Subjects

Abstract

The mammalian heart has a very limited regenerative capacity and, hence, heals by scar formation1. Recent reports suggest that haematopoietic stem cells can transdifferentiate into unexpected phenotypes such as skeletal muscle2,3, hepatocytes4, epithelial cells5, neurons6,7, endothelial cells8 and cardiomyocytes8,9, in response to tissue injury or placement in a new environment. Furthermore, transplanted human hearts contain myocytes derived from extra-cardiac progenitor cells10,11,12, which may have originated from bone marrow8,13,14,15. Although most studies suggest that transdifferentiation is extremely rare under physiological conditions, extensive regeneration of myocardial infarcts was reported recently after direct stem cell injection9, prompting several clinical trials16,17. Here, we used both cardiomyocyte-restricted and ubiquitously expressed reporter transgenes to track the fate of haematopoietic stem cells after 145 transplants into normal and injured adult mouse hearts. No transdifferentiation into cardiomyocytes was detectable when using these genetic techniques to follow cell fate, and stem-cell-engrafted hearts showed no overt increase in cardiomyocytes compared to sham-engrafted hearts. These results indicate that haematopoietic stem cells do not readily acquire a cardiac phenotype, and raise a cautionary note for clinical studies of infarct repair.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , & The speed of healing of myocardial infarction: A study of the pathologic anatomy in 72 cases. Am. Heart J. 18, 647–671 (1939)

  2. 2.

    et al. Muscle regeneration by bone marrow-derived myogenic progenitors. Science 279, 1528–1530 (1998); erratum Science 281, 923 (1998)

  3. 3.

    et al. Dystrophin expression in the mdx mouse restored by stem cell transplantation. Nature 401, 390–394 (1999)

  4. 4.

    et al. Purified hematopoietic stem cells can differentiate into hepatocytes in vivo. Nature Med. 6, 1229–1234 (2000)

  5. 5.

    et al. Multi-organ, multi-lineage engraftment by a single bone marrow-derived stem cell. Cell 105, 369–377 (2001)

  6. 6.

    , , , & Turning blood into brain: cells bearing neuronal antigens generated in vivo from bone marrow. Science 290, 1779–1782 (2000)

  7. 7.

    , , & From marrow to brain: expression of neuronal phenotypes in adult mice. Science 290, 1775–1779 (2000)

  8. 8.

    et al. Regeneration of ischemic cardiac muscle and vascular endothelium by adult stem cells. J. Clin. Invest. 107, 1395–1402 (2001)

  9. 9.

    et al. Bone marrow cells regenerate infarcted myocardium. Nature 410, 701–705 (2001)

  10. 10.

    , , & Evidence for cardiomyocyte repopulation by extracardiac progenitors in transplanted human hearts. Circ. Res. 90, 634–640 (2002)

  11. 11.

    et al. Chimerism of the transplanted heart. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 5–15 (2002)

  12. 12.

    et al. Cardiomyocytes of noncardiac origin in myocardial biopsies of human transplanted hearts. Circulation 106, 31–35 (2002)

  13. 13.

    et al. Recruitment of bone-marrow-derived cells by skeletal and cardiac muscle in adult dystrophic mdx mice. Anat. Embryol. (Berl.) 199, 391–396 (1999)

  14. 14.

    et al. Fusion of bone-marrow-derived cells with Purkinje neurons, cardiomyocytes and hepatocytes. Nature 425, 968–973 (2003)

  15. 15.

    et al. Bone marrow-derived cardiomyocytes are present in adult human heart: A study of gender-mismatched bone marrow transplantation patients. Circulation 107, 1247–1249 (2003)

  16. 16.

    et al. Repair of infarcted myocardium by autologous intracoronary mononuclear bone marrow cell transplantation in humans. Circulation 106, 1913–1918 (2002)

  17. 17.

    et al. Transplantation of progenitor cells and regeneration enhancement in acute myocardial infarction (TOPCARE-AMI). Circulation 106, 3009–3017 (2002)

  18. 18.

    , , & Formation of nascent intercalated disks between grafted fetal cardiomyocytes and host myocardium. Science 264, 98–101 (1994)

  19. 19.

    & Myofibroblast and endothelial cell proliferation during murine myocardial infarct repair. Am. J. Pathol. 163, 2433–2440 (2003)

  20. 20.

    & Assessment of cardiomyocyte DNA synthesis in normal and injured adult mouse hearts. Am. J. Physiol. 272, H220–H226 (1997)

  21. 21.

    , , , & Myocyte and myogenic stem cell transplantation in the heart. Cardiovasc. Res. 58, 336–350 (2003)

  22. 22.

    et al. Generalized potential of adult neural stem cells. Science 288, 1660–1663 (2000)

  23. 23.

    et al. Transdifferentiation of blood-derived human adult endothelial progenitor cells into functionally active cardiomyocytes. Circulation 107, 1024–1032 (2003)

  24. 24.

    et al. Physiological coupling of donor and host cardiomyocytes after cellular transplantation. Circ. Res. 92, 1217–1224 (2003)

  25. 25.

    et al. Immune response to green fluorescent protein: implications for gene therapy. Gene Ther. 6, 1305–1312 (1999)

  26. 26.

    et al. Cardiac progenitor cells from adult myocardium: homing, differentiation, and fusion after infarction. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 12313–12318 (2003)

  27. 27.

    et al. Cardiomyocyte regeneration from circulating bone marrow cells in mice. Pediatr. Res. 54, 319–325 (2003)

  28. 28.

    et al. Implantation of bone marrow stem cells reduces the infarction and fibrosis in ischemic mouse heart. J. Mol. Cell. Cardiol. 35, 1113–1119 (2003)

  29. 29.

    & Cell grafting for cardiac repair. Methods Mol. Biol. 219, 97–112 (2003)

  30. 30.

    , & Skeletal muscle stem cells do not transdifferentiate into cardiomyocytes after cardiac grafting. J. Mol. Cell. Cardiol. 34, 241–249 (2002)

Download references

Acknowledgements

C.E.M. and L.J.F. thank L. Reinlib for his longstanding support of this collaboration. We thank C. Storey for assistance in sorting HSCs and in bone marrow transplantation, and L. Fernando Santana for assistance with enzymatic dissociation of mouse hearts. These studies were supported in part by NIH grants to C.E.M. and L.J.F., and by the HHMI (G.B., D.A.W.).

Author information

Author notes

    • Kishore B. S. Pasumarthi
    •  & David A. Williams

    Present addresses: Department of Pharmacology Dalhousie University, Sir Charles Tupper Medical Bldg, Room 6-F1, 5850 College Street, Halifax B3H 1X5, Canada (K.B.S.P.); Division of Experimental Hematology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45229-3039, USA (D.A.W.)

Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Box 357470, Room D-514 HSB, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA

    • Charles E. Murry
    • , Hans Reinecke
    • , Jitka Ismail Virag
    •  & Veronica Poppa
  2. Wells Center for Pediatric Research, Indiana University, 1044 West Walnut Street, R4 Bldg, Room W376, Indianapolis 46202-5225, USA

    • Mark H. Soonpaa
    • , Hidehiro Nakajima
    • , Hisako O. Nakajima
    • , Michael Rubart
    • , Kishore B. S. Pasumarthi
    • , Gillian Bradford
    • , Joshua D. Dowell
    • , David A. Williams
    •  & Loren J. Field
  3. Department of Pathobiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA

    • Stephen H. Bartelmez

Authors

  1. Search for Charles E. Murry in:

  2. Search for Mark H. Soonpaa in:

  3. Search for Hans Reinecke in:

  4. Search for Hidehiro Nakajima in:

  5. Search for Hisako O. Nakajima in:

  6. Search for Michael Rubart in:

  7. Search for Kishore B. S. Pasumarthi in:

  8. Search for Jitka Ismail Virag in:

  9. Search for Stephen H. Bartelmez in:

  10. Search for Veronica Poppa in:

  11. Search for Gillian Bradford in:

  12. Search for Joshua D. Dowell in:

  13. Search for David A. Williams in:

  14. Search for Loren J. Field in:

Competing interests

The laboratory of C.E.M. receives partial research funding from Geron. L.J.F. is a consultant for Cardion.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles E. Murry.

Supplementary information

Word documents

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Includes supplementary table showing methodological comparison of Orlic et al. vs. Murry et al. and supplementary methods.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02446

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.