| Literature DB >> 32759725 |
Natalya Alexandrushkina1,2, Peter Nimiritsky1,2, Roman Eremichev1, Vladimir Popov2, Mikhail Arbatskiy2, Natalia Danilova1, Pavel Malkov1,2, Zhanna Akopyan1,2, Vsevolod Tkachuk1,2, Pavel Makarevich1,2.
Abstract
We report a comparative study of multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) delivered by injection, MSC-based cell sheets (CS) or MSC secretome to induce healing of cutaneous pressure ulcer in C57Bl/6 mice. We found that transplantation of CS from adipose-derived MSC resulted in reduction of fibrosis and recovery of skin structure with its appendages (hair and cutaneous glands). Despite short retention of CS on ulcer surface (3-7 days) it induced profound changes in granulation tissue (GT) structure, increasing its thickness and altering vascularization pattern with reduced blood vessel density and increased maturation of blood vessels. Comparable effects on GT vascularization were induced by MSC secretome, yet this treatment has failed to induce repair of skin with its appendages we observed in the CS group. Study of secretome components produced by MSC in monolayer or sheets revealed that CS produce more factors involved in pericyte chemotaxis and blood vessel maturation (PDGF-BB, HGF, G-CSF) but not sprouting inducer (VEGF165). Analysis of transcriptome using RNA sequencing and Gene Ontology mapping found in CS upregulation of proteins responsible for collagen binding and GT maturation as well as fatty acid metabolism enzymes known to be negative regulators of blood vessel sprouting. At the same time, downregulated transcripts were enriched by factors activating capillary growth, suggesting that in MSC sheets paracrine activity may shift towards matrix remodeling and maturation of vasculature, but not activation of blood vessel sprouting. We proposed a putative paracrine trigger mechanism potentially rendering an impact on GT vascularization and remodeling. Our results suggest that within sheets, MSC may change their functional state and spectrum of soluble factors that influence tissue repair and induce more effective skin healing inclining towards regeneration and reduced scarring.Entities:
Keywords: angiogenesis; cell sheet; endothelial cells; granulation tissue; mesenchymal stromal cells; pressure ulcer; skin regeneration; vessel stabilization; wound healing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32759725 PMCID: PMC7432086 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21155567
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Macroscopic evaluation of pressure ulcer closure in experimental groups. (A) At Day 21 after cell sheet transplantation we found complete closure of the defect and onset of hair growth at the site of treated pressure ulcer. Scale bar represents 5 mm. (B) Results of defect relative area measurement as % of initial pressure ulcer at Days 14 and 21. Days 3 and 7 showed no significant difference between groups (*—p < 0.05; **—p < 0.01; ***—p < 0.001).
Figure 2Histological assessment of granulation tissue (GT) remodeling in experimental groups. (A) Relative content of collagen and reticular fibers (% of defect); (B) healing of skin and its appendages at the site of pressure ulcer in the “Cell Sheet” group (Day 21); Masson’s trichrome, scale bar represents 200 µm; (C) assessment of granulation tissue remodeling by calculation of its relative area (% of section area); n = 4 denotes number of animals assessed at this point, of which 3 had no GT area to account for while 1 had minimal remaining GT which allow presenting statistics (*—p < 0.05; ****—p < 0.0001).
Figure 3Retention of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) labeled by PKH26 after transplantation to pressure ulcers. Cell sheet (CS) is detected on wound surface only at Day 3; PKH26 signal from injected MSC is detectable in the tissue up to Day 21; “top” marks location of wound bed, “bottom” marks deeper layers of skin. Immunofluorescence, scale bar represents 250 µm.
Figure 4Influence of cell sheets, suspended MSC or MSC secretome on GT thickness in healing pressure ulcer. (A) Representative image of a histological section at Day 3; panel markup: 1—zone of damaged tissue down to (a) muscular layer with (b) immune cells infiltration and (c) edema of underlying tissue; 2—zone of GT formation; bar indicates measured thickness, arrows indicate blood vessels; 3—defect surface with (e) scab and (d) margin of migrating epithelial layer covering ulcer. Hematoxylin-eosin staining, scale bar represents 50 µm; (B) quantitative results of GT thickness analysis at Days 3 and 7; (*—p < 0.05; ****—p < 0.0001).
Figure 5Visualization and quantitative assessment of granulation tissue vascularization in study groups. (A) In the “Cell Sheet” group, density of CD31+ blood vessels was reduced (plots at Days 3 and 7). Immunofluorescence, scale bar represents 75 µm; data present results of manual blood vessels counts; (*—p < 0.05; ***—p < 0.001; ****—p < 0.0001); (B) representative images from “Cell Sheet” group showing blood vessels in granulation tissue at Day 7 within healing defect (left image) and on the edge of granulation tissue growth (right image). Arrows indicate αSMA-positive mural cells adjacent to CD31+ blood vessels with lumen; triangles mark αSMA-positive myofibroblasts. Immunofluorescence, scale bar represents 75 µm.
Figure 6Changes of growth factors production by MSC in cell sheet and monolayer culture. Graph demonstrates assayed protein concentration change expressed as fold increase vs. monolayer culture; data presented as Median (25;75); *—p < 0.05, Mann–Whitney.
Figure 7Presentation of RNA-sequencing results mapped using Gene Ontology biological process (A) and molecular function (B). Data from libraries obtained after RNA-sequencing of monolayer MSC and MSC-based CS were normalized and upregulated (green) and downregulated (red) transcripts were mapped using Gene Ontology. The top 10 p-value clusters with a minimum of 3 overlaps after GO mapping were supplemented by combined score calculation (Enrichr). Reg—regulation; ECM—extracellular matrix; EC—endothelial cells; SMC—smooth muscle cell.
Transcription factors with significantly increased activity evaluated by expression of their targets in MSC-based cell sheets compared to monolayer MSC. TF—transcription factor; entries ranked by Q-value and p-value; TFs with 4 and more overlapping targets presented.
| Rank | TF | Overlapped Genes N | List of Overlapped Genes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SP1 | 28 | C4A, AGTR1, EDNRB, AGT, PPL, MMP2, TNC, EGR1, LSP1, CCND2, TNFSF10, MME, FBLN1, CYP27A1, SOX9, COMP, SLC39A8, COL18A1, C4B, SREBF1, HGF, TCN2, ISG20, APOE, SOD2, CYP19A1, PTN, CHI3L1 |
| 2 | NFKB1 | 22 | EGR1, BGN, CYP19A1, PTGFR, TNC, SOD2, ADORA1, CXCL12, TNFSF13B, MMP2, CD74, FGF7, IRF4, AGT, SLC25A27, PLA2G2A, CCND2, BCL2L11, IRF7, VCAM1, A2M, TNFSF10 |
| 3 | RELA | 20 | IRF7, EGR1, FGF7, ADORA1, CXCL12, MMP2, SLC25A27, SOD2, VCAM1, BCL2L11, TNFSF10, PLA2G2A, TNC, CD74, CYP19A1, CCND2, PTGFR, AGT, BGN, IRF4 |
| 4 | FOXO3 | 8 | BCL6, TXNIP, TNFSF10, BCL2L11, CCND2, VEGFA, CDKN2B, VEGFB |
| 5 | USF1 | 8 | FMO3, TCN2, AGT, CYP19A1, SLC1A3,LIPC, CTSD, ISG20 |
| 6 | SREBF1 | 5 | LRP1, ACACB, LDLR, FASN, CIC |
| 7 | STAT3 | 10 | CCND2, CFB, PROS1, HGF, MMP2, CYP19A1, A2M, CHI3L1, DIRAS3, BCL6 |
| 8 | HIF1A | 12 | TGFB3, TLR6, VEGFA, ARNT, TIMP2, SOCS1, VEGFB, MMP2, CXCL12, EDNRB, ACE, AGTR1 |
| 9 | FOXO1 | 4 | TNFSF10, EGR1, ANGPT2, TXNIP |
| 10 | JUN | 10 | DCN, VCAM1, CYP19A1, MMP2, SOD2, PTN, TNC, MGP, FGF7, LBP |
| 11 | DNMT1 | 4 | ESR1, IL32, CDKN2B, VEGFA |
| 12 | SP3 | 8 | FBLN1, HGF, SLC1A3, ACE, TCN2, MMP2, AGTR1, CYP27A1 |
| 13 | CREB1 | 7 | NR4A3, AQP3, BCL2L11, BDKRB2, SOX9, MMP2, CYP19A1 |
| 14 | MYC | 7 | VEGFA, JUNB, HLA-B, TFAP4, SHMT1, MST1, BCL2 |
| 15 | ESR1 | 6 | ESR1, BCL2, VEGFA, ZEB1, CEBPB, JUNB |
| 16 | ETS2 | 4 | EGR1, ANGPT2, MMP2, TNC |
| 17 | WT1 | 5 | WTAP, BCL2, VEGFA, VEGFB, JUNB |
| 18 | ATF4 | 4 | IRF7, HRK, DDIT4, APOE |
| 19 | PPARA | 4 | TXNIP, SOD2, G0S2, CD36 |
| 20 | SPI1 | 5 | JCHAIN, BCL6, MME, CTSS, CTSK |
| 21 | MYCN | 4 | EFNB3, CTSD, MXI1, CLU |
| 22 | USF2 | 4 | TCN2, CTSD, CYP19A1, LIPC |
| 23 | HDAC1 | 5 | HLA-DRA, EGR1, CCND2, TXNIP, SFRP1 |
| 24 | STAT1 | 4 | UPP1, XAF1, STAT2, MUC1 |
| 25 | BRCA1 | 4 | ESR1, IRF9, VEGFA, DDIT3 |
| 26 | TP53 | 8 | BDKRB2, GPNMB, PDGFRB, AQP3, EGR1, PMAIP1, CTSD, MMP2 |
| 27 | ETS1 | 5 | DUSP6, ANGPT2, EGR1, TMEM158, TNC |
| 28 | YY1 | 5 | SAP30, VWF, LSS, VEGFB, LDLR |
| 29 | BRCA1 | 4 | EGR1, CTSD, IRF7, CYP19A1 |