Human Blood and Cardiac Stem Cells Synergize to Enhance Cardiac Repair When Cotransplanted Into Ischemic Myocardium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood-derived circulatory angiogenic cells (CACs) and resident cardiac stem cells (CSCs) have both been shown to improve cardiac function after myocardial infarction. The superiority of either cell type has long been an area of speculation with no definitive head-to-head trial. In this study, we compared the effect of human CACs and CSCs, alone or in combination, on myocardial function in an immunodeficient mouse model of myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: CACs and CSCs were cultured from left atrial appendages and blood samples obtained from patients undergoing clinically indicated heart surgery. CACs expressed a broader cytokine profile than CSCs, with 3 cytokines in common. Coculture of CACs and CSCs further enhanced the production of stromal cell-derived factor-1α and vascular endothelial growth factor (P ≤ 0.05). Conditioned media promoted equivalent vascular networks and CAC recruitment with superior effects using cocultured conditioned media. Intramyocardial injection of CACs or CSCs alone improved myocardial function and reduced scar burdens when injected 1 week after myocardial infarction (P ≤ 0.05 versus negative controls). Cotransplantation of CACs and CSCs together improved myocardial function and reduced scar burdens to a greater extent than either stem cell therapy alone (P ≤ 0.05 versus CAC or CSC injection alone). CONCLUSIONS: CACs and CSCs provide unique paracrine repertoires with equivalent effects on angiogenesis, stem cell migration, and myocardial repair. Combination therapy with both cell types synergistically improves postinfarct myocardial function greater than either therapy alone. This synergy is likely mediated by the complimentary paracrine signatures that promote revascularization and the growth of new myocardium.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".