4.7 Article

Erythropoietin Responsive Cardiomyogenic Cells Contribute to Heart Repair Post Myocardial Infarction

期刊

STEM CELLS
卷 32, 期 9, 页码 2480-2491

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/stem.1741

关键词

Epo-responsive MHC expressing cells; Erythropoietin responsive myosin heavy chain expressing cells; Myocardial regeneration; Erythropoietin; Ischemia

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [ZE900/1-1, ZI708/7-1, ZI708/8-1, ZI708/10-1, SFB1002]
  2. German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of erythropoietin (Epo) in myocardial repair after infarction remains inconclusive. We observed high Epo receptor (EPOR) expression in cardiac progenitor cells (CPCs). Therefore, we aimed to characterize these cells and elucidate their contribution to myocardial regeneration on Epo stimulation. High EPOR expression was detected during murine embryonic heart development followed by a marked decrease until adulthood. EPOR-positive cells in the adult heart were identified in a CPC-enriched cell population and showed coexpression of stem, mesenchymal, endothelial, and cardiomyogenic cell markers. We focused on the population coexpressing early (TBX5, NKX2.5) and definitive (myosin heavy chain [MHC], cardiac Troponin T [cTNT]) cardiomyocyte markers. Epo increased their proliferation and thus were designated as Epo-responsive MHC expressing cells (EMCs). In vitro, EMCs proliferated and partially differentiated toward cardiomyocyte-like cells. Repetitive Epo administration in mice with myocardial infarction (cumulative dose 4 IU/g) resulted in an increase in cardiac EMCs and cTNT-positive cells in the infarcted area. This was further accompanied by a significant preservation of cardiac function when compared with control mice. Our study characterized an EPO-responsive MHC-expressing cell population in the adult heart. Repetitive, moderate-dose Epo treatment enhanced the proliferation of EMCs resulting in preservation of post-ischemic cardiac function.

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

4.7
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