| Literature DB >> 31574184 |
Joshua T Maxwell1,2, David Trac3, Ming Shen1,2, Milton E Brown3, Michael E Davis1,2,3, Myra S Chao4, Krittin J Supapannachart5, Carly A Zaladonis4, Emily Baker4, Martin L Li4, Jennifer Zhao6, Daniel I Jacobs4.
Abstract
Nearly 1 in every 120 children born has a congenital heart defect. Although surgical therapy has improved survival, many of these children go on to develop right ventricular heart failure (RVHF). The emergence of cardiovascular regenerative medicine as a potential therapeutic strategy for pediatric HF has provided new avenues for treatment with a focus on repairing or regenerating the diseased myocardium to restore cardiac function. Although primarily tried using adult cells and adult disease models, stem cell therapy is relatively untested in the pediatric population. Here, we investigate the ability of electrical stimulation (ES) to enhance the retention and therapeutic function of pediatric cardiac-derived c-kit+ progenitor cells (CPCs) in an animal model of RVHF. Human CPCs isolated from pediatric patients were exposed to chronic ES and implanted into the RV myocardium of rats. Cardiac function and cellular retention analysis showed electrically stimulated CPCs (ES-CPCs) were retained in the heart at a significantly higher level and longer time than control CPCs and also significantly improved right ventricular functional parameters. ES also induced upregulation of extracellular matrix and adhesion genes and increased in vitro survival and adhesion of cells. Specifically, upregulation of β1 and β5 integrins contributed to the increased retention of ES-CPCs. Lastly, we show that ES induces CPCs to release higher levels of pro-reparative factors in vitro. These findings suggest that ES can be used to increase the retention, survival, and therapeutic effect of human c-kit+ progenitor cells and can have implications on a variety of cell-based therapies. Stem Cells 2019;37:1528-1541.Entities:
Keywords: Cell- and tissue-based therapy; Electrical stimulation; Heart defects, congenital; Heart failure; Humans; Stem cells
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31574184 PMCID: PMC6916193 DOI: 10.1002/stem.3088
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cells ISSN: 1066-5099 Impact factor: 6.277
Quantitative real‐time polymerase chain reaction primer sequences
| Gene Name | Forward | Reverse |
|---|---|---|
|
| CAT AGG AGG CAG TTT AGC GTA G | CCC AAG GTC ACT CAG GTA ATA AG |
|
| GCT GAG AGA AGG ATG GGA ATA G | GCG CCT GGT ATG TGG TAT TA |
|
| TGG GAC CCT TGT GAT GAA TG | CTA TGG TGG GTC TCC TCA GAT A |
|
| GGC CTT CCT TTC CTC TTA TCT G | CTT TCT CTC TCC CTC TCC TTC T |
|
| CCT GGC CTG CTT CTC ATT TA | GGA GAG CCT TCA CAC AAG ATA G |
|
| TGA TCC TGT GTC CCA TTG TAA G | TGA CCT CGT TGT TCC CAT TC |
|
| AAT ACT CTG TCT GGA TCG GTG GCT | ACG AGT CAG AGC TTT GGC TAG GAA |
|
| TGT CTG GCT GAG GGA GGT AA | GTA CAT GGC TTT GCT GGC AC |
|
| TTT CCA GCA GCC TTT CTA CCA | GGA AGA ACT GGC CCT TGT CA |
|
| GAC TAG ATA GCG TCA CCA GCA G | GAA ACC GTC AGA ATC CTC CTC |
|
| GCA TCT GAG ACC AGT GAG AAA | TCC TGC TGT GCA TCT GTA AG |
|
| TCT ATG ACC TCG CCC TCC ACA AA |
GAA CGG TGT CTT CAG GTT GTT ATT T CA |
|
| GCA GGT ATG GGT TCA TAG AAG G | GGT GTT GGA TGT GAG GAT GT |
|
| GCA GGT GTC AGC AAG TAT GA | GAA AGA GAG GCT GTC CAT GTT |
|
| GTC ATT GAG CCT GGC AAT TTA G | GTT GAG ACT CCT CCA TTC CTT C |
|
| GGA GAT GCG TCC CAT CAA GAC | GGA GAC GCA TAG CCT TGT GG |
|
| ACC CTG AGT CCC CTG GAT TT | TCA CTC ATT GCA CGC TGC AT |
|
| TAA CTT CTT TTC ACT GTT GTG CTC CTT | GCC GCT TTT GGC AAA TGT T |
|
| GGC AGA GTG GTA GGT GAT AAA G | CCA TAA ATG ACT GCA AGC ATC G |
|
| AGT GAG AAA TGG GCT GGT AAA GT | CTT ATC CCA GAC CAA GAA TCG G |
|
| TAG AGA TGA GGG TCT CGC TAT G | TTA TAG GCA TGA GCC ACT GTT C |
|
| GTG GAC CTG ACC TGC CGT CT | GGA GGA GTG GGT GTC GCT GT |
The sequence of the forward and reverse primers used in the study are listed above. Primers were created using Integrated DNA Technology Primer Quest online tool against human gene sequences.
Figure 1ES‐CPCs significantly improve RV function in PAB rats. (A): Summary time course data of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) measurements in sham and PAB rats with injection of CPCs. Summary graphs of (B) right ventricle ejection time (RVET), (C) right ventricle wall thickness (RVWT), (D) right ventricle fractional area change (RVFAC), and (E) right ventricle end diastolic diameter (RVEDD) measured at day 42. n = 5 (sham), n = 5 (saline), n = 9 (control CPCs), n = 9 (7‐day), n = 7 (14‐day) for (A)–(E). (F): Representative images of picrosirius red‐stained fibrosis in rat heart sections. Dashed line indicates the areas used to quantify right ventricular free wall fibrosis. (G): Summary graph of fibrosis quantification in rat heart sections at day 42. n = 5 (sham), n = 5 (saline), n = 9 (control CPCs), n = 9 (7‐day), n = 7 (14‐day) for (F) and (G). Data are presented as mean ± SD. *, p ≤ .05 vs. saline; #, p ≤ .05 vs control CPC. Abbreviations: CPCs, cardiac‐derived c‐kit+ progenitor cells; ES‐CPCs, electrically stimulated CPCs; PAB, pulmonary artery banding; RV, right ventricle.
Figure 2ES significantly improves the retention of CPCs in PAB hearts. (A): Representative in vivo DiR fluorescence images of rats injected with control or 7‐ or 14‐day ES‐CPCs. (B): Summary time course of fluorescence in PAB rats injected with DiR‐labeled CPCs. Values are normalized to day 0 fluorescence values and plotted as percentage. n = 9 (control CPCs), n = 9 (7‐day), n = 7 (14‐day). Data are presented as mean ± SD. *, p ≤ .05 vs. control CPCs. (C): Representative immunohistochemical staining images of heart sections from PAB rats injected with 7‐day ES‐CPCs. Images were acquired at 10× (top) and 20× (bottom). Dashed box in 10× represents 20× scan area. See also Supporting Information Figure S5. Abbreviations: CPCs, cardiac‐derived c‐kit+ progenitor cells; ES‐CPCs, electrically stimulated CPCs; PAB, pulmonary artery banding.
Figure 3ES induces upregulation of extracellular matrix and cell adhesion genes in CPCs. (A): Scatter plot of gene array data from control and 7‐day ES‐CPCs showing upregulated (green), downregulated (red), and below threshold (black) genes between control and ES‐CPCs. Dashed lines indicate ±two fold regulation threshold, and the solid line is unchanged gene expression. The top five upregulated and downregulated genes are shown in the inset table. (B): Summary qRT‐PCR data of the fold change versus control of top five upregulated genes in ES‐CPCs from the gene array data. N = 3. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *, p ≤ .05 versus control. Abbreviations: CPCs, cardiac‐derived c‐kit+ progenitor cells; ES‐CPCs, electrically stimulated CPCs; qRT‐PCR, quantitative real‐time polymerase chain reaction.
Figure 4ES induces upregulation of integrin protein expression in CPCs. Summary graphs of alpha (left) and beta (right) integrin protein expression from control and ES‐CPCs as quantified by colorimetric α/β integrin mediated cell adhesion array. n = 6. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *, p ≤ .05 versus control. Abbreviations: CPCs, cardiac‐derived c‐kit+ progenitor cells; ES‐CPCs, electrically stimulated CPCs.
Figure 5Upregulation of β1 and β5 integrins contribute to the increased retention of ES‐CPCs. Summary graphs of (A) RT‐PCR data and (B) protein expression array data from control CPCs and ES‐CPCs transduced with β1 integrin shRNA (β1‐ES‐CPC) or β5 integrin shRNA (β5‐ES‐CPC) lentiviral vectors. (C): Representative in vivo DiR fluorescence images of rats injected with control or β1‐ES‐CPCs or β5‐ES‐CPCs. (D): Summary time course of fluorescence in PAB rats injected with DiR‐labeled CPCs. Values are normalized to day 0 fluorescence values and plotted as percentage. n = 4–6. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *p ≤ .05 versus control. Abbreviations: CPCs, cardiac‐derived c‐kit+ progenitor cells; ES‐CPCs, electrically stimulated CPCs; PAB, pulmonary artery banding; RT‐PCR, real‐time polymerase chain reaction.
Figure 6ES increases survival and adhesion of CPCs. (A): Representative immunocytochemical staining images of control and ES‐CPCs under control conditions, after passage through a 27‐gauge needle, or after 5 hours of treatment with 300 μM H2O2. Cells were stained with calcein (green) and ethidium homodimer‐1 (red) to quantify live and dead cells under the various conditions. (B): Summary graph of live cell quantification from control (white) and ES‐CPCs (blue) under the conditions show in (A). n = 4. (C): Summary adherence data from control (white) and ES‐CPCs (gray) under the conditions shown in (A) and quantified in a separate assay. n = 5. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *p ≤ .05 vs. control, #p ≤ .05 versus untreated. Abbreviations: CPCs, cardiac‐derived c‐kit+ progenitor cells; ES‐CPCs, electrically stimulated CPCs.
Figure 7ES induces release of key paracrine factors from CPCs. Summary graphs of data from custom Luminex multiplex immunoassays of levels of select analytes released from control (white) and ES‐CPCs (blue). n = 5. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *p ≤ .05 versus control. Abbreviations: CPCs, cardiac‐derived c‐kit+ progenitor cells; ES‐CPCs, electrically stimulated CPCs.