| Literature DB >> 31754410 |
Nerea Jimenez-Tellez1, Steven C Greenway2.
Abstract
The genetic cardiomyopathies are a group of disorders related by abnormal myocardial structure and function. Although individually rare, these diseases collectively represent a significant health burden since they usually develop early in life and are a major cause of morbidity and mortality amongst affected children. The heterogeneity and rarity of these disorders requires the use of an appropriate model system in order to characterize the mechanism of disease and develop useful therapeutics since standard drug trials are infeasible. A common approach to study human disease involves the use of animal models, especially rodents, but due to important biological and physiological differences, this model system may not recapitulate human disease. An alternative approach for studying the metabolic cardiomyopathies relies on the use of cellular models which have most frequently been immortalized cell lines or patient-derived fibroblasts. However, the recent introduction of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which have the ability to differentiate into any cell type in the body, is of great interest and has the potential to revolutionize the study of rare diseases. In this paper we review the advantages and disadvantages of each model system by comparing their utility for the study of mitochondrial cardiomyopathy with a particular focus on the use of iPSCs in cardiovascular biology for the modeling of rare genetic or metabolic diseases. ©The Author(s) 2019. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiomyopathy; Cellular models; Fibroblasts; Induced pluripotent stem cells; Mitochondria
Year: 2019 PMID: 31754410 PMCID: PMC6859298 DOI: 10.4330/wjc.v11.i10.221
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Cardiol
Comparison between animal and cell models
| Maintain genetic background | No | Yes |
| Cost of maintenance | Expensive | Less Expensive |
| Ease of maintenance | Simple | Difficult |
| Time required | +++ | + |
| Drug effects | Potentially not translatable | Translatable |
| Study of paracrine effects | Yes | No |
| Study of circulatory effects | Yes | No |
Figure 1Bright field microscopy images of human fibroblasts. A: 4 × magnification; and B: 20 × magnification.
Figure 2Bright field microscopy images of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Cells display a round morphology with a large nucleus and grow firmly packed in colonies. A: 4 × magnification. B: 20 × magnification.
Methods of delivery for reprogramming factors
| Retroviral transduction | Efficient, validated for multiple cell types, easy | Transgene integration |
| Lentiviral delivery | Very efficient | Transgene integration |
| Adenoviral transduction | Does not integrate | Low efficiency, only validated for fibroblasts |
| Plasmid DNA transfer (episomal) | Good efficiency, does not integrate, able to replicate autonomously, validated for multiple cell types | Low efficiency in fibroblast reprogramming |
| Lox p lentivirus delivery | High efficiency, excision of the integrated sequence, gene expression profile closer to hES cells | Genomic instability and genome rearrangements and loxP site remains integrated |
| Sendai virus | Efficient, does not integrate, validated for multiple cell types | Cost if purchased commercially or challenging if generated by a laboratory |
| PiggyBAC transposon | Efficient, precise and efficient self-excision, does not remain integrated | Published work only in fibroblasts, licensing patent issues, pBt gene may remain active post-transposition |
| Polyarginine tagged polypeptide | Does not integrate | Low efficiency, time-consuming, technically challenging and work only on fibroblasts |
| RNA modified synthetic mRNA | Very efficient, does not integrate, factor available commercially | Cost if purchased commercially or challenging if generated by a laboratory and work only on fibroblasts |
Figure 3Cardiomyocyte differentiation protocol. Modified from Lian et al[135], 2012. hiPSCs: Human induced pluripotent stem cells.
Advantages and disadvantages of different cell types for modeling disease in vitro
| Proliferation capacity | + | ++ |
| Self-renewal | No | Yes |
| Longevity | Limited | Unlimited |
| Differentiation | No | Yes |
| Metabolism | Quiescent | Energetic |
| Acquisition | Easy | Difficult |
| Cost | + | +++ |
| Ease of maintenance | Simple | Difficult |
| Necessary expertise | Low | High |
| Disease modeling | + | ++ |
| Structure | Single elongated cells | Round colonies/beating CM sheets |
| Maturation | Not applicable | Required for CM |
iPSCs: Induced pluripotent stem cells; CM: Cardiomyopathy.