Heart Health-Sci Forschen

Full Text

Myocardial Infarction: Cell Therapy for Cardiac Regeneration

  Oscar Bartulos1,2,*.    

1Yale Cardiovascular Research Center, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Internal Medicine Department, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
2Yale Stem Cell Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

*Corresponding author: Oscar Bartulos, Yale Cardiovascular Research Center, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Internal Medicine Department, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, Tel: 203-737-3431;
E- mail: oscar.bartulos-encinas@yale.edu


Article Information

Article Type: Review Article

Citation: Bartulos O (2015) Myocardial Infarction: Cell Therapy for Cardiac Regeneration. J Hear Health, Volume1.1: http://dx.doi.org/10.16966/2379-769X.103

Copyright: © 2015 Bartulos O. This is an openaccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Publication history: 

  • Received date: 06 February, 2015.

  • Accepted date: 12 March, 2015.

  • Published date: 16 March 2015.
  •  

    Abstract

    Mortality rate in patients that suffer heart failure is approximately 50 per cent in a 5-year follow up, exceeding the mortality detected in patients with cancer. Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and beta-blockers are effective to treat Myocardial Infarction (MI), but there is no effective therapy to reverse the disease. In the last two decades, cell therapy has emerged as an important treatment to be considered for patients with MI. In the present Review, I will summarize the diversity of cell therapies that have been used in pre-clinical and clinical studies, discussing the pros and cons of each therapy.

    Keywords

    Myocardial infarction; Cardiovascular disease; Cardiomyocytes; Cell therapy

    Introduction

    Cardiovascular disease is the main cause of mortality worldwide accounting for 17.3 million deaths in 2008 and an estimated number of 23.3 million in 2030, according to the World Health Organization [1]. The most common cardiovascular disease is heart failure due to Myocardial Infarction (MI). The reduction or complete deprivation of oxygen and nutrients experienced after an ischemic infarct leads to a massive death of cardiomyocytes in the affected area. This region is rapidly repopulated with migrating myofibroblasts, responsible for the deposition of extracellular matrix proteins that will form the scar area. Different strategies have been tested in pre-clinical studies, in order to delay or interfere with the adverse ventricular remodeling and recover the loss of working myocardium. Delivery of growth factors and cytokines [2-5], in vivo reprogramming of myofibroblasts and dividing non-cardiac cells into cardiomyocytes [6,7], or cell therapy are among the treatments that have shown marginal results.

    Two decades ago, the publication of studies demonstrating that C2C12 myoblasts can engraft in the murine heart [8] and mouse fetal cardiomyocytes can engraft and form intercalated disks with host myocardium [9], was a milestone that triggered the first studies using cells as a treatment for MI. Since that time, thousands of papers have been published in the field (more than five thousand references retrieved from PubMed introducing the terms “Cell therapy for Myocardial Infarction”) and dozens of clinical trials.

    In this review I will give an update of the most relevant work performed using cell treatment after MI, discussing challenges, advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

    Cell Therapy Strategies

    Bone marrow cells

    In the late 90’s and early 2000’s, Bone Marrow Cells (BMCs) emerged as the master key for regenerative medicine. They were reported to be capable of differentiating or transdifferentiating in vivo into hepatocytes [10], brain cells [11] and cardiomyocytes [12,13] among other cell lineages. Differentiated cardiomyocytes even showed positive staining for the gap junction protein connexin 43 (Cx43) [12], as a proof of functional connection between the new formed muscle cells in the scar area of infarcted mice. However, attempts to reproduce these results by other groups were unsuccessful [14-17]. In the particular case of the heart, 9-10 days and 28-30 days post-implantation, donor BMCs were positive for the pan-hematopoietic marker CD45 [15,17] and the granulocyte marker Gr1[15]. Nevertheless, there was no evidence of cardiac, smooth muscle cell or endothelial cell transdifferentiation [15], in contrast with previously published studies [12,13]. Moreover, different groups reported that the process described in vivo as BMC transdifferentiation was actually the product of cell fusion between BMCs and host organ cells [17-21], shattering the proposed plasticity of BMCs.

    The study by Orlic et al. [12] describing an occupancy of 68% of the infarcted area by transplanted BMCs and enhanced left ventricular performance of animals in which they were implanted, prompted many groups to initiate the first clinical trials [22,23]. TOPCARE-AMI was the first randomized pilot clinical trial that involved 59 patients divided into two groups receiving unfractionated BMCs or circulating progenitor cells [22,24]. In a 5-year follow-up report [24] the authors detected no differences between both groups of patients but a clear improvement in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 4 months that was maintained until the 5 years with respect to the baseline, in a cohort of 31 patients. Unfortunately, the design of this study lacked a control group to compare the relevance of the obtained results [22,24]. In the ASTAMI clinical trial, a 3-year follow-up [25] showed no differences in LVEF between control and BMCs infused groups. Interestingly, they observed an increase in LVEF at 3 months in both control and cell-treated groups, highlighting the importance of controls in experimental designs. From more than a dozen clinical trials in progress, only 4 of them have provided long term results (>2 years).

    ASTAMI [25] and BOOST [26] showed no changes in BMCs treated patients with respect to the control group at 3 and 5 years respectively. REPAIR-AMI [27], although did not find LVEF differences, it did find a significant reduction in infarct size and increased wall thickening of infarcted regions 2 years after BMCs implantation. The results from the fourth clinical trial, TOPCARE-AMI, with a 5-year follow-up have been described above [24]. More detailed reviews about clinical trials, including the cell delivery numbers and routes of administration can be found in Behfar et al. [28] and Pavo et al .[29].

    Clinical trials with BMCs have shown a very modest effect as shown in a recent meta-analysis performed in 16 clinical trials [30] with only a 2.55% increase in LVEF in patients treated with BMCs with respect to the corresponding controls. Strikingly, another meta-analysis study [31] considering 49 clinical trials, reported discrepancies in the vast majority of the trials (all except 5). In this study, the authors showed a correlation between the number of discrepancies per trial and the effect on ejection fraction size, concluding that in free-discrepancies clinical trials, BMCs had zero effect on ejection fraction [31]. In a recent metaanalysis, performed in 12 randomized studies with intracoronary cell administration of autologous cells, and using original Individual Patient Data (IPD), authors concluded that no benefit was observed in cell-treated patients [32].

    In summary, BMCs’ therapy has been demonstrated to be safe and feasible, but showed reduced [30] or no effect [31, 32] in patients’ LVEF.

    Myoblasts

    In 1961 Mauro described a population of cells surrounding differentiated myofibers that he named “satellite cells” [33]. These cells lie beneath the basal lamina of myotubes and when cultured in vitro they differentiate to myoblasts [34]. Myoblasts have been studied exhaustively as cell therapy for MI, in part due to their ability to survive, proliferate and finally differentiate to skeletal muscle in the harsh environment present in the infarcted heart [35]. Undifferentiated myoblasts express N-cadherin and Cx43 [36], proteins that are involved in cell adhesion and gap junction formation in intercalated disks. Nevertheless, both proteins are lost when myoblasts differentiate into skeletal myotubes [36], and it has been demonstrated that engrafted myotubes are electromechanically isolated from host myocardium [37]. Several groups have reported in pre-clinical studies the beneficial effects of implanted myoblasts in different MI models [38, 39]. Considering that myoblasts do not transdifferentiate into cardiomyocytes in infarcted animals [40], it has been suggested that their mechanism of action is through secretion of factors that interfere with the adverse ventricular remodeling [41]. Myoblasts’ translation to the clinic was performed for the first time in 2001 [42] showing the feasibility of myoblast implantation in one patient with MI. Since 2001, several clinical trials were started. In a four-year follow-up study, delivery of myoblasts in patients undergoing concurrent Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) or Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) implantation was compared [43]. Patients with myoblast implantation and CABG presented an improvement in LVEF and tissue viability. However, it is difficult to interpret these results since a control group is missing in the study. In other clinical trials in which control groups were included, patients with myoblast implantation did not have any effect in LVEF [44,45]. In both studies, the presence of ventricular arrhythmias in the treated group was the main concern exposed [44,45].

    Adipose tissue-derived cells

    Adipose tissue is composed of mature adipocytes and a Stromal Vascular Fraction (SVF). The SVF contains vascular cells and a population of Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs). MSCs have potential to differentiate spontaneously into cardiomyocytes in vitro, with rare events described [46], and endothelial cells in intro and in vivo [47-49]. Adipose-tissue Derived Cells (ADCs) represent an attractive strategy for cell therapy due to the large amount of cells that can be isolated from each patient with a minimally invasive technique as liposuction [50]. Pre-clinical studies in mouse [51] and pig [49] using cell sheet [51] or direct injection in the coronary artery [49], have shown increased LVEF in animals treated with adipocytes [51] or Adipose-tissue Derived Stem Cells (ADSCs) [49]. When compared with BMCs, both BMCs and ADSCs groups presented a significant increase in LVEF, but only ADSCs presented a significant increase in wall thickness with respect to control group [49]. Of interest is the fact that neither ADSCs nor BMCs treated pigs showed cardiomyocyte differentiation of donor cells [49]. The proposed mechanisms of action of adipose tissue-derived cells are angiogenesis [49] and secretion of paracrine factors like adiponectin, who may regulate extracellular matrix production by myofibroblasts [51].

    On the clinical side, there is only one study reported with a very modest effect of adipose tissue-derived cells: the PRECISE trial [50]. This randomized, placebo-controlled and double-blinded study enrolled 27 patients: 21 treated with Adipose-derived Regenerative Cells (ADRCs, the SVF of adipose-tissue), and 6 controls. No differences were detected in LVEF at different time points within the group and neither between groups. Authors reported a significant increase in left ventricular total mass in ADRC-treated patients at 6 months with respect to the baseline [50].

    Cardiac progenitor cells

    A Cardiac/Cardiovascular Progenitor Cell (CPC) is a cell that, after losing its stemness properties, is committed to differentiate at least into the three main lineages of the cardiovascular system: cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells. Many different laboratories have claimed the isolation of CPCs from fetal [52] and adult hearts [52,54], or after Embryonic Stem Cells (ESCs) in vitro differentiation [55, 56]. CPC isolation based on cell surface markers and their existence in the adult heart has been a continuous matter of debate. The most common markers used to isolate adult and ESC-derived CPCs are: 1) c-kit (also known as stem cell factor receptor; SCFR or CD117), 2) the stem cell antigen-1 (Sca1) and 3) the fetal liver kinase-1 (Flk1, known as well as vascular endothelial receptor 2 or KDR in humans). The three surface markers are present in hematopoietic stem cells [57-59]. Researchers that question about their true CPC identity consider that these CPCs found in adult hearts might be just circulating bone marrow-derived cells homing in the heart.

    Recently, using lineage tracing studies, a group has shown that c-kit may not be appropriate to identify CPCs since they minimally contribute to cardiomyocytes in the heart [60]. Although a Sca1 human orthologue has not been identified yet, scientists have isolated cells from adult human hearts using an antibody against mouse Sca1 [52]. Sca1+ cells were able to differentiate in vitro into cardiomyocytes, although using nonconventional methods for cardiac differentiation: demethylating agent 5-azacytidine (5-aza) [52]. Notably, 5-aza induces cardiac differentiation in the mouse embryonic carcinoma cell line P19 [61], murine BMCs [62] and human mesenchymal stem cells [63]. Therefore, several cell types from diverse origins are able to differentiate into cardiomyocytes in the presence of 5-aza.

    Lineage tracing studies have provided more information about Sca1+ derived progeny [64]. In this study, Sca1-derived cardiomyocytes were first detected, at low numbers, 2 months after birth, but Sca1+ cells were unable to mobilize to the infarcted area after MI [64]. The virtual absence of Sca1-derived cardiomyocytes until postnatal stages reinforces the idea that at least fetal cardiomyocytes are not derived from Sca1+ cells. Flk1 lineage tracing studies have shown that, in the heart, they contribute mainly to the endocardium, although some cardiomyocytes were also stained [65]. However, Flk1 may not be an optimal marker to isolate ESCderived CPCs since it has been recently reported that it is an early marker of hepatocyte progenitor cells [66].

    In 2003 Anversa’s laboratory described the presence of c-kit+ cells in adult rat hearts, which had the potential to differentiate in vitro to cardiomyocytes, smooth muscle cells and endothelial cells [53]. According to the results presented, these c-kit+ cells, after in vitro expansion, were able to engraft and differentiate into cardiomyocytes in a rat model of MI, improving the LVEF of infarcted animals [53]. c-kit+ cells extracted from adult hearts were translated to clinic under the name of SCIPIO [67]. This clinical trial, with 16 patients treated with cells and 7 control patients, reported very encouraging results. In patients treated with cells, the LVEF increased 8.2 and 12.3 units at 4 months and 1 year respectively [67]. The reader should be aware that an expression of concern has been raised by Lancet editors regarding this work [68].

    Anversa’s group results were first challenged after a new study reported that c-kit+ cells contribute to myocyte formation in neonatal but not in adult MI [69].

    In 2007, Eduardo Marban’s group described the isolation of cells from endomyocardial biopsies that form cardiospheres after expansion on poly-D-lysine coated plates [54]. These Cardiosphere-Derived Cells (CDCs) are a heterogeneous population of cells that express among other markers, c-kit and CD105 and do not contract spontaneously in culture [54]. Extensive literature has been generated using the so called cardiospheres, showing improvement of heart function in different animal models of MI [54,70]. CDCs (CD105+ cells) are under study in the clinical trial CADUCEUS [71]. In this study 31 patients were randomized, 23 of them treated with autologous CDCs (17 after removing some technical failures) and 8 controls. No differences were found at 1 year in LVEF and the only significant effect found was decreased scar size in CDC group versus control group at 1 year [71].

    Although both clinical trials have proven that cells extracted from adult hearts, either c-kit+ [67] or CD105+ cells [71], are a safe therapy for patients with MI, many more pre-clinical studies are necessary in order to identify cell surface markers for the unambiguous isolation of authentic CPCs capable of differentiating into cardiomyocytes with conventional differentiation methods.

    ESC-derived Cardiomyocytes

    Another strategy being pursued by scientists, still in pre-clinical studies, is the replacement of dead myocardium with fully differentiated cardiac cells. Initial studies were conducted using fetal and adult cardiomyocytes [72-74] showing long-term engraftment of fetal and neonatal [72-74] but not adult [73] cardiomyocytes in the infarcted area. Remarkably, rat neonatal cardiomyocytes were rod-shaped 8 weeks after implantation, with presence of N-cadherin and Cx43 in the cell-cell contact regions, resembling adult cardiomyocytes [73].

    The isolation in 1998 of the first human ESCs (hESCs) lines from human blastocysts [75] and the posterior development of the initial protocols for human cardiac differentiation [76] opened up the door for exploring the potential of hESC-derived cardiomyocytes (hESC-CMs) for MI. hESC-CMs were able to couple electromechanically with neonatal rat cardiomyocytes in vitro and pace the heart in a swine model of complete atrioventricular block [77]. Later, hESC-CMs tested in rat models of MI, presented long-term engraftment and improvement of heart function with respect to control rats [78,79]. In these studies hESC-CMs were injected at 4 days [78] or 7-10 days [79] after coronary ligation in the presence [78] or absence [79] of a cocktail of prosurvival factors. Interestingly, while one of the studies reported that the majority of the grafts were in the infarct border [79], the presence of grafts in the other one was mainly inside the scar area [78]. The successful results obtained in rats were reproduced in bigger animals with slower heart rates. Using engineeredhESC- CMs expressing the calcium sensor GCaMP3, researchers were able to demonstrate that hESC-CMs couple electromechanically with host myocardium in a guinea pig [80] and non-human primate [81] models of MI. Although the results obtained in the guinea pig model were encouraging and researchers observed arrhythmia-suppressive effects of hESC-CMs grafts [80], the presence of arrhythmic processes was raised as one of the major concerns found in non-human primates treated with hESC-CMs [81]. Despite the considerable engraftment of hESC-CMs, covering 40% of the scar volume, and the electromechanical graft-host coupling observed in non-human primates [81], the arrhythmic events probably due to the inability of hESC-CMs to acquire a mature phenotype in vivo, may delay the translation of hESC-CMs to clinical studies.

    The ethical concerns raised after the isolation of hESCs from human blastocysts [82] have been overcome with the advent of the induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technology [83]. Currently, iPSCs can be generated using transgene-free, genome integration-free technologies like the RNA-based Sendai virus vector [84]. After hESC/iPSC differentiation, a few cells may remain undifferentiated; being a potential source for teratoma formation. Different methods attempted to eliminate undifferentiated cells, and recently, Lee et al. [85] developed a clinicalgrade strategy using small molecules against survivin. These molecules selectively eliminate undifferentiated cells, without interfering with the differentiation process [85]. Human iPSC-cardiomyocytes can be obtained with high purity (90%) in the laboratory [86] and could be readily used applying patient-specific therapy, once the arrhythmic events reported in non-human primates [81] have been solved.

    Conclusions

    Since the first studies, performed almost two decades ago, that proved the feasibility of cell therapy [35,72] as a new approach to be considered in MI treatment, a wide diversity of cell types have been tested in pre-clinical studies. BMCs, ADCs and myoblasts were attractive sources because of the possibility of extracting large amounts of cells for autologous therapy. BMCs and ADCs showed beneficial effects in cardiac function through the induction of angiogenesis and secretion of paracrine factors in the infarcted heart [49,51,87]. Myoblasts proliferate and differentiate in MI preclinical models [35] interfering with adverse ventricular remodeling [41], but are not able to couple electromechanically with host cardiomyocytes [37]. To date, there is no evidence of BMCs, ADCs or myoblasts-mediated induction of host cardiac proliferation and none of them differentiate or transdifferentiate into cardiomyocytes in vivo [15,40,49].

    CPCs’ attractiveness resides in the fact that they can give rise not only to cardiomyocytes but also smooth muscle cells and endothelial cells [88], with the potential to form blood vessels, which are required for cardiac graft survival. Many laboratories have reported the isolation of fetal, adult or hESC-derived CPCs [52,53,56] based on cell surface markers that are not specific for the cardiovascular lineage [57,60,66]. Close collaboration with developmental biology laboratories is required to better help us to identify cell surface markers that are unique to CPCs.

    hESC-CMs are able to repopulate large areas of infarcted myocardium and couple electromechanically with host cardiomyocytes [81] in a nonhuman primate model of MI, positioning them as an excellent cell source for future clinical trials. Improvement in cell engraftment, specific isolation of ventricular cardiomyocytes and search for strategies to enhance hESCCM maturation in vivo, in order to alleviate ventricular arrhythmic processes would help this therapy to jump from bench to bedside.

    Translation of cell therapies into clinical studies has not been as rewarding as pre-clinical studies predicted. Different factors may be involved in this fact, from techniques used to isolate cells before implantation, density gradients [24] and Ficoll [26] to differences in number of cells implanted ranging from half million [68] to more than two billion [26]. Regarding the number of cells, the POSEIDON trial reported an inverse dose response effect in LVEF [89]. It should be considered as well that controlled conditions of “patients” in pre-clinical studies cannot be achieved in clinical studies.

    In summary, cellular therapies for MI have been proven to be safe in clinical trials [24-27,50,71], but it is a matter of debate if they confer any beneficial effect for patients [30-32]. These results suggest that the race to find the ideal cell type for MI is still more open than ever before.

    Acknowledgements

    I would like to acknowledge my funding resource, Connecticut Government Stem Cell Seed Grant 13-SCA-YALE-32.

    Special thanks to Professor Yibing Qyang and Carol Y. Suh for critical review of this article.

    Footnote

    The author declares no conflict of interest.

    I apologize to scientists whose wonderful work is not represented in this article. This review article was conceived to give a general overview of this continuously expanding field.

     

    References

    1. Organization WH.[Ref.]
    2. Lin YD, Luo CY, Hu YN, Yeh ML, Hsueh YC, et al. (2012) Instructive nanofiber scaffolds with VEGF create a microenvironment for arteriogenesis and cardiac repair.SciTransl Med 4:146ra109. [Ref.]
    3. Achilli F, Malafronte C, Maggiolini S, Lenatti L, Squadroni L, et al. (2014) G-CSF treatment for STEMI: final 3-year follow-up of the randomised placebo-controlled STEM-AMI trial. Heart100:574-581.[Ref.]
    4. Kataoka Y, Shibata R, Ohashi K, Kambara T, Enomoto T, et al. (2014)Omentin prevents myocardial ischemic injury through AMP-activated protein kinase- and Akt-dependent mechanisms. J Am CollCardiol 63:2722-2733.[Ref.]
    5. Macarthur JW Jr, Cohen JE, McGarvey JR, Shudo Y, Patel JB, et al. (2014) Preclinical evaluation of the engineered stem cell chemokine stromal cell-derived factor 1α analog in a translational ovine myocardial infarction model. Circ Res 114:650-659.[Ref.]
    6. Qian L, Huang Y, Spencer CI, Foley A, Vedantham V, et al. (2012) In vivo reprogramming of murine cardiac fibroblasts into induced cardiomyocytes. Nature485:593-598.[Ref.]
    7. Song K, Nam YJ, Luo X, Qi X, Tan W, et al. (2012) Heart repair by reprogramming non-myocytes with cardiac transcription factors. Nature485:599-604.[Ref.]
    8. Koh GY, Klug MG, Soonpaa MH, Field LJ (1993) Differentiation and long-term survival of C2C12 myoblast grafts in heart. J Clin Invest 92:1548-1554.[Ref.]
    9. Soonpaa MH, Koh GY, Klug MG, Field LJ (1994) Formation of nascent intercalated disks between grafted fetal cardiomyocytes and host myocardium. Science 264:98-101.[Ref.]
    10. Petersen BE, Bowen WC, Patrene KD, Mars WM, Sullivan AK, et al. (1999) Bone marrow as a potential source of hepatic oval cells. Science 284:1168-1170.[Ref.]
    11. Mezey E, Chandross KJ, Harta G, Maki RA, McKercher SR (2000) Turning blood into brain: cells bearing neuronal antigens generated in vivo from bone marrow. Science 290:1779-1782.[Ref.]
    12. Orlic D, Kajstura J, Chimenti S, Jakoniuk I, Anderson SM, et al. (2001) Bone marrow cells regenerate infarcted myocardium. Nature 410:701-705.[Ref.]
    13. Toma C, Pittenger MF, Cahill KS, Byrne BJ, Kessler PD (2002) Human mesenchymal stem cells differentiate to a cardiomyocyte phenotype in the adult murine heart. Circulation 105:93-98.[Ref.]
    14. Castro RF, Jackson KA, Goodell MA, Robertson CS, Liu H, et al. (2002) Failure of bone marrow cells to transdifferentiate into neural cells in vivo. Science 297:1299.[Ref.]
    15. Balsam LB, Wagers AJ, Christensen JL, Kofidis T, Weissman IL, et al. (2004)Haematopoietic stem cells adopt mature haematopoietic fates in ischaemic myocardium. Nature 428:668-673.[Ref.]
    16. Murry CE, Soonpaa MH, Reinecke H, Nakajima H, Nakajima HO, et al. (2004) Haematopoietic stem cells do not transdifferentiate into cardiac myocytes in myocardial infarcts. Nature428:664-668.[Ref.]
    17. Nygren JM, Jovinge S, Breitbach M, Sawen P, Roll W, et al. (2004) Bone marrow-derived hematopoietic cells generate cardiomyocytes at a low frequency through cell fusion, but not transdifferentiation. Nat med 10:494-501.[Ref.]
    18. Terada N, Hamazaki T, Oka M, Hoki M, Mastalerz DM, et al. (2002) Bone marrow cells adopt the phenotype of other cells by spontaneous cell fusion. Nature 416:542-545.[Ref.]
    19. Wang X, Willenbring H, Akkari Y, Torimaru Y, Foster M, et al. (2003) Cell fusion is the principal source of bone-marrow-derived hepatocytes. Nature 422:897-901.[Ref.]
    20. Alvarez-Dolado M, Pardal R, Garcia-Verdugo JM, Fike JR, Lee HO, et al. (2003) Fusion of bone-marrow-derived cells with Purkinje neurons, cardiomyocytes and hepatocytes. Nature 425:968-973.[Ref.]
    21. Li L, Truong P, Igarashi P, Lin F (2007) Renal and bone marrow cells fuse after renal ischemic injury. J Am SocNephrol 18:3067-3077.[Ref.]
    22. Assmus B, Schachinger V, Teupe C, Britten M, Lehmann R, et al. (2002) Transplantation of Progenitor Cells and Regeneration Enhancement in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TOPCARE-AMI). Circulation 106:3009-3017.[Ref.]
    23. Wollert KC, Meyer GP, Lotz J, Ringes-Lichtenberg S, Lippolt P, et al. (2004)Intracoronary autologous bone-marrow cell transfer after myocardial infarction: the BOOST randomised controlled clinical trial. Lancet 364:141-148.[Ref.]
    24. Leistner DM, Fischer-Rasokat U, Honold J, Seeger FH, Schachinger V, et al. (2011) Transplantation of progenitor cells and regeneration enhancement in acute myocardial infarction (TOPCARE-AMI): final 5-year results suggest long-term safety and efficacy. Clin Res Cardiol 100:925-934.[Ref.]
    25. Beitnes JO, Gjesdal O, Lunde K, Solheim S, Edvardsen T, et al. (2011) Left ventricular systolic and diastolic function improve after acute myocardial infarction treated with acute percutaneous coronary intervention, but are not influenced by intracoronary injection of autologous mononuclear bone marrow cells: a 3 year serial echocardiographic sub-study of the randomized-controlled ASTAMI study. Eur J Echocardiogr 12:98-106.[Ref.]
    26. Meyer GP, Wollert KC, Lotz J, Pirr J, Rager U, et al. (2009) Intracoronary bone marrow cell transfer after myocardial infarction: 5-year follow-up from the randomized-controlled BOOST trial. Eur Heart J 30:2978-2984.[Ref.]
    27. Assmus B, Rolf A, Erbs S, Elsasser A, Haberbosch W, et al. (2010) Clinical outcome 2 years after intracoronary administration of bone marrow-derived progenitor cells in acute myocardial infarction. Circ Heart Fail 3:89-96.[Ref.]
    28. BehfarA, Crespo-Diaz R, Terzic A, Gersh BJ (2014) Cell therapy for cardiac repair-lessons from clinical trials. Nature reviews Cardiology 11:232-246.[Ref.]
    29. Pavo N, Charwat S, Nyolczas N, Jakab A, Murlasits Z, et al. (2014) Cell therapy for human ischemic heart diseases: critical review and summary of the clinical experiences. J Mol Cell Cardiol75: 12-24.[Ref.]
    30. Delewi R, Hirsch A, Tijssen JG, Schachinger V, Wojakowski W, et al. (2014) Impact of intracoronary bone marrow cell therapy on left ventricular function in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a collaborative meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 35:989-998.[Ref.]
    31. Nowbar AN, Mielewczik M, Karavassilis M, Dehbi HM, Shun-Shin MJ, et al. (2014) Discrepancies in autologous bone marrow stem cell trials and enhancement of ejection fraction (DAMASCENE): weighted regression and meta-analysis. BMJ 348: g2688.[Ref.]
    32. Gyongyosi M, Wojakowski W, Lemarchand P, Lunde K, Tendera M, et al. (2015) Meta-Analysis of Cell-based CaRdiacstUdiEs (ACCRUE) in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Based on Individual Patient Data. Circ Res.[Ref.]
    33. Mauro A (1961) Satellite cell of skeletal muscle fibers. J BiophysBiochemCytol9: 493-495.[Ref.]
    34. Lipton BH, Schultz E (1979) Developmental fate of skeletal muscle satellite cells. Science 205:1292-1294.[Ref.]
    35. Murry CE, Wiseman RW, Schwartz SM, Hauschka SD (1996) Skeletal myoblast transplantation for repair of myocardial necrosis. J Clin Invest 98:2512-2523.[Ref.]
    36. Reinecke H, MacDonald GH, Hauschka SD, Murry CE (2000) Electromechanical coupling between skeletal and cardiac muscle. Implications for infarct repair. J Cell Biol 149:731-740.[Ref.]
    37. Leobon B, Garcin I, Menasche P, Vilquin JT, Audinat E, et al. (2003) Myoblasts transplanted into rat infarcted myocardium are functionally isolated from their host. ProcNatlAcadSci USA 100:7808-7811.[Ref.]
    38. Gavira JJ, Perez-Ilzarbe M, Abizanda G, Garcia-Rodriguez A, Orbe J, et al. (2006) A comparison between percutaneous and surgical transplantation of autologous skeletal myoblasts in a swine model of chronic myocardial infarction.Cardiovasc Res 71:744-753.[Ref.]
    39. Ghostine S, Carrion C, Souza LC, Richard P, Bruneval P, et al. (2002) Long-term efficacy of myoblast transplantation on regional structure and function after myocardial infarction. Circulation 106:I131-1136.[Ref.]
    40. Reinecke H, Poppa V, Murry CE (2002)Skeletal muscle stem cells do not transdifferentiate into cardiomyocytes after cardiac grafting. J Mol Cell Cardiol 34:241-249.[Ref.]
    41. Murtuza B, Suzuki K, Bou-Gharios G, Beauchamp JR, Smolenski RT, et al. (2004) Transplantation of skeletal myoblasts secreting an IL-1 inhibitor modulates adverse remodeling in infarcted murine myocardium. ProcNatlAcadSci USA 101:4216-4221.[Ref.]
    42. Menasche P, Hagege AA, Scorsin M, Pouzet B, Desnos M, et al. (2001) Myoblast transplantation for heart failure. Lancet 357:279-280.[Ref.]
    43. Dib N, Michler RE, Pagani FD, Wright S, Kereiakes DJ, et al. (2005) Safety and feasibility of autologous myoblast transplantation in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: four-year follow-up. Circulation 112:1748-1755.[Ref.]
    44. Veltman CE, Soliman OI, Geleijnse ML, Vletter WB, Smits PC, et al. (2008) Four-year follow-up of treatment with intramyocardial skeletal myoblasts injection in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Eur Heart J 29:1386-1396.[Ref.]
    45. Menasche P, Alfieri O, Janssens S, McKenna W, Reichenspurner H, et al. (2008) The Myoblast Autologous Grafting in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy (MAGIC) trial: first randomized placebo-controlled study of myoblast transplantation. Circulation 117:1189-200.[Ref.]
    46. Planat-Benard V, Menard C, Andre M, Puceat M, Perez A, et al. (2004) Spontaneous cardiomyocyte differentiation from adipose tissue stromacells. Circ Res 94:223-229.[Ref.]
    47. Planat-Benard V, Silvestre JS, Cousin B, Andre M, Nibbelink M, et al. (2004) Plasticity of human adipose lineage cells toward endothelial cells: physiological and therapeutic perspectives. Circulation 109:656-663.[Ref.]
    48. Jumabay M, Abdmaulen R, Urs S, Heydarkhan-Hagvall S, Chazenbalk GD, et al. (2012) Endothelial differentiation in multipotent cells derived from mouse and human white mature adipocytes. J Mol Cell Cardiol 53:790-800.[Ref.]
    49. Valina C, Pinkernell K, Song YH, Bai X, Sadat S, et al. (2007)Intracoronary administration of autologous adipose tissue-derived stem cells improves left ventricular function, perfusion, and remodelling after acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 28:2667-2677.[Ref.]
    50. Perin EC, Sanz-Ruiz R, Sanchez PL, Lasso J, Perez-Cano R, et al. (2014) Adipose-derived regenerative cells in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: The PRECISE Trial. Am Heart J. 168:88-95.[Ref.]
    51. Imanishi Y, Miyagawa S, Maeda N, Fukushima S, Kitagawa-Sakakida S, et al. (2011) Induced adipocyte cell-sheet ameliorates cardiac dysfunction in a mouse myocardial infarction model: a novel drug delivery system for heart failure. Circulation 124:S10-7.[Ref.]
    52. Goumans MJ, de Boer TP, Smits AM, van Laake LW, van Vliet P, et al. (2007) TGF-beta1 induces efficient differentiation of human cardiomyocyte progenitor cells into functional cardiomyocytes in vitro. Stem Cell Res 1:138-149.[Ref.]
    53. Beltrami AP, Barlucchi L, Torella D, Baker M, Limana F, et al. (2003) Adult cardiac stem cells are multipotent and support myocardial regeneration. Cell 114:763-776.[Ref.]
    54. Smith RR, Barile L, Cho HC, Leppo MK, Hare JM, et al. (2007) Regenerative potential of cardiosphere-derived cells expanded from percutaneous endomyocardial biopsy specimens. Circulation 115:896-908.[Ref.]
    55. Kattman SJ, Huber TL, Keller GM (2006)Multipotent flk-1+ cardiovascular progenitor cells give rise to the cardiomyocyte, endothelial, and vascular smooth muscle lineages. Dev Cell 11:723-732.[Ref.]
    56. Yang L, Soonpaa MH, Adler ED, Roepke TK, Kattman SJ, et al. (2008) Human cardiovascular progenitor cells develop from a KDR+ embryonic-stem-cell-derived population. Nature 453:524-528.[Ref.]
    57. van de Rijn M, Heimfeld S, Spangrude GJ, Weissman IL (1989) Mouse hematopoietic stem-cell antigen Sca-1 is a member of the Ly-6 antigen family. ProcNatlAcadSci USA 86:4634-4638.[Ref.]
    58. Ema M, Faloon P, Zhang WJ, Hirashima M, Reid T, et al. (2003) Combinatorial effects of Flk1 and Tal1 on vascular and hematopoietic development in the mouse. Genes Dev 17:380-393.[Ref.]
    59. Schmitt RM, Bruyns E, Snodgrass HR (1991) Hematopoietic development of embryonic stem cells in vitro: cytokine and receptor gene expression. Genes Dev 5: 728-740.[Ref.]
    60. vanBerlo JH, Kanisicak O, Maillet M, Vagnozzi RJ, Karch J, et al. (2014) c-kit+ cells minimally contribute cardiomyocytes to the heart. Nature 509:337-341.[Ref.]
    61. Abbey D, Seshagiri PB (2013)Aza-induced cardiomyocyte differentiation of P19 EC-cells by epigenetic co-regulation and ERK signaling. Gene 526:364-373.[Ref.]
    62. Makino S, Fukuda K, Miyoshi S, Konishi F, Kodama H, et al. (1999)Cardiomyocytes can be generated from marrow stromal cells in vitro. J Clin Invest 103:697-705.[Ref.]
    63. Qian Q, Qian H, Zhang X, Zhu W, Yan Y, et al. (2012) 5-Azacytidine induces cardiac differentiation of human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells by activating extracellular regulated kinase. Stem Cells Dev 21:67-75.[Ref.]
    64. Uchida S, De Gaspari P, Kostin S, Jenniches K, Kilic A, et al. (2013) Sca1-derived cells are a source of myocardial renewal in the murine adult heart. Stem Cell Reports 1:397-410.[Ref.]
    65. Ema M, Yokomizo T, Wakamatsu A, Terunuma T, Yamamoto M, et al. (2006) Primitive erythropoiesis from mesodermal precursors expressing VE-cadherin, PECAM-1, Tie2, endoglin, and CD34 in the mouse embryo. Blood 108:4018-4024.[Ref.]
    66. Goldman O, Han S, Sourrisseau M, Dziedzic N, Hamou W, et al. (2013) KDR identifies a conserved human and murine hepatic progenitor and instructs early liver development. Cell Stem Cell 12:748-760.[Ref.]
    67. Bolli R, Chugh AR, D'Amario D, Loughran JH, Stoddard MF, et al. (2011) Cardiac stem cells in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (SCIPIO): initial results of a randomised phase 1 trial. Lancet 378:1847-1857.[Ref.]
    68. The Lancet Editors (2014)Expression of concern: the SCIPIO trial. Lancet 383:1279.[Ref.]
    69. Jesty SA, Steffey MA, Lee FK, Breitbach M, Hesse M, et al. (2012) c-kit+ precursors support postinfarctionmyogenesis in the neonatal, but not adult, heart. PNAS 109:13380-13385.[Ref.]
    70. Johnston PV, Sasano T, Mills K, Evers R, Lee ST, et al. (2009) Engraftment, differentiation, and functional benefits of autologous cardiosphere-derived cells in porcine ischemic cardiomyopathy. Circulation 120:1075-1083.[Ref.]
    71. Malliaras K, Makkar RR, Smith RR, Cheng K, Wu E, et al. (2014)Intracoronarycardiosphere-derived cells after myocardial infarction: evidence of therapeutic regeneration in the final 1-year results of the CADUCEUS trial (CArdiosphere-Derived aUtologous stem CElls to reverse ventricUlardySfunction). J Am CollCardiol 63:110-122.[Ref.]
    72. Leor J, Patterson M, Quinones MJ, Kedes LH, Kloner RA (1996) Transplantation of fetal myocardial tissue into the infarcted myocardium of rat. A potential method for repair of infarcted myocardium? Circulation 94:II332-II336.[Ref.]
    73. Reinecke H, Zhang M, Bartosek T,Murry CE (1999) Survival, integration, and differentiation of cardiomyocyte grafts: a study in normal and injured rat hearts. Circulation 100:193-202.[Ref.]
    74. Watanabe E, Smith DM Jr, Delcarpio JB, Sun J, Smart FW, et al. (1998)Cardiomyocyte transplantation in a porcine myocardial infarction model. Cell Transplantation 7:239-246.[Ref.]
    75. Thomson JA, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro SS, Waknitz MA, Swiergiel JJ, et al. (1998) Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282:1145-1147.[Ref.]
    76. Kehat I, Kenyagin-Karsenti D, Snir M, Segev H, Amit M,et al. (2001) Human embryonic stem cells can differentiate into myocytes with structural and functional properties of cardiomyocytes. J. Clin. Invest 108:407-414.[Ref.]
    77. Kehat I, Khimovich L, Caspi O, Gepstein A, Shofti R, et al. (2004)Electromechanical integration of cardiomyocytes derived from human embryonic stem cells. Nature Biotechnology 22:1282-1289.[Ref.]
    78. Laflamme MA, Chen KY, Naumova AV, Muskheli V, Fugate JA, et al. (2007)Cardiomyocytes derived from human embryonic stem cells in pro-survival factors enhance function of infarcted rat hearts. Nature Biotechnology 25:1015-1024.[Ref.]
    79. Caspi O, Huber I, Kehat I, Habib M, Arbel G, et al. (2007) Transplantation of human embryonic stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes improves myocardial performance in infarcted rat hearts. J Am CollCardiol 50:1884-1893.[Ref.]
    80. Shiba Y, Fernandes S, Zhu WZ, Filice D, Muskheli V, et al. (2012) Human ES-cell-derived cardiomyocytes electrically couple and suppress arrhythmias in injured hearts. Nature 489:322-315.[Ref.]
    81. Chong JJ, Yang X, Don CW, Minami E, Liu YW, et al. (2014) Human embryonic-stem-cell-derived cardiomyocytes regenerate non-human primate hearts. Nature 510:273-277.[Ref.]
    82. Miller FJ, Bloom FE (1998) Publishing controversial research. Science282:1045.[Ref.]
    83. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S (2006) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126:663-676.[Ref.]
    84. Ban H, Nishishita N, Fusaki N, Tabata T, Saeki K, et al. (2011)Efficient generation of transgene-free human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) by temperature-sensitive Sendai virus vectors. PNAS 108:14234-14239.[Ref.]
    85. Lee MO, Moon SH, Jeong HC, Yi JY, Lee TH, et al. (2013) Inhibition of pluripotent stem cell-derived teratoma formation by small molecules. PNAS 110:E3281-E3290.[Ref.]
    86. Lian X, Zhang J, Azarin SM, Zhu K, Hazeltine LB, et al. (2013) Directed cardiomyocyte differentiation from human pluripotent stem cells by modulating Wnt/beta-catenin signaling under fully defined conditions. Nat Protoc 8:162-175.[Ref.]
    87. Yoon CH, Koyanagi M, Iekushi K, Seeger F, Urbich C, et al. (2010) Mechanism of improved cardiac function after bone marrow mononuclear cell therapy: role of cardiovascular lineage commitment. Circulation 121:2001-2011.[Ref.]
    88. Moretti A, Caron L, Nakano A, Lam JT, Bernshausen A, et al. (2006)Multipotent embryonic isl1+ progenitor cells lead to cardiac, smooth muscle, and endothelial cell diversification. Cell 127:1151-1165.[Ref.]
    89. Hare JM, Fishman JE, Gerstenblith G, DiFede Velazquez DL,Zambrano JP, et al. (2012) Comparison of allogeneic vs autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells delivered by transendocardial injection in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: the POSEIDON randomized trial. JAMA 308:2369-2379.[Ref.]

    Download Provisional pdf here