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), aortic valve stenosis, congestive heart failure (HF), ascending aorta aneurysm, myocardial infarction (MI), and peripheral vascular disease (PVD).
Figure 2Pathophysiology of valve calcification. VICs are myofibroblast-like cells endowed with high plasticity, allowing them to participate in reparative, regenerative, and pathological processes. Underlying athero-inflammatory disease, aging as well as other clinical conditions such as chronic kidney disease or hyperlipidaemia, can trigger the acquisition of synthetic, proliferative and migratory phenotypes by VICs. These conditions are often associated with a reduction of defense mechanism against calcification. Two major features are recognized during valve calcification: (i) ECM remodeling, including the synthesis of a collagen-enriched matrix and its mineralization, and (ii) osteo/chondroblast differentiation of VICs. Osteogenic processes are associated with the abundant synthesis of collagen type-I and other ECM remodeling processes causing stiffness changes capable of perpetuate and extend the osteogenesis in the valve. A prestadium of sclerosis in well-functional valves finally leading to stenosis and obstruction in an active heterotopic bone-like formation process has been described. Observations in human samples also suggest the possibility of dystrophic mineralisation in advanced end-stages of calcific VHD. Pyrophosphate, osteopontin, osteoprotegerin, gamma-carboxylated matrix Gla protein and circulating fetuin-A are listed as physiologic inhibitors of vascular calcification; while hyperphosphatemia and hypercalcemia, expression of bone morphogenetic proteins or alkaline phosphatase and activation of osteo/chondroblast regulators (Runx2, Osterix, Wnt) are counted among the pro-calcifying elements orchestrating osteoblast-like transdifferentiation. PPi, pyrophosphate; cMGP, gamma-carboxylated matrix Gla protein; BMP-2, bone morphogenetic protein 2; ECM, extracellular matrix; CKD, chronic kidney disease; CHD, congestive heart disease; VIC, valve interstitial cells; VEC, valve endothelial cells; GAGs, glycosaminoglycans; Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2, hydroxyapatite; Pi, inorganic phosphate; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; Bglap, bone Gla protein or osteocalcin.
Advantages and disadvantages of in vitro and in situ TEHV.
| Advantages | •Exogenous delivery of stem/progenitor cells in an environment with a deteriorated endogenous reparative/regenerative system | •More rapid implantation and possibly non-invasive |
| •Promotion of a “physiologic-like” reparation/regeneration of the injured area by the exogenously delivered stem/progenitor cells | •Resident cell recruitment | |
| •Promotion of resident cell recruitment | •Surrogates mimicking the native ECM | |
| •Phenotype modification of recruited cells through stem/progenitor cell-derived secretome or other mechanisms | •Off-the-shelf scaffold manufacturing. Limitless supply and ready-to-be implanted for urgent implantations | |
| •Bioprosthetic-derived | •Different and desired growth factor or drugs can be delivered | |
| •A dynamic maturation prior implantation may favor a desired cell profile and ECM remodeling, including collagens as well as non-collagen proteins (e.g., proteoglycans and glycosaminoglycans) | •Tissue Engineered Matrix (TEM)- | |
| •Cell seeding prior implantation reinforce the capability of the TEHV to support cell functions such as viability, proliferation or migration in both static and dynamic conditions | •Mechanical, chemical, and biochemical features of the construct will stimulate and direct the host's native regeneration capabilities | |
| •Inhibition of thrombogenic events | •Controlled and tailored properties | |
| •Tailored prosthesis according to patient's anatomy | •Easy, reproducible and less expensive formulation | |
| •Maintained natural ECM architecture and depending cell signaling | •Less prone to infections or contaminations | |
| •Biodegradable surrogates mimicking the native ECM | ||
| •Possibility of Tissue Engineered Matrix (TEM) application | ||
| Disadvantages | •Time-consuming, need of cell harvest, expansion, repeated manipulation, potential infection | •TEM limitations-decellularization (and cross-linked) product, related toxicity and creation of calcium nucleation sites. Some could be not cross-linked |
| •Decellularized products, related toxicity and calcium nucleation sites mainly if using GA cross-linking | •Lower capability of stem/progenitor reparative cell recruitment due to underlying impaired mobilization: physiologic reparative and regenerative processes must be lower under certain clinical conditions causing VHD | |
| •Multilineage commitment of exogenous stem/progenitor cells can favor undesired phenotypes | •Thrombogenicity in collagen-based exposed surfaces needing of rapid | |
| •Undesired phenotypes in recruited cells including myofibroblast profiles. Leaflet contraction | •Limited capability to modify diseased phenotype of recruited resident cells, mostly subjected to the physical properties of the scaffold. | |
| •Myofibroblast phenotype activation and leaflet contraction | ||
| •Possible immunotherapy for allogenic cells. Autologous cells are not ideal for old patients or patients with CVD | •Time-limited delivery of drugs or growth factors | |
| •Product heterogeneity depending on baseline characteristic of the donor | •Prosthesis-patient mismatch in off-the-shelf products | |
| •Potential malignant transformation of derived cells | •Toxicity of degradation products. Induction of inflammatory response | |
| •Immunogenic response if decellularization process not completed | •Difficult balance among hydrolytic polymer degradation and tissue formation in a systemic pathological environment which can drastically modify mechanical and biochemical properties |
In green color are highlighted the potential advantages; in red color the potential disadvantages. HV, heart valve; ECM, extracellular matrix; GA, glutaraldehyde; TEHV, Tissue Engineered Heart Valve; GMP, good manufacturing practice; CVD, cardiovascular disease.
Figure 3Main TEHV approaches comparison. Two main TEHV strategies are being explored; in vitro and in situ. In vitro TEHV consist of the combination of, ideally, autologous cells (e.g., MSCs, fibroblasts, EPCs, HSC, PCs or others) that may, or may not, be previously differentiated into the target cell. Those cells are seeded on a scaffold or graft preparation and statically or dynamically matured prior orthotopic implantation. On the other hand, in situ TEHV is based on the use of an acellular scaffold/graft capable to recruit endogenous cells which will remodel and integrate. Both in vitro and in situ meet at the scaffold/graft preparation step. Scaffold/grafts can be based on decellularized xeno/homografts or synthetic totally/partially biodegradable materials (hydrogels, porous, or fibrous). Both approaches can be enriched with biomolecules or drugs stimulating desired cell recruitment and phenotypes or inhibiting deleterious events such as calcification, angiogenesis, etc of the TEHV. After implantation, the TEHV must be able to regenerate and integrate into the recipient host and be native-like functional. MSCs, mesenchymal stromal cells; EPCs, endothelial progenitor cells; HSC, hematopoietic stem cells; PCs, pericytes.
Different cell type candidates for in vitro TEHV.
| •Nonwoven PGA/PLLA blend melt extruded into sheets assembled to valvular shape | • | •Histology resembles the native tissue: elastin on the ventricularis side and collage on the fibrosa side | •Closer to native tissue stiffness after 4 weeks. Burst resistance higher than native tissue | ( | |
| Autologous BM-MSCs cultured in two different media: | •Decellularized porcine | • | •CD31+ layer on the leaflets surface | •Leaflets were intact, with no evidence of thrombus formation. Cellular coverage of leaflet surface and interstitial region repopulation | ( |
| •Juvenile sheep BM-MSCs (α-SMA and vimentin +) | •Nonwoven PGA:PLLA (50:50) scaffold | • | •Weak fibronectin and collagen I expression, high collagen III | •Tissue formation and cellularity was higher in flex-flow samples by three weeks | ( |
| •Non-selected lamb BM-MNCs | •Decellularized porcine | • | •In both groups, complete layer of VWF+, and α-actin+ cells demonstrated the presence of a thin ridge of SMCs, more pronounced in the MSC group | •No significant pulmonary regurgitation was recorded at any timepoint | ( |
| •Autologous sheep BM-MSCs | •Nonwoven poly(lactic- | • | •9 early dead out of 19 animals, mainly due operatory and anesthesia complications | ( | |
| •Sheep BM-MSCs | •Nonwoven PGA:PLLA 50:50 scaffold sewn around a plastic frame | • | •Higher collagen I & III for bFGF/AA2P samples | •Enhanced tissue formation for the bFGF/AA2P samples vs. the basal medium ones | ( |
| •For the scaffold production: ovine vascular-derived cells | •Nonwoven PGA mesh coated with 1.75 % solution of P4HB integrated in nitinol stent | • | •Abundant amount of crosslinked collagen | •Decellularization of vascular derived cells and MSCs seeding hampered leaflets retraction | ( |
| •Rat BM-MSCs | •Decellularized rat aortic valvular conduit w/w or w/o a multilayer of heparin + SDF-1α | •Treated scaffold: uniform luminal vWF+, CD34+ under the endothelium (EPCs), large amount of α-SMA in the adventitia, few mononuclear cells and macrophages infiltration (CD45+ and CD68+) | •100% patency and no evidence of stenosis at 4 weeks | ( | |
| •Human BM-MSCs | •PGA/P4HB composite | • | •H&E showed cellular tissue organized in a layered fashion, with a dense outer layer and lesser cellularity in the deeper portions after 14 days in the pulse duplicator. | •All leaflets were intact, mobile, pliable; and the constructs were competent during valve closure | ( |
| •Human putative BM-MSCs | •Decellularized porcine aortic valve homograft | • | •Homograft seeded cells were α-SMA, vimentin positive and desmin negative | •These cells have good potential for tissue engineering because of their plasticity | ( |
| •Human mesenchymal progenitors from prenatal chorionic villus specimens | •Sheets of nonwoven mesh PGA dip coated in a 1% (w/v) solution of P4HB shaped in valve fashion | • | •Markers expression (vimentin, α-SMA positive, desmin negative) matching the native tissue | •Tissue organization comparable with native neonatal valves | ( |
| •Human MSCs | •Decellularized ovine aortic valves | •Group A: static | •Compared to group A (static conditioning): | •MSCs infiltration into the leaflets | ( |
| •Autologous EPCs from ovine peripheral blood | •Sheets of non-woven mesh | • | •VEGF exposed ECs and EPCs have enhanced proliferation | •Seeded cells respond (proliferate) to VEGF (valve-derived ECs have attenuated response) | ( |
| •Autologous EPCs from ovine peripheral blood | •Sheets of nonwoven mesh PGA dip coated in a 1% (w/v) solution of P4HB sewed to form valvular conduit shape | • | •CD31 and VEGF-R2 positive cells on the luminal surface | •Cellular ingrowth throughout the scaffold | ( |
| •Mononuclear bone marrow cells and peripheral blood EPCs cultured in fibroblast and endothelial inducing media respectively | •P(L,DL)LA (Poly(L-lactide-co-D,L-lactide)) multifilament fibers using a 3-dimensional valve-shaped cast and thermal fixation. Surfaces coated with P(L,DL)LA | • | •eNOS positive on surface, α-SMA expression detected on the surface and in the interstitium. | •Leaflets thickening, lowering pressure gradient with time, and minimal regurgitation | ( |
| •Autologous sheep EPCs | •Decellularize porcine pulmonary valves | • | •EPCs scaffold were let express ECs markers in EGM media before scaffold seeding | •CD133-conjugated scaffold were repopulated better | ( |
| •Human EPCs from umbilical cord blood | •Sheets of nonwoven mesh PGA dip coated in a 1% (w/v) solution of P4HB and attached to ring-shaped supports | • | •Growth factors addition resulted: in GAGs amount comparable with native tissue, DNA 65% of native tissue, hydroxyproline 16% of native tissue | •Dense cell coverage and leaflet pliable | ( |
| •Human EPCs from venous blood | •Decellularized porcine aortic, valve heparin and VEGF coated | • | •Coated valves had higher number of adherent cells | ( | |
| •Autologous human EPCs from peripheral blood (mononuclear fraction) | •Decellularized human pulmonary valves from cadaver | • | •Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were expressing CD31, vWF, VEGF-R2 | •No arrythmia or any other problems in the follow-up | ( |
| •Human mesenchymal progenitors from prenatal chorionic villus specimens | •Sheets of nonwoven mesh PGA dip coated in a 1% (w/v) solution of P4HB shaped in valve fashion | • | •Markers expression (vimentin, α-SMA positive, desmin negative) matching the native tissue | •Tissue organization comparable with native neonatal valves | ( |
| •Human amniotic fluid mononuclear cells split in CD133+/- | •Sheets of nonwoven mesh PGA dip coated in a 1% (w/v) solution of P4HB shaped in valve fashion | •Sequential seeding, followed by | •TEHV presented collagen on the surfaces and GAG in the interstitium | •Valve had homogeneous thickness | ( |
| •Human EPCs from cord blood | •Porcine decellularized heart valves functionalized with RGD, VEGF, PEG | • | •Functionalized scaffolds had enhanced early attachment | ( | |
| •Human skin fibroblast reprogrammed into iPSCs, then, differentiated into MSCs | •Decellularized human pulmonary valve | • | •iPSCs-MSCs have twice the proliferation rate of BM-MSCs | •iPSCs-MSCs produced ECM (glycosaminoglycans and collagen) | ( |
| •Human iPSCs differentiated into MSCs | •PEGDA coated dishes and 3D PEGDA hydrogels | • | •3D PEGDA cultured iMSCs had similar α-SMA expression to VICs | •3D PEGDA cultured iMSCs had similar α-SMA expression to VICs | ( |
| •VICs from porcine aortic valve | •Fibronectin or collagen or heparin coated wells | • | •VICs seeded on fibronectin coated wells in presence of TGF-β1 are activated and stimulated to produce stress fibers and express α-SMA | ( | |
| •VICs from porcine aortic valve | •Porcine decellularized leaflets | • | •5% serum for 12h improved the VICs proliferation on the scaffolds | ( | |
| •VICs from porcine aortic valve | •Functionalized PEG hydrogel: four-arm poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) chains connected with enzymatically degradable peptides and RGD | • | •RGD increase the spreading | •Stiffer surfaces enhanced myofibroblastic activity of VICs | ( |
| •VICs from porcine aortic valve | •Different ratios Polyacrylamide/bisacrylamide coated wells to have different substrate stiffness | • | •TGF-β1 did not impact cell density or morphology. On the other hand, it did influenced cell spreading, and α-SMA expression | •Higher substrate stiffness increased cell spreading and influenced morphology (cytoskeletal organization and focal adhesion arrangement) | ( |
| •Autologous EPCs from ovine peripheral blood | •Sheets of nonwoven PGA mesh dip coated in a 1% (w/v) solution of P4HB | • | •VEGF-exposed ECs and EPCs have enhanced proliferation | •Seeded cells respond (proliferate) to VEGF (valve-derived ECs have attenuated response) | ( |
| •Model 1: porcine aortic VICs | •Collagen gel | • | •Change of VECs alignment under the flow | •VECs downregulates α-SMA in VICs | ( |
| •Sheep VICs | •Flasks | • | •VECs in TGF-β1 rich media got mesenchymal-like phenotype (α-SMA upregulated, CD31 downregulated) | •No endothelial cell type, apart from valvular was able to express osteogenic markers | ( |
| •Porcine aortic VECs | •Silicone with different stiffness levels | • | •Stiffer substrates induced EMT in presence of TGF-β1 shown by spindle-like morphology, VE-cadherin downregulation, and α-SMA upregulation | •Stiffer substrates induced EMT in presence of TGF-β1 | ( |
| •Both human and porcine VICs | •Electrospun polyglycerol sebacate (PGS) and PCL blends | • | •PGS decrease the contact angle and enhance cell attachment and spreading when blended with PCL | •Slower spreading in PCL scaffolds | ( |
| •Autologous jugular vein myofibroblasts | •Poly (glycolic acid)-(PGA)-Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate(P4HB) stented scaffold | • | •DNA content 49 ± 24%, GAG content 39 ± 9%, hydroxyproline content 15 ± 6% that of native t. at 4 weeks | •Proper opening and closing behavior, minimal regurgitation in 2 animals | ( |
| •Autologous Carotid myofibroblasts | •PGA/P4HB composite | • | •Bioreactor conditioning increased organization and layering of the leaflet structure. | •No evidence of thrombus, stenosis, or aneurysm formation up to 20 weeks. | ( |
| •Autologous iliac crest bone marrow myofibroblast-like cells | •Multi-layered P(L,DL) LA (Poly(L-lactide-co-D,L lactide)) stented scaffold | • | •DNA content 86 ± 54%, GAG content 150 ± 11%, hydroxyproline content 26 ± 6% that of native t. at 4 weeks | •Proper opening and closing behavior, minimal regurgitation in 2 animals | ( |
| •Ovine carotid artery ECs and SMCs | •Decellularized stented hybrid ovine small intestine submucosa/ porcine pulmonary valve | • | •A confluent monolayer was demonstrated by CD31-staining in both groups. | •Valve good opening and closing characteristics in both groups, no or minimal regurgitation, and a low transvalvular gradient (higher in the ECs/SMCs group) | ( |
| •Human foreskin fibroblasts (hFFs) | •Decellularized porcine pulmonary valve | • | •hFFs and hCFECs were able to colonize the scaffolds and penetrated at 6 days | ( | |
| •Human vascular ECs and FBs from saphenous vein | •Polyurethane PU sheets made with spraying technique | • | •Increase of cellular adhesion molecules | •Good endothelial lining orientated with the flow | ( |
| •Aortic SMCs | •Nitinol mesh-enclosed leaflets with cell layers embedded in collagen | • | •SMCs degraded and contracted the collagen but then ECs stoped their action | •The leaflets had a correct functioning in the bioreactor | • ( |
ECs, endothelial cells; PGA, polyglycolic-acid; PLLA, poly-l-lactic acid; P4HB, poly-4-hydroxybutyrate; PCL, polycaprolactone; t, tissue; GAGs, glycosaminoglycans; vWF, von Willebrand factor; H&E, haematoxylin eosin; BM, bone marrow; MSCs, mesenchymal stromal cells; PB, peripheral blood; EPCs, endothelial progenitor cells; α-SMA, alpha-smooth muscle actin; eNOS, endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase; MNCs, mononuclear cells; SMCs, smooth muscle cells; CAECs, coronary artery endothelial cells; SDF-1α, stromal cell-derived factor-1α; VICs, valve interstitial cells; ACTA2, gene codifying for smooth muscle alpha (α)-2 actin; HSP47/ SERPINH2, gene codifying for Serine (Or Cysteine) Proteinase Inhibitor, Clade H (Heat Shock Protein 47), Member 2; MKI67, gene codifying for marker of proliferation Ki-67; BAX; gene codifying for BCL2 Associated X, Apoptosis Regulator; ACAN, gene codifying for Aggrecan/ Chondroitin Sulphate Proteoglycan Core Protein 1; BGLAP, gene codifying for bone Gla protein/osteocalcin; w/w, with; w/o, without; SEM, scanning electron microscope.