Skip to main content
  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • Editorial Board
    • Meet the Editors
    • Editorial Manifesto
    • Impact Factor
    • Journal History
    • General Statistics
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • Circulation Research Profiles
    • Trainees & Young Investigators
    • Research Around the World
    • News & Views
    • The NHLBI Page
    • Viewpoints
    • Compendia
    • Reviews
    • Recent Review Series
    • Profiles in Cardiovascular Science
    • Leaders in Cardiovascular Science
    • Commentaries on Cutting Edge Science
    • AHA/BCVS Scientific Statements
    • Abstract Supplements
    • Circulation Research Classics
    • In This Issue Archive
    • Anthology of Images
  • Resources
    • Online Submission/Peer Review
    • Why Submit to Circulation Research
    • Instructions for Authors
    • → Article Types
    • → Manuscript Preparation
    • → Submission Tips
    • → Journal Policies
    • Circulation Research Awards
    • Image Gallery
    • Council on Basic Cardiovascular Sciences
    • Customer Service & Ordering Info
    • International Users
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
  • Impact Factor 13.965
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Advanced search

Header Publisher Menu

  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

Circulation Research

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Impact Factor 13.965
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • Editorial Board
    • Meet the Editors
    • Editorial Manifesto
    • Impact Factor
    • Journal History
    • General Statistics
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • Circulation Research Profiles
    • Trainees & Young Investigators
    • Research Around the World
    • News & Views
    • The NHLBI Page
    • Viewpoints
    • Compendia
    • Reviews
    • Recent Review Series
    • Profiles in Cardiovascular Science
    • Leaders in Cardiovascular Science
    • Commentaries on Cutting Edge Science
    • AHA/BCVS Scientific Statements
    • Abstract Supplements
    • Circulation Research Classics
    • In This Issue Archive
    • Anthology of Images
  • Resources
    • Online Submission/Peer Review
    • Why Submit to Circulation Research
    • Instructions for Authors
    • → Article Types
    • → Manuscript Preparation
    • → Submission Tips
    • → Journal Policies
    • Circulation Research Awards
    • Image Gallery
    • Council on Basic Cardiovascular Sciences
    • Customer Service & Ordering Info
    • International Users
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
Perspective

At a Crossroad

Cell Therapy for Cardiac Repair

Marcus-André Deutsch, Anthony Sturzu, Sean M. Wu
Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.112.275974
Circulation Research. 2013;112:884-890
Originally published March 14, 2013
Marcus-André Deutsch
From the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (M.-A.D., A.S.); the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, German Heart Center Munich, Munich Technical University, Munich, Germany (M.-A.D.); and the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, and Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (S.M.W.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anthony Sturzu
From the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (M.-A.D., A.S.); the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, German Heart Center Munich, Munich Technical University, Munich, Germany (M.-A.D.); and the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, and Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (S.M.W.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sean M. Wu
From the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (M.-A.D., A.S.); the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, German Heart Center Munich, Munich Technical University, Munich, Germany (M.-A.D.); and the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, and Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (S.M.W.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics

Jump to

  • Article
    • Introduction
    • Skeletal Myoblasts
    • Bone Marrow–Derived Stem Cells
    • Mesenchymal Stem Cells
    • Endogenous Cardiac Stem Cells
    • Pluripotent Stem Cells
    • Direct Cardiomyocyte Reprogramming
    • Future Perspective
    • Sources of Funding
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
Loading
  • cardiomyocytes
  • cardiovascular disease
  • stem cells
  • regeneration

Introduction

Heart failure is a highly prevalent, debilitating, and costly condition with generally poor clinical outcomes.1 Aside from heart transplantation, which is an available treatment option for only a small fraction of patients because of donor organ shortage,2 there is no effective therapy that can reverse the course of this disease. A single episode of myocardial infarction may result in the loss of 1 billion cardiomyocytes or more (≈25% of total cardiomyocytes).3 Given the limited intrinsic capacity of the adult heart to repair itself, the goal of cardiac regenerative medicine has centered on strategies to remuscularize the diseased heart.

Conceptually, the functional regeneration of an infarcted heart would entail the replacement of lost myocardium by aligned, electrically coupled, and mature new cardiomyocytes that beat in synchrony with the host myocardium. Beyond achieving this remarkable result, the avoidance of procedure-related complications and other potential adverse events, such as tumor formation or cardiac arrhythmia, is paramount for the therapy to be considered a success. While the process of finding the most appropriate cell type and delivery approach to achieve this objective has been the "holy grail" of cardiac regenerative medicine, a growing body of literature has now documented our initial efforts in this area. From these studies, the encouraging finding is that cell transplantation into the diseased heart (via intracoronary, transendocardial, or direct epicardial injection) appears to be reasonably safe. Furthermore, the practicalities of harvesting, expanding, and reintroducing cells back into the patient do not seem too cumbersome. However, the sobering reality we have learned is that tremendous roadblocks exist in achieving significant improvement in long-term cardiac function and bona fide remuscularization after cell transplantation.

We believe the field of cardiac regeneration is at a crossroad. Although ongoing debate regarding the most appropriate cell type, timing, route of delivery, and clinical setting will be addressed by further experimentation in animal models and patients, we need to consider whether the premise of cell transplantation as a treatment strategy for diseased hearts is still fundamentally sound and viable for further exploration. As we now enter the second decade of research on cell-based therapy for cardiovascular disease, it is instructive to revisit some of the key findings from published cell transplantation studies to better understand what is needed to move the field forward. We briefly summarize the efforts related to the transplantation of autologous noncardiac cell populations, such as skeletal myoblasts and bone marrow–derived cells, as well as recent trials on resident cardiac stem/progenitor cells (Figure). We also discuss whether pluripotent stem cells such as human embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) will be able to move into the clinical arena in the next decade, and the advantages and disadvantages of these cells in comparison with autologous adult-derived cells. Ultimately, our pursuit of cardiac regeneration will be looked on by future generations as akin to Ponce de Leon’s search for the Fountain of Youth, or as one of the greatest success stories in modern medicine. It is our hope that the combined efforts of many dedicated cardiovascular investigators in this area will eventually lead to a durable therapy that can reverse the increasing incidence of ischemic heart failure.

Figure.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure.

Candidate cell types for cardiovascular regenerative therapy. A variety of cell sources with differing cardiomyogenic potential and developmental origins are undergoing active investigation for cardiac cell therapy after myocardial infarction. BM-MNC indicates bone marrow mononuclear cell; CSC, cardiac stem cell; EPC, endothelial progenitor cell; ESC, embryonic stem cell; iPSC, induced pluripotent stem cell; MSC, mesenchymal stem cell; and SM, skeletal myoblasts.

Skeletal Myoblasts

The initial observation that skeletal myoblasts can be harvested and cultured ex vivo from muscle biopsy samples and then transplanted into an infarcted animal heart sparked the interest of basic and translational investigators that cell-based therapy may be a potentially viable strategy for cardiac remuscularization.4 The appeal for using skeletal myoblasts as a donor cell source is their autologous origin, ability to rapidly expand in culture, and propensity to generate muscle cells by spontaneous differentiation. Furthermore, these cells appear to engraft into the injured heart with remarkable efficiency and undergo in situ differentiation into striated muscle bundles. Although the earliest clinical studies conducted in small numbers of patients usinheg autologous skeletal myoblasts reported significant improvements in cardiac function,5 a subsequent trial with a larger number of participants found no demonstrable benefit (as measured by ejection fraction) and a high prevalence of ventricular tachyarrhythmia requiring the implantation of defibrillators.6 This early effort with skeletal myoblast transplantation illustrates our capability to move quickly from basic discovery to human studies in the cell therapy arena. However, the finding of potentially lethal arrhythmia in the remuscularized hearts suggests the requirement of cell-to-cell coupling between the transplanted graft and endogenous cardiomyocytes to minimize electric heterogeneity within the diseased heart. The introduction of connexin 43, a cell junction protein involved in cardiomyocyte coupling, into mouse skeletal myoblasts reduced arrhythmia after cell transplantation.7

Bone Marrow–Derived Stem Cells

The finding that hematopoietic cells may harbor greater developmental plasticity than previously suspected had spurred the subsequent investigation of these cells for regenerative studies in other tissues, including the heart.8 Studies on hematopoietic cells have most often used unselected mononuclear cells isolated directly from the bone marrow or from peripheral blood, as well as a more refined subset of marrow-derived or circulating cells termed endothelial progenitor cells. This latter subset has been reported to induce neovascularization in animal models9 and are enriched in cell populations possessing the cell surface markers CD34, CD133, or receptors for vascular endothelial growth factor. Conceptually, the introduction of autologous cells that exhibit stem cell features into a damaged heart is highly appealing. Furthermore, results from clinical trials have supported the safety and feasibility of intracoronary delivery of bone marrow and circulating stem cells. However, despite encouraging results in animal models, the efficacy of bone marrow cell transplantation in patients has been modest overall and inconsistent between studies.10–17 Nevertheless, these initial studies have illustrated 3 key issues that warrant further consideration: (1) The low retention rate of bone marrow cells in the heart; (2) The questionable efficiency of cardiomyocyte transdifferentiation; and (3) The uncertain mechanisms of functional improvement by the delivery of bone marrow cells.

It appears that the chosen cell type, as well as the route of administration, may play a role in the issue of low cell retention in the heart after transplantation. One human positron emission tomography imaging study demonstrated that CD34+ cells homed to the infarcted myocardium with ≈10-fold greater efficiency compared with unselected bone marrow–derived cells after intracoronary cell transfer.18 Additionally, emerging data suggest that direct intramuscular injection may be slightly more effective than intracoronary delivery.19,20 For intracoronary injections, the requirement for diapedesis through the coronary arterial wall may account for the limited amount of cell retention. Hence, innovative strategies aimed at increasing the targeting efficiency of transplanted cells and methods promoting cell survival after transplantation into the heart would prove highly beneficial.21

The efficiency of cardiomyocyte transdifferentiation from bone marrow–derived cells still poses significant challenges. Although the initial findings appeared highly encouraging, subsequent studies identified several confounding issues, such as cell fusion and imaging artifacts that may account for some, if not all, of the apparent hematopoietic cell transdifferentiation into cardiomyocytes.22–25 Although it is not improbable that bone marrow cells can transdifferentiate into cardiomyocytes with the introduction of appropriate epigenetic modifiers, the exact conditions and molecular factors required to achieve this in vivo are far from clear.

Despite the low efficiency of cell retention and cardiomyocyte transdifferentiation, there appears to be a modest, but statistically significant (≈3% to 5%), increase in ejection fraction after bone marrow cell transplantation compared with control.14,26 Head-to-head comparisons and meta-analyses suggest this effect has not been reserved to a particular cell type, although most studies used unselected bone marrow mononuclear cells rather than mobilized circulating cells or other selected cell populations.27–29 There is a growing consensus that the beneficial effects are mediated by paracrine action from either the process of cell injection alone, regardless of cell type, or specific factors secreted by the transplanted cells, or both.30,31 The presence of these factors may exert a favorable remodeling effect, augment neovascularization, or stimulate the expansion of endogenous cardiac progenitor cells. In support of this, Loffredo et al31 showed recently that bone marrow–derived c-kit-positive cells stimulate cardiomyogenesis by increasing the number of stem/progenitor cell–derived cardiomyocytes. Furthermore, the number of proliferative BrdU+ cardiomyocytes increased in bone marrow c-kit-positive but not c-kit-negative cell-treated hearts. These results suggest that the identification of specific paracrine factor(s) and the targeted cell population mediating endogenous cardiomyogenesis may allow us to achieve at least as comparable a regenerative response as bone marrow cell transplantation, but in a cell-free manner.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are multipotent stromal cells that can differentiate into a variety of mesodermally derived tissues and constitute another potential candidate for cell-based therapy. For cardiac applications, they have been most commonly isolated from the bone marrow or adipose tissue and defined by their ability to adhere to plastic culture dishes during in vitro propagation. In vitro, MSCs may be induced to exhibit cardiomyocyte-like features in the presence of the demethylating agent 5-azacytidine or when cocultured with cardiomyocytes.32–34 They also have the potential advantages of possessing low immunogenicity, as well as the ability to home to the site of injury within the myocardium.35 The combination of these attributes, in theory, could allow for intravenous allogeneic delivery of cell therapy via an off-the-shelf approach without the requirement for administering concomitant immunosuppression.

In this regard, the results from the recently reported Percutaneous Stem Cell Injection Delivery Effects on Neomyogenesis (POSEIDON) study showed that transendocardial allogeneic MSC transplantation was associated with a favorable safety profile when compared with autologous MSCs transplantation.36 Also, in a previous randomized trial, the intravenous application of allogeneic MSCs after acute myocardial infarction resulted in an improvement in global symptom score at 6 months and a small but significant improvement in ejection fraction in patients with large myocardial infarctions.37 As with bone marrow–derived stem cell transplantation, the low frequency of MSC engraftment and cardiomyogenic differentiation in the heart suggest that the functional improvement -observed in preclinical models and human trials is likely related to paracrine effects of the injected cells as opposed to generation of de novo cardiomyocytes.38 Several other ongoing clinical -trials, including Prospective Randomized Study of MSC Therapy in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery (PROMETHEUS), Transendocardial Autologous Cells in Ischemic Heart Failure Trial (TAC-HFT), Adipose-Derived Regenerative Cells Delivered Via the Intracoronary Route in the Treatment of Patients With ST-elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction (ADVANCE), and Adipose-Derived Stem and Regenerative Cells in the Treatment of Patients With Non Revascularizable Ischemic Myocardium (PRECISE), will add important information regarding safety and efficacy of bone marrow-derived or adipose-derived MSC therapy in cardiac disease.

Endogenous Cardiac Stem Cells

Although the lesson from bone marrow cell transplantation studies may be found in the presence of a paracrine-mediated effect in cardiac repair, the goal of achieving cardiomyogenesis by direct cell introduction into the injured heart remains elusive. As the search for a true cardiomyogenic cell population continues, several laboratories have reported an endogenous population of cardiac stem cells (CSCs) or progenitor cells residing in the postnatal heart. Adult CSCs have been isolated based on the expression of surface markers or functional features such as c-Kit, stem cell antigen-1, multidrug resistance gene-1/ATP-binding cassette subfamily G member 2 (also known as side population), and aggregational properties (ie, cardiosphere).39–42 The capacity of these CSCs to self-renew in a clonal fashion in vitro and to differentiate into multiple cardiovascular lineages both in vitro and in vivo suggests the potential therapeutic benefit of these cells after transplantation into the injured heart.43 The first study (Cardiac Stem Cells in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy [SCIPIO]) evaluating the safety and feasibility of c-Kit-positive CSCs in a clinical context was recently reported.44 The encouraging finding is that harvesting and ex vivo expansion of c-Kit-positive CSCs appears to be feasible, and no overt toxicity has been found thus far. Although not prespecified as the primary end points, left ventricular systolic function increased and infarct size reduced after intracoronary infusion of autologous ex vivo expanded c-Kit-positive cardiac cells in ischemic heart failure patients. Further studies will be needed to determine whether the functional benefit achieved is attributable to new cardiomyogenesis or paracrine effects as observed in bone marrow cell transplantation. In addition, as the identity and the cardiomyogenic potential of cardiac c-Kit-positive cells becomes clarified between different groups,45,46 it will be important to have additional confirmation of the results in SCIPIO by other investigators to help sustain the interest of cardiovascular clinicians and scientists in this approach.

In this regard, a prospective, randomized, phase 1 study of cardiosphere-derived cells (CDCs; Cardiosphere-Derived Autologous Stem Cells to Reverse Ventricular Dysfunction [CADUCEUS]) was recently reported.47 Unlike the SCIPIO study in which cardiac cells were further purified based on their expression of c-Kit, CDCs are collected from aggregating cells after right heart biopsy and ex vivo expansion. They express c-Kit in ≈20% of the cells.48 When introduced into patients with systolic heart failure, CDC-treated patients showed an apparent reduction in scar size and a corresponding increase in heart muscle mass. Regional contractility was increased as well. Interestingly, the end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes and the overall left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were not changed compared with control patients. It remains to be seen whether the transplantation of CDCs results in new cardiomyocyte generation, given the reported cardiomyogenic potential of these cells, or whether an endogenous cardioprotective mechanism becomes activated to prevent myocyte loss. Although LVEF is an imperfect measurement of systolic function, the lack of a significant increase in this parameter, despite the reported reduction in scar size and increase in heart muscle mass, suggests that even if new cardiomyocytes were generated from the transplanted CDCs, their ability to contribute to positive force generation during systole is somewhat limited. Further studies that address the extent of CDC engraftment in the transplanted heart, the degree of their cardiomyocyte differentiation, and the extent of electric coupling with native cardiomyocytes will help clarify the apparent disconnect between the increase in muscle mass and the lack of improvement in LVEF.

Pluripotent Stem Cells

Thus far, our efforts to regenerate the diseased heart have focused on identifying a population of cells that is both autologous and most likely to harbor cardiomyogenic potential. The immunocompatibility and the relative accessibility of autologous cells have been chosen over cardiomyogenic efficiency. This bias has been deliberate because it allows us to move from preclinical studies to human trials in a relatively short period of time. As we speculate on where cell therapy for cardiac disease might be in another decade, it is worth revisiting our original goal of in vivo cardiomyocyte replacement. There is a general agreement that pluripotent stem cells such as ESCs and iPSCs have unambiguous ability to differentiate into most, if not all, major cell types within the body. Since their initial discovery in 1998,49 human ESCs have been touted as one of the most promising cell sources for regenerative therapies. The ability of human ESCs to self-renew indefinitely in vitro and differentiate into cell types of interest with the supplementation of selected growth factors has stimulated the development of various differentiation strategies to increase the efficiency of cardiomyocyte generation and purification.50

One of the main reasons for the need to generate a high degree of cardiomyocyte purity is the alarming frequency of teratoma formation when undifferentiated ESCs are introduced into the heart.51,52 The issue of tumorigenicity has raised the threshold for United States Food and Drug Administration approval of human ESC products so high that 1 well-recognized company in this area had to eliminate its entire program. There are currently active trials on Stargardt disease and adult macular degeneration using human ESC-derived retinal epithelial cells. It remains to be seen whether teratoma formation will be an issue in these early applications of human ESC-derived products.

For cardiac diseases, a number of human ESC-derived cardiomyocyte (hESC-CM) preclinical studies have been published.21,53 In these studies, the transplantation of hESC-CMs into the injured rodent heart has resulted in small grafts that are largely electrically isolated. As a consequence, the functional benefit observed early (4–6 weeks) after transplantation was not sustained at 12 weeks or beyond. An encouraging finding from these studies is that no teratoma formation was observed despite the presence of ≈20% noncardiomyocytes within the cardiomyocyte-enriched cell population that underwent transplantation. However, because these studies were performed as xenografts in immunocompromised rodent hosts and the number of the engrafted cells has been very small, it remains to be seen whether teratomas would be found when a larger number of these cells are transplanted into humans.

Assuming the teratoma concern can be eliminated in the near future, a patient who undergoes hESC-CM treatment would still require immune suppression given the allogeneic source of the engrafted hESC-CMs. Despite intensive efforts to generate patient-specific hESCs by somatic cell nuclear transfer, there has, so far, been no bona fide hESC line created by this approach. The interest in pursuing the generation of patient-specific human ESCs from somatic cell nuclear transfer waned when it was discovered by Takahashi and Yamanaka that the forced expression of Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc can induce a pluripotent cell phenotype from somatic cells.54,55 These so-called iPSCs exhibit properties highly similar, but not identical, to hESCs and can readily generate cardiomyocytes by in vitro differentiation using protocols similar to those used for hESCs. Although the generation of iPSCs from patients’ own fibroblasts should, in principal, obviate the need for immunosuppression when cardiomyocytes derived from these cells are transplanted, a recent study reported the triggering of an immune response against autologous iPSC-derived teratoma in mice, raising the possibility of rare antigen expression in iPSCs that is not normally expressed in ESCs.56,57 It would be important to clarify whether these antigens are unique to teratoma per se or are present in all iPSC-derived cells. If these antigens are expressed ubiquitously in iPSCs and their progenies, the advantage of autologous human iPSCs over allogeneic hESCs would be limited.

An additional consideration that will undoubtedly play a role in pluripotent stem cell–based therapy for cardiac disease is the phenotype of the iPSC/ESC–derived cardiomyocytes. Myocytes in the heart are naturally diverse, with highly specialized physiological attributes and regional diversity that are essential for normal cardiac function. Currently, all protocols for human iPSC/ESC differentiation generate a mixture of atrial and ventricular cardiomyocytes and nodal-like cells. These cells are largely immature and do not resemble the mature rod-shaped, and often binucleated, cardiomyocytes found in an adult mammalian heart. Their fetal ion channel expression and electrophysiological properties may potentially be arrhythmogenic if electrically coupled with endogenous mature cardiomyocytes. If so, then toxicity issues will significantly diminish their translational potential in clinical applications.58,59 In this respect, efforts addressing factors that regulate ventricular versus atrial vs nodal-specific differentiation will be highly valuable.60 Furthermore, understanding the key roadblocks that prevent electromechanical maturation of in vitro differentiated iPSC/ESC–derived cardiomyocytes will help to minimize cardiotoxicity from cardiomyocyte transplantation. Ultimately, it will be important to determine the exact degree of cardiomyocyte maturation needed to enable the most optimal engraftment, expansion, and maturation after transplantation. It might be the case that transplanting cardiomyocyte progenitor cells can lead to greater cell engraftment and survival in the diseased heart, but these cells mature poorly and form a heterogeneous population of cardiovascular cells that becomes arrhythmogenic. However, transplanting fully mature cardiomyocytes may result in poor overall engraftment and survival because of their greater demand for oxygen and cell–cell contact despite being more phenotypically compatible with endogenous adult cardiomyocytes. Additional studies in large animal disease models using human ESC/iPSC–derived cardiac progenitor cells, immature cardiomyocytes, and mature ventricular cardiomyocytes should help to resolve some of these dilemmas.

Direct Cardiomyocyte Reprogramming

The remarkable success of somatic cell reprogramming into iPSCs has generated a renewed interest in direct cell lineage reprogramming since the discovery of MyoD.61 Indeed, reports of fibroblast conversion into neurons, blood, and liver cells by transcription factor overexpression have been published recently.62–67 The advantage of somatic cell transdifferentiation into another adult cell without an intermediate state of pluripotency is that it may circumvent the risk of teratoma formation associated with pluripotent stem cell–derived cell transplantation. In this regard, Ieda et al68 reported the reprogramming of murine postnatal cardiac and tail tip fibroblasts into cardiomyocyte-like cells by overexpressing a combination of three cardiac transcription factors—Gata4, Mef2c, and Tbx5. Using fibroblasts from α-myosin heavy chain–green fluorescent protein transgenic mice, ≈6% of virally infected cells were double-positive for green fluorescent protein and cardiac Troponin-T. In rare instances, spontaneous calcium transients were noted in infected, but not control, cardiac fibroblasts. Although in vitro reprogrammed fibroblasts may constitute a novel source of transplantable cardiomyocytes without the risk of teratoma formation, we believe the reprogramming efficiency must improve significantly (eg, up to >50% conversion into cardiomyocytes from a starting pool of fibroblasts) for this strategy to be therapeutically relevant, given the issues of cell retention and survival after transplantation discussed and the lack of ability of these cells to proliferate after transplantation. Nevertheless, the prospect for cellular reprogramming to play a role in cardiac regenerative therapy is quite intriguing, and the development of a robust and reproducible protocol for direct conversion of fibroblasts into cardiomyocytes will be important to move the field forward. If this can be achieved, then we envision the possibility that 1 day we might directly reprogram scar fibroblasts in the injured heart without the need for cell transplantation. The recent reports that in vivo reprogramming of scar fibroblasts into cardiomyocytes appears to be more -efficient than in vitro reprogramming is a promising first step toward making this a clinical reality.69,70

Future Perspective

In the past decade, we have witnessed tremendous excitement among basic and translational scientists toward therapeutic strategies that involve direct cell transplantation into the injured heart. From the wealth of preclinical and clinical data gathered, we gained a greater appreciation for the inherent challenges in survival, retention, cardiomyogenic differentiation, and functional integration of cell transplantation. Although no durable therapy has arisen from these efforts thus far, the knowledge we gained with regard to cell procurement, processing, and delivery will be useful for ongoing and future cell transplantation studies and should improve our chances of success with this approach.

Important issues that will continue to require major investigative efforts include the identification of the most effective strategy for cell engraftment and survival, the most efficient delivery technology to accomplish this goal, the most relevant cell type for transplantation that can achieve cardiomyogenesis to the level that directly contributes to positive force generation, and the improvement in hard clinical endpoints such as reduction in mortality and recurrent hospitalization. With regard to translational clinical studies, the challenges of objectively quantifying improvement in cardiac contractility and function in humans will require appropriate trial design and incorporation of technologies that are least susceptible to observer bias. In this regard, it is noteworthy that many of the bone marrow trials reporting improvement in LVEF used echocardiography as the method of functional assessment, whereas studies using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging showed less or no improvement after bone marrow cell transplantation. This suggests that meticulous execution of a double-blinded trial design and the incorporation of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of LVEF will be optimal in future trials. Given the relatively small change in LVEF after cell transplantation, the absence of data on mortality or major adverse cardiovascular events, and the small number of patients studied in each trial thus far, future clinical studies will likely shift away from patients with acute myocardial infarction and toward patients with ischemic heart failure or vascular insufficiency, in whom the benefit from cell therapy may be greater. As we continue the noble pursuit of cardiac regeneration, it will be important to maintain objectivity in the reporting of preclinical and clinical outcomes to prevent the creation of unrealistic expectations from the public, particularly given the low societal tolerance for medical errors.

We believe the future prospect for cardiovascular cell therapy remains bright. The finding of an effective therapy that can remuscularize a damaged heart not only will be a remarkable achievement in modern medicine but also will be the most effective, if not the only, way that we can reverse the growing incidence of heart failure worldwide.

Sources of Funding

This work was supported by the German Heart Foundation (M.-A. Deutsch), the American Heart Association Founders Affiliate and the Lawrence J. & Florence A. DeGeorge Charitable Trust Post-Doctoral Fellowship (A. Sturzu), the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (S. M. Wu), NIH/Office of the Director (S. M. Wu), and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute (S. M. Wu).

Disclosures

None.

Footnotes

  • CDC
    cardiosphere-derived cell
    CSC
    cardiac stem cell
    ESC
    embryonic stem cell
    hESC-CM
    human embryonic stem cell–derived cardiomyocyte
    iPSC
    induced pluripotent stem cell
    LVEF
    left ventricular ejection fraction
    MSC
    mesenchymal stem cell

  • © 2013 American Heart Association, Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Krum H,
    2. Abraham WT
    . Heart failure. Lancet. 2009;373:941–955.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Stehlik J,
    2. Edwards LB,
    3. Kucheryavaya AY,
    4. Benden C,
    5. Christie JD,
    6. Dobbels F,
    7. Kirk R,
    8. Rahmel AO,
    9. Hertz MI
    . The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Twenty-eighth Adult Heart Transplant Report–2011. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30:1078–1094.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Murry CE,
    2. Reinecke H,
    3. Pabon LM
    . Regeneration gaps: observations on stem cells and cardiac repair. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1777–1785.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Taylor DA,
    2. Atkins BZ,
    3. Hungspreugs P,
    4. Jones TR,
    5. Reedy MC,
    6. Hutcheson KA,
    7. Glower DD,
    8. Kraus WE
    . Regenerating functional myocardium: improved performance after skeletal myoblast transplantation. Nat Med. 1998;4:929–933.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Durrani S,
    2. Konoplyannikov M,
    3. Ashraf M,
    4. Haider KH
    . Skeletal myoblasts for cardiac repair. Regen Med. 2010;5:919–932.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Menasché P,
    2. Alfieri O,
    3. Janssens S,
    4. McKenna W,
    5. Reichenspurner H,
    6. Trinquart L,
    7. Vilquin JT,
    8. Marolleau JP,
    9. Seymour B,
    10. Larghero J,
    11. Lake S,
    12. Chatellier G,
    13. Solomon S,
    14. Desnos M,
    15. Hagège AA
    . The Myoblast Autologous Grafting in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy (MAGIC) trial: first randomized placebo-controlled study of myoblast transplantation. Circulation. 2008;117:1189–1200.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Roell W,
    2. Lewalter T,
    3. Sasse P,
    4. et al
    . Engraftment of connexin 43-expressing cells prevents post-infarct arrhythmia. Nature. 2007;450:819–824.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. LaBarge MA,
    2. Blau HM
    . Biological progression from adult bone marrow to mononucleate muscle stem cell to multinucleate muscle fiber in response to injury. Cell. 2002;111:589–601.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Asahara T,
    2. Murohara T,
    3. Sullivan A,
    4. Silver M,
    5. van der Zee R,
    6. Li T,
    7. Witzenbichler B,
    8. Schatteman G,
    9. Isner JM
    . Isolation of putative progenitor endothelial cells for angiogenesis. Science. 1997;275:964–967.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Assmus B,
    2. Honold J,
    3. Schächinger V,
    4. Britten MB,
    5. Fischer-Rasokat U,
    6. Lehmann R,
    7. Teupe C,
    8. Pistorius K,
    9. Martin H,
    10. Abolmaali ND,
    11. Tonn T,
    12. Dimmeler S,
    13. Zeiher AM
    . Transcoronary transplantation of progenitor cells after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1222–1232.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Schächinger V,
    2. Erbs S,
    3. Elsässer A,
    4. Haberbosch W,
    5. Hambrecht R,
    6. Hölschermann H,
    7. Yu J,
    8. Corti R,
    9. Mathey DG,
    10. Hamm CW,
    11. Süselbeck T,
    12. Assmus B,
    13. Tonn T,
    14. Dimmeler S,
    15. Zeiher AM
    ; REPAIR-AMI Investigators. Intracoronary bone marrow-derived progenitor cells in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1210–1221.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Lunde K,
    2. Solheim S,
    3. Aakhus S,
    4. et al
    . Intracoronary injection of mononuclear bone marrow cells in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1199–1209.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Janssens S,
    2. Dubois C,
    3. Bogaert J,
    4. et al
    . Autologous bone marrow-derived stem-cell transfer in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;367:113–121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Martin-Rendon E,
    2. Brunskill SJ,
    3. Hyde CJ,
    4. Stanworth SJ,
    5. Mathur A,
    6. Watt SM
    . Autologous bone marrow stem cells to treat acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:1807–1818.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Traverse JH,
    2. Henry TD,
    3. Ellis SG,
    4. et al
    .; Cardiovascular Cell Therapy ResearchNetwork. Effect of intracoronary delivery of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells 2 to 3 weeks following acute myocardial infarction on left ventricular function: the LateTIME randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;306:2110–2119.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Perin EC,
    2. Willerson JT,
    3. Pepine CJ,
    4. et al
    .; Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network (CCTRN). Effect of transendocardial delivery of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells on functional capacity, left ventricular function, and perfusion in chronic heart failure: the FOCUS-CCTRN trial. JAMA. 2012;307:1717–1726.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Traverse JH,
    2. Henry TD,
    3. Pepine CJ,
    4. et al
    .; Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network (CCTRN). Effect of the use and timing of bone marrow mononuclear cell delivery on left ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction: the TIME randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;308:2380–2389.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Hofmann M,
    2. Wollert KC,
    3. Meyer GP,
    4. Menke A,
    5. Arseniev L,
    6. Hertenstein B,
    7. Ganser A,
    8. Knapp WH,
    9. Drexler H
    . Monitoring of bone marrow cell homing into the infarcted human myocardium. Circulation. 2005;111:2198–2202.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Li SH,
    2. Lai TY,
    3. Sun Z,
    4. Han M,
    5. Moriyama E,
    6. Wilson B,
    7. Fazel S,
    8. Weisel RD,
    9. Yau T,
    10. Wu JC,
    11. Li RK
    . Tracking cardiac engraftment and distribution of implanted bone marrow cells: Comparing intra-aortic, intravenous, and intramyocardial delivery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:1225–1233.e1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Hou D,
    2. Youssef EA,
    3. Brinton TJ,
    4. Zhang P,
    5. Rogers P,
    6. Price ET,
    7. Yeung AC,
    8. Johnstone BH,
    9. Yock PG,
    10. March KL
    . Radiolabeled cell distribution after intramyocardial, intracoronary, and interstitial retrograde coronary venous delivery: implications for current clinical trials. Circulation. 2005;112:I150–I156.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Laflamme MA,
    2. Chen KY,
    3. Naumova AV,
    4. et al
    . Cardiomyocytes derived from human embryonic stem cells in pro-survival factors enhance function of infarcted rat hearts. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:1015–1024.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Wagers AJ,
    2. Sherwood RI,
    3. Christensen JL,
    4. Weissman IL
    . Little evidence for developmental plasticity of adult hematopoietic stem cells. Science. 2002;297:2256–2259.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Balsam LB,
    2. Wagers AJ,
    3. Christensen JL,
    4. Kofidis T,
    5. Weissman IL,
    6. Robbins RC
    . Haematopoietic stem cells adopt mature haematopoietic fates in ischaemic myocardium. Nature. 2004;428:668–673.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Murry CE,
    2. Soonpaa MH,
    3. Reinecke H,
    4. Nakajima H,
    5. Nakajima HO,
    6. Rubart M,
    7. Pasumarthi KB,
    8. Virag JI,
    9. Bartelmez SH,
    10. Poppa V,
    11. Bradford G,
    12. Dowell JD,
    13. Williams DA,
    14. Field LJ
    . Haematopoietic stem cells do not transdifferentiate into cardiac myocytes in myocardial infarcts. Nature. 2004;428:664–668.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Anversa P,
    2. Leri A,
    3. Rota M,
    4. Hosoda T,
    5. Bearzi C,
    6. Urbanek K,
    7. Kajstura J,
    8. Bolli R
    . Concise review: stem cells, myocardial regeneration, and methodological artifacts. Stem Cells. 2007;25:589–601.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Malliaras K,
    2. Marbán E
    . Cardiac cell therapy: where we’ve been, where we are, and where we should be headed. Br Med Bull. 2011;98:161–185.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Tendera M,
    2. Wojakowski W,
    3. Ruzyłło W,
    4. Chojnowska L,
    5. Kepka C,
    6. Tracz W,
    7. Musiałek P,
    8. Piwowarska W,
    9. Nessler J,
    10. Buszman P,
    11. Grajek S,
    12. Breborowicz P,
    13. Majka M,
    14. Ratajczak MZ
    ; REGENT Investigators. Intracoronary infusion of bone marrow-derived selected CD34+CXCR4+ cells and non-selected mononuclear cells in patients with acute STEMI and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: results of randomized, multicentre Myocardial Regeneration by Intracoronary Infusion of Selected Population of Stem Cells in Acute Myocardial Infarction (REGENT) Trial. Eur Heart J. 2009;30:1313–1321.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Lipinski MJ,
    2. Biondi-Zoccai GG,
    3. Abbate A,
    4. Khianey R,
    5. Sheiban I,
    6. Bartunek J,
    7. Vanderheyden M,
    8. Kim HS,
    9. Kang HJ,
    10. Strauer BE,
    11. Vetrovec GW
    . Impact of intracoronary cell therapy on left ventricular function in the setting of acute myocardial infarction: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1761–1767.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Clifford DM,
    2. Fisher SA,
    3. Brunskill SJ,
    4. Doree C,
    5. Mathur A,
    6. Watt S,
    7. Martin-Rendon E
    . Stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2:CD006536.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Gnecchi M,
    2. Zhang Z,
    3. Ni A,
    4. Dzau VJ
    . Paracrine mechanisms in adult stem cell signaling and therapy. Circ Res. 2008;103:1204–1219.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Loffredo FS,
    2. Steinhauser ML,
    3. Gannon J,
    4. Lee RT
    . Bone marrow-derived cell therapy stimulates endogenous cardiomyocyte progenitors and promotes cardiac repair. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;8:389–398.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Wakitani S,
    2. Saito T,
    3. Caplan AI
    . Myogenic cells derived from rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells exposed to 5-azacytidine. Muscle Nerve. 1995;18:1417–1426.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Toma C,
    2. Pittenger MF,
    3. Cahill KS,
    4. Byrne BJ,
    5. Kessler PD
    . Human mesenchymal stem cells differentiate to a cardiomyocyte phenotype in the adult murine heart. Circulation. 2002;105:93–98.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Li X,
    2. Yu X,
    3. Lin Q,
    4. Deng C,
    5. Shan Z,
    6. Yang M,
    7. Lin S
    . Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells differentiate into functional cardiac phenotypes by cardiac microenvironment. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2007;42:295–303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Chamberlain G,
    2. Fox J,
    3. Ashton B,
    4. Middleton J
    . Concise review: mesenchymal stem cells: their phenotype, differentiation capacity, immunological features, and potential for homing. Stem Cells. 2007;25:2739–2749.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Hare JM,
    2. Fishman JE,
    3. Gerstenblith G,
    4. et al
    . 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. 2012;308:2369–2379.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Hare JM,
    2. Traverse JH,
    3. Henry TD,
    4. Dib N,
    5. Strumpf RK,
    6. Schulman SP,
    7. Gerstenblith G,
    8. DeMaria AN,
    9. Denktas AE,
    10. Gammon RS,
    11. Hermiller JB Jr.,
    12. Reisman MA,
    13. Schaer GL,
    14. Sherman W
    . A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study of intravenous adult human mesenchymal stem cells (prochymal) after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:2277–2286.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Miyahara Y,
    2. Nagaya N,
    3. Kataoka M,
    4. Yanagawa B,
    5. Tanaka K,
    6. Hao H,
    7. Ishino K,
    8. Ishida H,
    9. Shimizu T,
    10. Kangawa K,
    11. Sano S,
    12. Okano T,
    13. Kitamura S,
    14. Mori H
    . Monolayered mesenchymal stem cells repair scarred myocardium after myocardial infarction. Nat Med. 2006;12:459–465.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Beltrami AP,
    2. Barlucchi L,
    3. Torella D,
    4. Baker M,
    5. Limana F,
    6. Chimenti S,
    7. Kasahara H,
    8. Rota M,
    9. Musso E,
    10. Urbanek K,
    11. Leri A,
    12. Kajstura J,
    13. Nadal-Ginard B,
    14. Anversa P
    . Adult cardiac stem cells are multipotent and support myocardial regeneration. Cell. 2003;114:763–776.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Oh H,
    2. Bradfute SB,
    3. Gallardo TD,
    4. Nakamura T,
    5. Gaussin V,
    6. Mishina Y,
    7. Pocius J,
    8. Michael LH,
    9. Behringer RR,
    10. Garry DJ,
    11. Entman ML,
    12. Schneider MD
    . Cardiac progenitor cells from adult myocardium: homing, differentiation, and fusion after infarction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:12313–12318.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Martin CM,
    2. Meeson AP,
    3. Robertson SM,
    4. Hawke TJ,
    5. Richardson JA,
    6. Bates S,
    7. Goetsch SC,
    8. Gallardo TD,
    9. Garry DJ
    . Persistent expression of the ATP-binding cassette transporter, Abcg2, identifies cardiac SP cells in the developing and adult heart. Dev Biol. 2004;265:262–275.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Messina E,
    2. De Angelis L,
    3. Frati G,
    4. Morrone S,
    5. Chimenti S,
    6. Fiordaliso F,
    7. Salio M,
    8. Battaglia M,
    9. Latronico MV,
    10. Coletta M,
    11. Vivarelli E,
    12. Frati L,
    13. Cossu G,
    14. Giacomello A
    . Isolation and expansion of adult cardiac stem cells from human and murine heart. Circ Res. 2004;95:911–921.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Leri A,
    2. Kajstura J,
    3. Anversa P
    . Role of cardiac stem cells in cardiac pathophysiology: a paradigm shift in human myocardial biology. Circ Res. 2011;109:941–961.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Bolli R,
    2. Chugh AR,
    3. D’Amario D,
    4. et al
    . Cardiac stem cells in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (SCIPIO): initial results of a randomised phase 1 trial. Lancet. 2011;378:1847–1857.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Zaruba MM,
    2. Soonpaa M,
    3. Reuter S,
    4. Field LJ
    . Cardiomyogenic potential of C-kit(+)-expressing cells derived from neonatal and adult mouse hearts. Circulation. 2010;121:1992–2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Pouly J,
    2. Bruneval P,
    3. Mandet C,
    4. Proksch S,
    5. Peyrard S,
    6. Amrein C,
    7. Bousseaux V,
    8. Guillemain R,
    9. Deloche A,
    10. Fabiani JN,
    11. Menasché P
    . Cardiac stem cells in the real world. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135:673–678.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Makkar RR,
    2. Smith RR,
    3. Cheng K,
    4. Malliaras K,
    5. Thomson LE,
    6. Berman D,
    7. Czer LS,
    8. Marbán L,
    9. Mendizabal A,
    10. Johnston PV,
    11. Russell SD,
    12. Schuleri KH,
    13. Lardo AC,
    14. Gerstenblith G,
    15. Marbán E
    . Intracoronary cardiosphere-derived cells for heart regeneration after myocardial infarction (CADUCEUS): a prospective, randomised phase 1 trial. Lancet. 2012;379:895–904.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Chimenti I,
    2. Smith RR,
    3. Li TS,
    4. Gerstenblith G,
    5. Messina E,
    6. Giacomello A,
    7. Marbán E
    . Relative roles of direct regeneration versus paracrine effects of human cardiosphere-derived cells transplanted into infarcted mice. Circ Res. 2010;106:971–980.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Thomson JA,
    2. Itskovitz-Eldor J,
    3. Shapiro SS,
    4. Waknitz MA,
    5. Swiergiel JJ,
    6. Marshall VS,
    7. Jones JM
    . Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science. 1998;282:1145–1147.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Burridge PW,
    2. Keller G,
    3. Gold JD,
    4. Wu JC
    . Production of de novo cardiomyocytes: human pluripotent stem cell differentiation and direct reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell. 2012;10:16–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Nussbaum J,
    2. Minami E,
    3. Laflamme MA,
    4. Virag JA,
    5. Ware CB,
    6. Masino A,
    7. Muskheli V,
    8. Pabon L,
    9. Reinecke H,
    10. Murry CE
    . Transplantation of undifferentiated murine embryonic stem cells in the heart: teratoma formation and immune response. FASEB J. 2007;21:1345–1357.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Kolossov E,
    2. Bostani T,
    3. Roell W,
    4. et al
    . Engraftment of engineered ES cell-derived cardiomyocytes but not BM cells restores contractile function to the infarcted myocardium. J Exp Med. 2006;203:2315–2327.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. van Laake LW,
    2. Passier R,
    3. Monshouwer-Kloots J,
    4. Verkleij AJ,
    5. Lips DJ,
    6. Freund C,
    7. den Ouden K,
    8. Ward-van Oostwaard D,
    9. Korving J,
    10. Tertoolen LG,
    11. van Echteld CJ,
    12. Doevendans PA,
    13. Mummery CL
    . Human embryonic stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes survive and mature in the mouse heart and transiently improve function after myocardial infarction. Stem Cell Res. 2007;1:9–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Takahashi K,
    2. Yamanaka S
    . Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006;126:663–676.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Takahashi K,
    2. Tanabe K,
    3. Ohnuki M,
    4. Narita M,
    5. Ichisaka T,
    6. Tomoda K,
    7. Yamanaka S
    . Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell. 2007;131:861–872.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Fairchild PJ
    . The challenge of immunogenicity in the quest for induced pluripotency. Nat Rev Immunol. 2010;10:868–875.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Zhao T,
    2. Zhang ZN,
    3. Rong Z,
    4. Xu Y
    . Immunogenicity of induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature. 2011;474:212–215.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Beqqali A,
    2. Kloots J,
    3. Ward-van Oostwaard D,
    4. Mummery C,
    5. Passier R
    . Genome-wide transcriptional profiling of human embryonic stem cells differentiating to cardiomyocytes. Stem Cells. 2006;24:1956–1967.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Cao F,
    2. Wagner RA,
    3. Wilson KD,
    4. Xie X,
    5. Fu JD,
    6. Drukker M,
    7. Lee A,
    8. Li RA,
    9. Gambhir SS,
    10. Weissman IL,
    11. Robbins RC,
    12. Wu JC
    . Transcriptional and functional profiling of human embryonic stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e3474.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Zhu WZ,
    2. Xie Y,
    3. Moyes KW,
    4. Gold JD,
    5. Askari B,
    6. Laflamme MA
    . Neuregulin/ErbB signaling regulates cardiac subtype specification in differentiating human embryonic stem cells. Circ Res. 2010;107:776–786.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. 61.↵
    1. Davis RL,
    2. Weintraub H,
    3. Lassar AB
    . Expression of a single transfected cDNA converts fibroblasts to myoblasts. Cell. 1987;51:987–1000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Chambers SM,
    2. Studer L
    . Cell fate plug and play: direct reprogramming and induced pluripotency. Cell. 2011;145:827–830.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Zhou Q,
    2. Brown J,
    3. Kanarek A,
    4. Rajagopal J,
    5. Melton DA
    . In vivo reprogramming of adult pancreatic exocrine cells to beta-cells. Nature. 2008;455:627–632.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Szabo E,
    2. Rampalli S,
    3. Risueño RM,
    4. Schnerch A,
    5. Mitchell R,
    6. Fiebig-Comyn A,
    7. Levadoux-Martin M,
    8. Bhatia M
    . Direct conversion of human fibroblasts to multilineage blood progenitors. Nature. 2010;468:521–526.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Marro S,
    2. Pang ZP,
    3. Yang N,
    4. Tsai MC,
    5. Qu K,
    6. Chang HY,
    7. Südhof TC,
    8. Wernig M
    . Direct lineage conversion of terminally differentiated hepatocytes to functional neurons. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;9:374–382.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Caiazzo M,
    2. Dell’Anno MT,
    3. Dvoretskova E,
    4. et al
    . Direct generation of functional dopaminergic neurons from mouse and human fibroblasts. Nature. 2011;476:224–227.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Thier M,
    2. Wörsdörfer P,
    3. Lakes YB,
    4. Gorris R,
    5. Herms S,
    6. Opitz T,
    7. Seiferling D,
    8. Quandel T,
    9. Hoffmann P,
    10. Nöthen MM,
    11. Brüstle O,
    12. Edenhofer F
    . Direct conversion of fibroblasts into stably expandable neural stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2012;10:473–479.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Ieda M,
    2. Fu JD,
    3. Delgado-Olguin P,
    4. Vedantham V,
    5. Hayashi Y,
    6. Bruneau BG,
    7. Srivastava D
    . Direct reprogramming of fibroblasts into functional cardiomyocytes by defined factors. Cell. 2010;142:375–386.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Qian L,
    2. Huang Y,
    3. Spencer CI,
    4. Foley A,
    5. Vedantham V,
    6. Liu L,
    7. Conway SJ,
    8. Fu JD,
    9. Srivastava D
    . In vivo reprogramming of murine cardiac fibroblasts into induced cardiomyocytes. Nature. 2012;485:593–598.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Song K,
    2. Nam YJ,
    3. Luo X,
    4. Qi X,
    5. Tan W,
    6. Huang GN,
    7. Acharya A,
    8. Smith CL,
    9. Tallquist MD,
    10. Neilson EG,
    11. Hill JA,
    12. Bassel-Duby R,
    13. Olson EN
    . Heart repair by reprogramming non-myocytes with cardiac transcription factors. Nature. 2012;485:599–604.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

Circulation Research
March 15, 2013, Volume 112, Issue 6
  • Table of Contents
Previous ArticleNext Article

Jump to

  • Article
    • Introduction
    • Skeletal Myoblasts
    • Bone Marrow–Derived Stem Cells
    • Mesenchymal Stem Cells
    • Endogenous Cardiac Stem Cells
    • Pluripotent Stem Cells
    • Direct Cardiomyocyte Reprogramming
    • Future Perspective
    • Sources of Funding
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics

Article Tools

  • Print
  • Citation Tools
    At a Crossroad
    Marcus-André Deutsch, Anthony Sturzu and Sean M. Wu
    Circulation Research. 2013;112:884-890, originally published March 14, 2013
    https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.112.275974

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
  •  Download Powerpoint
  • Article Alerts
    Log in to Email Alerts with your email address.
  • Save to my folders

Share this Article

  • Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Circulation Research.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    At a Crossroad
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from Circulation Research
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the Circulation Research web site.
  • Share on Social Media
    At a Crossroad
    Marcus-André Deutsch, Anthony Sturzu and Sean M. Wu
    Circulation Research. 2013;112:884-890, originally published March 14, 2013
    https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.112.275974
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Related Articles

Cited By...

Subjects

  • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Myocardial Regeneration
    • Myocardial Biology
  • Vascular Disease
    • Atherosclerosis

Circulation Research

  • About Circulation Research
  • Editorial Board
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Abstract Supplements
  • AHA Statements and Guidelines
  • Permissions
  • Reprints
  • Email Alerts
  • Open Access Information
  • AHA Journals RSS
  • AHA Newsroom

Editorial Office Address:
3355 Keswick Rd
Main Bldg 103
Baltimore, MD 21211
CircRes@circresearch.org

Information for:
  • Advertisers
  • Subscribers
  • Subscriber Help
  • Institutions / Librarians
  • Institutional Subscriptions FAQ
  • International Users
American Heart Association Learn and Live
National Center
7272 Greenville Ave.
Dallas, TX 75231

Customer Service

  • 1-800-AHA-USA-1
  • 1-800-242-8721
  • Local Info
  • Contact Us

About Us

Our mission is to build healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and stroke. That single purpose drives all we do. The need for our work is beyond question. Find Out More about the American Heart Association

  • Careers
  • SHOP
  • Latest Heart and Stroke News
  • AHA/ASA Media Newsroom

Our Sites

  • American Heart Association
  • American Stroke Association
  • For Professionals
  • More Sites

Take Action

  • Advocate
  • Donate
  • Planned Giving
  • Volunteer

Online Communities

  • AFib Support
  • Garden Community
  • Patient Support Network
  • Professional Online Network

Follow Us:

  • Follow Circulation on Twitter
  • Visit Circulation on Facebook
  • Follow Circulation on Google Plus
  • Follow Circulation on Instagram
  • Follow Circulation on Pinterest
  • Follow Circulation on YouTube
  • Rss Feeds
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright
  • Ethics Policy
  • Conflict of Interest Policy
  • Linking Policy
  • Diversity
  • Careers

©2018 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. The American Heart Association is a qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.
*Red Dress™ DHHS, Go Red™ AHA; National Wear Red Day ® is a registered trademark.

  • PUTTING PATIENTS FIRST National Health Council Standards of Excellence Certification Program
  • BBB Accredited Charity
  • Comodo Secured