Fig. 5
iCMP transplantation attenuates fibrotic scarring and preserves cardiac function after myocardial infarction. a Experimental strategy used to evaluate the effect of intramyocardial iCMP transplantation in mice after left anterior descending artery (LAD) ligation and myocardial infarction (MI). Left ventricular performance and geometry were repeatedly measured by transthoracic echocardiography (echo; nSHAM = 10, nDPBS = 12, nCFeGFP = 14, niCMP = 13 mice). Scar size was determined by histology (nDPBS = 7, nCFeGFP = 7, niCMP = 9 mice). Cell retention was investigated by immunohistochemistry (nDPBS = 5, nCFeGFP = 5, niCMP = 6). b, c Left ventricular pump function is given as LVEF (b) or change in LVEF for individual animals over 4 weeks c. After iCMP injection, LVEF is stably preserved over the entire follow-up period. d Left ventricular contractility is given as longitudinal left ventricular fractional shortening (LVFS). iCMP and SHAM LVFS are not significantly different. e Cardiac output (CO), a measure of ejected blood volume, is higher in iCMP animals compared to CFeGFP animals. f Left ventricular geometry as determined by left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV). Compared to SHAM ventricles, DPBS and CFeGFP ventricles are significantly dilated, whereas iCMP ventricle volumes are not significantly different. g Representative images of Masson-trichrome–stained heart sections. Red marks muscle fibers, blue marks collagen fibers, light red marks cytoplasm, and dark brown marks cell nuclei. Scale bars, 2 mm. h Quantification of scar size in g indicates that iCMP injection reduces fibrotic scarring. Scatter plot with bar graph shows mean ± SEM. Overlayed single dots represent individual animals. Cardiac function data were analyzed using a mixed-effects model and Holm-Sidak's post-hoc tests. Change in LVEF data were analyzed using an ordinary one-way ANOVA (F(3, 40) = 1.3, P = 0.2755). Additional file 1: Fig. S7b provides additional echocardiography data and statistical test results for all follow-up examinations. Scar size data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis test and Dunn’s post-hoc tests (Kruskal–Wallis statistic = 11.18, Poverall = 0.0037, PDPBSvsCFeGFP = 1). P-values for significant results are shown Figure 6