Nadal-Ginard Bernardo, Torella Daniele, Ellison Georgina
The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY 10029, USA.
Rev Esp Cardiol. 2006 Nov;59(11):1175-89.
It is now over 4 years since early reports of murine models raised high expectations that bone marrow cell transplantation to the postischemic myocardium could produce physiologically significant myocardial regeneration. In quick succession, a flurry of publications documented the capacity of a variety of other types of adult cell to produce similar results. These publications were all controversial from the start because none addressed the mechanisms involved in the differentiation of transplanted cells. In addition, each report raised at least as many questions as it answered. Despite these obvious weaknesses, the first phase-I clinical trials were started immediately without any further animal experimentation. Today the results of more than a dozen trials are already in the public domain but we still do not have a single piece of solid data documenting whether any of the approaches used is capable of regenerating contractile cells in the human myocardium. This is one of the main reasons why the controversy over the effectiveness of this therapeutic approach is becoming increasingly heated. Moreover, skepticism about the efficacy, and even the feasibility, of inducing clinically relevant myocardial regeneration has increased to the point where it threatens the future of this nascent field. The present situation in myocardial generation contrasts sharply with that in neural regeneration. Although there is a solid and extensive body of knowledge on the origin, phenotype, and regulatory mechanisms of neural stem cells, the first clinical trials have only recently been started. To move this field forward it is necessary to distinguish between the procedures needed to establish proof-of-concept and those that have the potential for widespread clinical application. In addition, the technique must be implemented in such a way that it continues to add to existing knowledge. It is our belief that, if the necessary information is to be acquired, we need: a) significantly more extensive experimental data from animals whose anatomical and physiological characteristics are similar to human's, including data on, for example, dose-effect relationships, the best form of administration, and the duration of therapeutic responses; and b) better understanding of the molecular mechanisms that determine whether cardiac stem cells and transplanted cells will either remain as stem cells or differentiate. In summary, if we are to progress systematically in this area, we need better understanding of myocardial biology. Without it, we run the risk of holding back the field for decades, as happened with the first human heart transplants and with trials of gene therapy.
自从有关小鼠模型的早期报道引发了人们对将骨髓细胞移植到缺血后心肌中能否产生具有生理意义的心肌再生的高度期望以来,已经过去4年多了。紧接着,一系列的出版物记录了多种其他类型的成年细胞产生类似结果的能力。这些出版物从一开始就备受争议,因为没有一篇涉及移植细胞分化所涉及的机制。此外,每篇报告提出的问题至少与它所回答的问题一样多。尽管存在这些明显的弱点,但第一阶段的临床试验还是立即启动了,没有进行任何进一步的动物实验。如今,十几项试验的结果已经公开,但我们仍然没有一条确凿的数据能够证明所采用的任何一种方法是否能够在人类心肌中再生收缩细胞。这是关于这种治疗方法有效性的争议日益激烈的主要原因之一。此外,对于诱导具有临床相关性的心肌再生的疗效甚至可行性的怀疑已经增加到威胁这个新兴领域未来的程度。心肌生成的现状与神经再生的现状形成了鲜明对比。尽管在神经干细胞的起源、表型和调控机制方面有坚实而广泛的知识体系,但第一批临床试验直到最近才开始。为了推动这个领域的发展,有必要区分建立概念验证所需的程序和具有广泛临床应用潜力的程序。此外,必须以这样一种方式实施该技术,即它能够不断增加现有知识。我们相信,如果要获得必要的信息,我们需要:a)来自解剖和生理特征与人类相似的动物的大量更广泛的实验数据,包括例如剂量效应关系、最佳给药形式和治疗反应持续时间的数据;b)更好地理解决定心脏干细胞和移植细胞是保持为干细胞还是分化的分子机制。总之,如果我们要在这个领域系统地取得进展,我们需要更好地理解心肌生物学。没有它,我们就有可能像人类首例心脏移植和基因治疗试验那样,使这个领域停滞数十年。