Weiwei Wu1, Chunyan Wang1, Huimei Zang1, Lei Qi1, Mohamad Azhar1, Mitzi Nagarkatti2, Prakash Nagarkatti2, Guoshuai Cai3, Mary C M Weiser-Evans4, Taixing Cui1. 1. From the Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy (W.W., C.W., H.Z., L.Q., M.A., T.C.), University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. 2. Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, School of Medicine (M.N., P.N.), University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. 3. Department of Environmental Health Science, Arnold School of Public Health (G.C.), University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (M.C.M.W.-E.).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neointima formation is a primary cause of intermediate to late vein graft (VG) failure. However, the precise source of neointima cells in VGs remains unclear. Approach and Results: Herein we clarify the relative contributions of mature vascular smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and endothelial cells (ECs) to neointima formation in a mouse model of VG remodeling via the genetic-inducible fate mapping approaches. Regardless of the magnitude of neointima formation, the recipient arterial and the donor venous SMCs contributed ≈55% of the neointima cells at the anastomotic regions, whereas only donor venous SMCs donated ≈68% of the neointima cells at the middle bodies. A small portion of the SMC-derived cells became non-SMC cells, most likely vascular stem cells, and constituted 2% to 11% of the cells in each major layer of VGs. In addition, the recipient arterial ECs were the major cellular source of re-endothelialization but did not contribute to neointima formation. The donor venous ECs donated ≈17% neointima cells in the VGs with mild neointima formation and conditional media from ECs after endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition suppressed vascular SMC dedifferentiation. CONCLUSIONS: The recipient arterial and donor venous mature SMCs dominate but contribute distinctly to intimal hyperplasia at the anastomosis and the middle body regions of VGs. The recipient arterial ECs are the major cellular source of re-endothelialization but do not donate neointima formation in VGs. Only the donor venous ECs undergo endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition is marginal for generating neointima cells but is likely required for controlling the quality of VG remodeling.
OBJECTIVE: Neointima formation is a primary cause of intermediate to late vein graft (VG) failure. However, the precise source of neointima cells in VGs remains unclear. Approach and Results: Herein we clarify the relative contributions of mature vascular smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and endothelial cells (ECs) to neointima formation in a mouse model of VG remodeling via the genetic-inducible fate mapping approaches. Regardless of the magnitude of neointima formation, the recipient arterial and the donor venous SMCs contributed ≈55% of the neointima cells at the anastomotic regions, whereas only donor venous SMCs donated ≈68% of the neointima cells at the middle bodies. A small portion of the SMC-derived cells became non-SMC cells, most likely vascular stem cells, and constituted 2% to 11% of the cells in each major layer of VGs. In addition, the recipient arterial ECs were the major cellular source of re-endothelialization but did not contribute to neointima formation. The donor venous ECs donated ≈17% neointima cells in the VGs with mild neointima formation and conditional media from ECs after endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition suppressed vascular SMC dedifferentiation. CONCLUSIONS: The recipient arterial and donor venous mature SMCs dominate but contribute distinctly to intimal hyperplasia at the anastomosis and the middle body regions of VGs. The recipient arterial ECs are the major cellular source of re-endothelialization but do not donate neointima formation in VGs. Only the donor venous ECs undergo endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition is marginal for generating neointima cells but is likely required for controlling the quality of VG remodeling.
Authors: Mark W Majesky; Henrick Horita; Allison Ostriker; Sizhao Lu; Jenna N Regan; Ashim Bagchi; Xiu Rong Dong; Joanna Poczobutt; Raphael A Nemenoff; Mary C M Weiser-Evans Journal: Circ Res Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Christi M Terry; Donald K Blumenthal; Sreevalli Sikharam; Li Li; Tadashi Kuji; Steven E Kern; Alfred K Cheung Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: John E Pimanda; Lev Silberstein; Massimo Dominici; Benjamin Dekel; Mark Bowen; Scott Oldham; Asha Kallianpur; Stephen J Brandt; David Tannahill; Berthold Göttgens; Anthony R Green Journal: Mol Cell Biol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 4.272
Authors: Pei-Yu Chen; Lingfeng Qin; Carmen Barnes; Klaus Charisse; Tai Yi; Xinbo Zhang; Rahmat Ali; Pedro P Medina; Jun Yu; Frank J Slack; Daniel G Anderson; Victor Kotelianski; Fen Wang; George Tellides; Michael Simons Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Brian C Cooley; Jose Nevado; Jason Mellad; Dan Yang; Cynthia St Hilaire; Alejandra Negro; Fang Fang; Guibin Chen; Hong San; Avram D Walts; Robin L Schwartzbeck; Brandi Taylor; Jan D Lanzer; Andrew Wragg; Abdalla Elagha; Leilani E Beltran; Colin Berry; Robert Feil; Renu Virmani; Elena Ladich; Jason C Kovacic; Manfred Boehm Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 17.956