Table 1.
In vitro studies demonstrate co-regulated circuits in maturation
Perturbation | Primary response | Secondary effect | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Structural | |||
Anisotropic ECM micropatterning |
|
|
(Ribeiro et al. 2015; Lyra-Leite et al. 2017) |
3D CM aggregate formation |
|
|
(Correia et al. 2018) |
Functional | |||
Auxotonic contraction of engineered heart tissue (EHT) |
|
|
(Ulmer et al. 2018) |
Electrical stimulation with increasing intensity |
|
|
(Ronaldson-Bouchard et al. 2018) |
Metabolic | |||
Differentiation with fatty acids and galactose |
|
|
(Correia et al. 2017) |
Palmitate treatment |
|
|
(Mills et al. 2017) |
Glucose deprivation following differentiation |
|
|
(Nakano et al. 2017) |
Cell cycle | |||
Mitomycin C treatment |
|
|
(Zhou et al. 2017) |
Here, we describe several in vitro studies of myocyte maturation in which one pathway of maturation (e.g. structural, functional, metabolic, cell cycle) was perturbed experimentally. We describe putative primary and secondary effects of the intervention. This table is not an exhaustive list of tissue engineered approaches to improved CM maturation; for more comprehensive reviews on that topic, please see Zhu et al. (2014) and Scuderi & Butcher (2017). Instead, we compile studies in which perturbation of one maturation pathway led to previously undescribed changes to other maturation-related processes, suggesting potential co-regulation between pathways.