Regenerative therapies in electrophysiology and pacing: introducing the next steps

Cardiomyocyte Progenitor Cells as a Functional Gene Delivery Vehicle for Long-Term Biological Pacing

Sustained pacemaker function is a challenge in biological pacemaker engineering. Human cardiomyocyte progenitor cells (CMPCs) have exhibited extended survival in the heart after transplantation. We studied whether lentivirally transduced CMPCs that express the pacemaker current I_f (encoded by HCN4) can be used as functional gene delivery vehicle in biological pacing. Human CMPCs were isolated from fetal hearts using magnetic beads coated with Sca-1 antibody, cultured in nondifferentiating conditions, and transduced with a green fluorescent protein (GFP)- or HCN4-GFP-expressing lentivirus. A patch-clamp analysis showed a large hyperpolarization-activated, time-dependent inward current (−20 pA/pF at −140 mV, n = 14) with properties typical of I_f in HCN4-GFP-expressing CMPCs. Gap-junctional coupling between CMPCs and neonatal rat ventricular myocytes (NRVMs) was demonstrated by efficient dye transfer and changes in spontaneous beating activity. In organ explant cultures, the number of preparations showing spontaneous beating activity increased from 6.3% in CMPC/GFP-injected preparations to 68.2% in CMPC/HCN4-GFP-injected preparations (P < 0.05). Furthermore, in CMPC/HCN4-GFP-injected preparations, isoproterenol induced a significant reduction in cycle lengths from 648 ± 169 to 392 ± 71 ms (P < 0.05). In sum, CMPCs expressing HCN4-GFP functionally couple to NRVMs and induce physiologically controlled pacemaker activity and may therefore provide an attractive delivery platform for sustained pacemaker function.

Biological therapies targeting arrhythmias: are cells and genes the answer?

INTRODUCTION

Arrhythmias can cause symptoms ranging from simple dizziness to life-threatening circulatory collapse. Current management includes medical therapy and procedures such as catheter ablation or device implantation. However, these strategies still pose a risk of serious side effects, and some patients remain symptomatic. Advancement in our understanding of how arrhythmias develop on the cellular level has made more targeted approaches possible. In addition, contemporary studies have found that several genes are involved in the pathogenesis of arrhythmias.

AREAS COVERED

In the present review, the authors explore the cellular and genetic mechanisms leading to arrhythmias as well as the progress that has been made in using both gene and cell therapy to treat tachy- and bradyarrhythmias. They also consider why gene and cell therapy has resulted into a few clinical trials with promising results, however still not applicable in routine clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

The question currently is whether such biological therapies could replace current established approaches. The contemporary evidence suggests that despite recent advances in this field, it will need more work in experimental models before this is applied into clinical practice. Gene and cell studies targeting conduction and repolarization are promising, but still not ready for use in the clinical setting.

Gene Therapy for Restoring Heart Rhythm

Efforts to use gene therapy to create a biological pacemaker as an adjunct or replacement of electronic pacemakers have been ongoing for about 15 years. For the past decade, most of these efforts have focused on the hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide gated-(HCN) gene family of channels alone or in combination with other genes. The HCN gene family is the molecular correlate of the cardiac pacemaker current, If. It is a suitable basis for a biological pacemaker because it generates a depolarizing inward current primarily during diastole and is directly regulated by cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP), thereby incorporating autonomic responsiveness. However, biological pacemakers based either on native HCN channels or on mutated HCN channels designed to optimize biophysical characteristics have failed to attain the desired basal and maximal physiological heart rates in large animals. More recent work has explored dual gene therapy approaches, combining an HCN variant with another gene to reduce outward current, increase an additional inward current, or enhance cAMP synthesis. Several of these dual gene therapy approaches have demonstrated appropriate basal and maximal heart rates with little or no reliance on a backup electronic pacemaker during the period of study. Future research, besides examining the efficacy of other gene combinations, will need to consider the additional issues of safety and persistence of the viral vectors often used to deliver these genes to a specific cardiac region.

Effect of skeletal muscle Na(+) channel delivered via a cell platform on cardiac conduction and arrhythmia induction

BACKGROUND

In depolarized myocardial infarct epicardial border zones, the cardiac sodium channel is largely inactivated, contributing to slow conduction and reentry. We have demonstrated that adenoviral delivery of the skeletal muscle Na(+) channel (SkM1) to epicardial border zones normalizes conduction and reduces induction of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation. We now studied the impact of canine mesenchymal stem cells (cMSCs) in delivering SkM1.

METHODS AND RESULTS

cMSCs were isolated and transfected with SkM1. Coculture experiments showed cMSC/SkM1 but not cMSC alone and maintained fast conduction at depolarized potentials. We studied 3 groups in the canine 7d infarct: sham, cMSC, and cMSC/SkM1. In vivo epicardial border zones electrograms were broad and fragmented in sham, narrower in cMSCs, and narrow and unfragmented in cMSC/SkM1 (P<0.05). During programmed electrical stimulation of epicardial border zones, QRS duration in cMSC/SkM1 was shorter than in cMSC and sham (P<0.05). Programmed electrical stimulation-induced ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation was equivalent in all groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

cMSCs provide efficient delivery of SkM1 current. The interventions performed (cMSCs or cMSC/SkM1) were neither antiarrhythmic nor proarrhythmic. Comparing outcomes with cMSC/SkM1 and viral gene delivery highlights the criticality of the delivery platform to SkM1 antiarrhythmic efficacy.