4.6 Article

Sham Surgery and Inter-Individual Heterogeneity Are Major Determinants of Monocyte Subset Kinetics in a Mouse Model of Myocardial Infarction

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098456

关键词

-

资金

  1. William G. Kerckhoff-Stiftung, Bad Nauheim, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Mouse models of myocardial infarction (MI) are commonly used to explore the pathophysiological role of the monocytic response in myocardial injury and to develop translational strategies. However, no study thus far has examined the potential impact of inter-individual variability and sham surgical procedures on monocyte subset kinetics after experimental MI in mice. Our goal was to investigate determinants of systemic myeloid cell subset shifts in C57BL/6 mice following MI by developing a protocol for sequential extensive flow cytometry (FCM). Methods and Results: Following cross-sectional multiplex FCM analysis we provide for the first time a detailed description of absolute quantities, relative subset composition, and biological variability of circulating classical, intermediate, and non-classical monocyte subsets in C57BL/6 mice. By using intra-individual longitudinal measurements after MI induction, a time course of classical and non-classical monocytosis was recorded. This approach disclosed a significant reduction of monocyte subset dispersion across all investigated time points following MI. We found that in the current invasive model of chronic MI the global pattern of systemic monocyte kinetics is mainly determined by a nonspecific inflammatory response to sham surgery and not by the extent of myocardial injury. Conclusions: Application of sequential multiplexed FCM may help to reduce the impact of biological variability in C57BL/6 mice. Furthermore, the confounding influence of sham surgical procedures should always be considered when measuring monocyte subset kinetics in a murine model of MI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据