Submit a comment
Abstract
Three-dimensional engineered cardiac tissue (ECT) using purified human induced pluripotent stem cell–derived cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs) has emerged as an appealing model system for the study of human cardiac biology and disease. A recent study reported widely used metabolic (lactate) purification of monolayer hiPSC-CM cultures results in an ischemic cardiomyopathy-like phenotype compared with magnetic antibody-based cell sorting (MACS) purification, complicating the interpretation of studies using lactate-purified hiPSC-CMs. Herein, our objective was to determine if use of lactate relative to MACS-purified hiPSC-CMs affects the properties of resulting hiPSC-ECTs. Therefore, hiPSC-CMs were differentiated and purified using either lactate-based media or MACS. Global proteomics revealed that lactate-purified hiPSC-CMs displayed a differential phenotype over MACS hiPSC-CMs. hiPSC-CMs were then integrated into 3D hiPSC-ECTs and cultured for 4 weeks. Structurally, there was no significant difference in sarcomere length between lactate and MACS hiPSC-ECTs. Assessment of isometric twitch force and Ca2+ transient measurements revealed similar functional performance between purification methods. High-resolution mass spectrometry–based quantitative proteomics showed no significant difference in protein pathway expression or myofilament proteoforms. Taken together, this study demonstrates that lactate- and MACS-purified hiPSC-CMs generate ECTs with comparable structural, functional, and proteomic features, and it suggests that lactate purification does not result in an irreversible change in a hiPSC-CM phenotype.
Authors
Kalina J. Rossler, Willem J. de Lange, Morgan W. Mann, Timothy J. Aballo, Jake A. Melby, Jianhua Zhang, Gina Kim, Elizabeth F. Bayne, Yanlong Zhu, Emily T. Farrell, Timothy J. Kamp, J. Carter Ralphe, Ying Ge
Guidelines
The Editorial Board will only consider comments that are deemed relevant and of interest to readers. The Journal will not post data that have not been subjected to peer review; or a comment that is essentially a reiteration of another comment.
- Comments appear on the Journal’s website and are linked from the original article’s web page.
- Authors are notified by email if their comments are posted.
- The Journal reserves the right to edit comments for length and clarity.
- No appeals will be considered.
- Comments are not indexed in PubMed.
Specific requirements
- Maximum length, 400 words
- Entered as plain text or HTML
- Author’s name and email address, to be posted with the comment
- Declaration of all potential conflicts of interest (even if these are not ultimately posted); see the Journal’s conflict-of-interest policy
- Comments may not include figures
