Why the study?
Choosing an ideal cell population is crucial for myocardial regenerative strategies, prompting exploration of the regenerative/repair responses and phenotypic heterogeneity of infarct zone cardiac fibroblasts at single-cell resolution.
Single-cell RNA sequencing of infarct zone cardiac fibroblasts reveals 19 distinct subpopulations with diverse functional phenotypes, offering potential targets for myocardial regeneration.
Single-cell CF profiling in porcine ischemia leaves open identification of reparative subsets; hypothesis-generating without functional validation.
Myocardial regenerative strategies are promising where the choice of ideal cell population is crucial for successful translational applications. Herein, we explored the regenerative/repair responses of infarct zone cardiac fibroblast(s) (CF) by unveiling their phenotype heterogeneity at single-cell resolution. CF were isolated from the infarct zone of Yucatan miniswine that suffered myocardial infarction, cultured under simulated ischemic and reperfusion, and grouped into control, ischemia, and ischemia/reperfusion. The single-cell RNA sequencing analysis revealed 19 unique cell clusters suggesting distinct subpopulations. The status of gene expression (log2 fold change (log2 FC) > 2 and log2 FC < -2) was used to define the characteristics of each cluster unveiling with diverse features, including the pro-survival/cardioprotective (Clusters 1, 3, 5, 9, and 18), vasculoprotective (Clusters 2 and 5), anti-inflammatory (Clusters 4 and 17), proliferative (Clusters 4 and 5), nonproliferative (Clusters 6, 8, 11, 16, 17, and 18), proinflammatory (Cluster 6), profibrotic/pathologic (Clusters 8 and 19), antihypertrophic (Clusters 8 and 10), extracellular matrix restorative (Clusters 9 and 12), angiogenic (Cluster 16), and normal (Clusters 7 and 15) phenotypes. Further understanding of these unique phenotypes of CF will provide significant translational opportunities for myocardial regeneration and cardiac management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thankam et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: