Key result
Porcine endocardial endothelial cells proliferated faster (2873 vs 1714 cells at 96 h, p=0.0002) but migrated slower than HUVECs, and maintained CD31 expression over 14 passages.
Why the study?
Endocardial endothelial cells line the chambers of the heart and their dysregulation can lead to various cardiac pathologies, but they are relatively understudied and lack commercial availability.
p-value: p=0.0002
Porcine endocardial endothelial cells exhibit distinct proliferation, migration, and phenotypic stability compared to HUVECs, highlighting the importance of using tissue-specific cells for cardiac modeling.
New porcine EEC isolation protocol enables chamber-specific endothelial studies; leaves open human disease modeling and clinical translation.
The heart contains diverse endothelial cell types. We sought to characterize the endocardial endothelial cells (EECs), which line the chambers of the heart. EECs are relatively understudied, yet their dysregulation can lead to various cardiac pathologies. Due to the lack of commercial availability of these cells, we reported our protocol for isolating EECs from porcine hearts and for establishing an EEC population through cell sorting. In addition, we compared the EEC phenotype and fundamental behaviors to a well-studied endothelial cell line, human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs). The EECs stained positively for classic phenotypic markers such as CD31, von Willebrand Factor, and vascular endothelial (VE) cadherin. The EECs proliferated more quickly than HUVECs at 48 h (1310 ± 251 cells vs. 597 ± 130 cells, p = 0.0361) and at 96 h (2873 ± 257 cells vs. 1714 ± 342 cells, p = 0.0002). Yet EECs migrated more slowly than HUVECs to cover a scratch wound at 4 h (5% ± 1% wound closure vs. 25% ± 3% wound closure, p < 0.0001), 8 h (15% ± 4% wound closure vs. 51% ± 12% wound closure, p < 0.0001), and 24 h (70% ± 11% wound closure vs. 90% ± 3% wound closure, p < 0.0001). Finally, the EECs maintained their endothelial phenotype by positive expression of CD31 through more than a dozen passages (three populations of EECs showing 97% ± 1% CD31 + cells in over 14 passages). In contrast, the HUVECs showed significantly reduced CD31 expression over high passages (80% ± 11% CD31 + cells over 14 passages). These important phenotypic differences between EECs and HUVECs highlight the need for researchers to utilize the most relevant cell types when studying or modeling diseases of interest.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brown et al. (2023) studied this question. Porcine endocardial endothelial cells (EECs) vs. Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) was evaluated on Cell proliferation at 96 hours (p=0.0002). Porcine endocardial endothelial cells proliferated faster (2873 vs 1714 cells at 96 h, p=0.0002) but migrated slower than HUVECs, and maintained CD31 expression over 14 passages.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: