Endothelial progenitors

A consensus statement on nomenclature

Reinhold J. Medina, Chad L. Barber, Florence Sabatier, Francoise Dignat-George, Juan M. Melero-Martin, Kiarash Khosrotehrani, Osamu Ohneda, Anna M. Randi, Jerry K.Y. Chan, Teruhide Yamaguchi, Victor W.M. Van Hinsbergh, Mervin Yoder, Alan W. Stitt

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

71 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) nomenclature remains ambiguous and there is a general lack of concordance in the stem cell field with many distinct cell subtypes continually grouped under the term “EPC.” It would be highly advantageous to agree on standards to confirm an endothelial progenitor phenotype and this should include detailed immunophenotyping, potency assays, and clear separation from hematopoietic angiogenic cells which are not endothelial progenitors. In this review, we seek to discourage the indiscriminate use of “EPCs,” and instead propose precise terminology based on defining cellular phenotype and function. Endothelial colony forming cells and myeloid angiogenic cells are examples of two distinct and well-defined cell types that have been considered EPCs because they both promote vascular repair, albeit by completely different mechanisms of action. It is acknowledged that scientific nomenclature should be a dynamic process driven by technological and conceptual advances; ergo the ongoing “EPC” nomenclature ought not to be permanent and should become more precise in the light of strong scientific evidence. This is especially important as these cells become recognized for their role in vascular repair in health and disease and, in some cases, progress toward use in cell therapy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1316-1320
Number of pages5
JournalStem cells translational medicine
Volume6
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2017

Fingerprint

Terminology
Blood Vessels
Phenotype
Immunophenotyping
Myeloid Cells
Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy
Stem Cells
Health
Endothelial Progenitor Cells
erucylphosphocholine

Keywords

  • Angiogenesis
  • Cellular therapy
  • Endothelial cell
  • Progenitor cells

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Developmental Biology
  • Cell Biology

Cite this

Medina, R. J., Barber, C. L., Sabatier, F., Dignat-George, F., Melero-Martin, J. M., Khosrotehrani, K., ... Stitt, A. W. (2017). Endothelial progenitors: A consensus statement on nomenclature. Stem cells translational medicine, 6(5), 1316-1320. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.16-0360

Endothelial progenitors : A consensus statement on nomenclature. / Medina, Reinhold J.; Barber, Chad L.; Sabatier, Florence; Dignat-George, Francoise; Melero-Martin, Juan M.; Khosrotehrani, Kiarash; Ohneda, Osamu; Randi, Anna M.; Chan, Jerry K.Y.; Yamaguchi, Teruhide; Van Hinsbergh, Victor W.M.; Yoder, Mervin; Stitt, Alan W.

In: Stem cells translational medicine, Vol. 6, No. 5, 01.05.2017, p. 1316-1320.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Medina, RJ, Barber, CL, Sabatier, F, Dignat-George, F, Melero-Martin, JM, Khosrotehrani, K, Ohneda, O, Randi, AM, Chan, JKY, Yamaguchi, T, Van Hinsbergh, VWM, Yoder, M & Stitt, AW 2017, 'Endothelial progenitors: A consensus statement on nomenclature', Stem cells translational medicine, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1316-1320. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.16-0360
Medina RJ, Barber CL, Sabatier F, Dignat-George F, Melero-Martin JM, Khosrotehrani K et al. Endothelial progenitors: A consensus statement on nomenclature. Stem cells translational medicine. 2017 May 1;6(5):1316-1320. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.16-0360
Medina, Reinhold J. ; Barber, Chad L. ; Sabatier, Florence ; Dignat-George, Francoise ; Melero-Martin, Juan M. ; Khosrotehrani, Kiarash ; Ohneda, Osamu ; Randi, Anna M. ; Chan, Jerry K.Y. ; Yamaguchi, Teruhide ; Van Hinsbergh, Victor W.M. ; Yoder, Mervin ; Stitt, Alan W. / Endothelial progenitors : A consensus statement on nomenclature. In: Stem cells translational medicine. 2017 ; Vol. 6, No. 5. pp. 1316-1320.
@article{cadbb7e27b684f6686f424b6fbaa21d0,
title = "Endothelial progenitors: A consensus statement on nomenclature",
abstract = "Endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) nomenclature remains ambiguous and there is a general lack of concordance in the stem cell field with many distinct cell subtypes continually grouped under the term “EPC.” It would be highly advantageous to agree on standards to confirm an endothelial progenitor phenotype and this should include detailed immunophenotyping, potency assays, and clear separation from hematopoietic angiogenic cells which are not endothelial progenitors. In this review, we seek to discourage the indiscriminate use of “EPCs,” and instead propose precise terminology based on defining cellular phenotype and function. Endothelial colony forming cells and myeloid angiogenic cells are examples of two distinct and well-defined cell types that have been considered EPCs because they both promote vascular repair, albeit by completely different mechanisms of action. It is acknowledged that scientific nomenclature should be a dynamic process driven by technological and conceptual advances; ergo the ongoing “EPC” nomenclature ought not to be permanent and should become more precise in the light of strong scientific evidence. This is especially important as these cells become recognized for their role in vascular repair in health and disease and, in some cases, progress toward use in cell therapy.",
keywords = "Angiogenesis, Cellular therapy, Endothelial cell, Progenitor cells",
author = "Medina, {Reinhold J.} and Barber, {Chad L.} and Florence Sabatier and Francoise Dignat-George and Melero-Martin, {Juan M.} and Kiarash Khosrotehrani and Osamu Ohneda and Randi, {Anna M.} and Chan, {Jerry K.Y.} and Teruhide Yamaguchi and {Van Hinsbergh}, {Victor W.M.} and Mervin Yoder and Stitt, {Alan W.}",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/sctm.16-0360",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "1316--1320",
journal = "Stem cells translational medicine",
issn = "2157-6564",
publisher = "AlphaMed Press",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endothelial progenitors

T2 - A consensus statement on nomenclature

AU - Medina, Reinhold J.

AU - Barber, Chad L.

AU - Sabatier, Florence

AU - Dignat-George, Francoise

AU - Melero-Martin, Juan M.

AU - Khosrotehrani, Kiarash

AU - Ohneda, Osamu

AU - Randi, Anna M.

AU - Chan, Jerry K.Y.

AU - Yamaguchi, Teruhide

AU - Van Hinsbergh, Victor W.M.

AU - Yoder, Mervin

AU - Stitt, Alan W.

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - Endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) nomenclature remains ambiguous and there is a general lack of concordance in the stem cell field with many distinct cell subtypes continually grouped under the term “EPC.” It would be highly advantageous to agree on standards to confirm an endothelial progenitor phenotype and this should include detailed immunophenotyping, potency assays, and clear separation from hematopoietic angiogenic cells which are not endothelial progenitors. In this review, we seek to discourage the indiscriminate use of “EPCs,” and instead propose precise terminology based on defining cellular phenotype and function. Endothelial colony forming cells and myeloid angiogenic cells are examples of two distinct and well-defined cell types that have been considered EPCs because they both promote vascular repair, albeit by completely different mechanisms of action. It is acknowledged that scientific nomenclature should be a dynamic process driven by technological and conceptual advances; ergo the ongoing “EPC” nomenclature ought not to be permanent and should become more precise in the light of strong scientific evidence. This is especially important as these cells become recognized for their role in vascular repair in health and disease and, in some cases, progress toward use in cell therapy.

AB - Endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) nomenclature remains ambiguous and there is a general lack of concordance in the stem cell field with many distinct cell subtypes continually grouped under the term “EPC.” It would be highly advantageous to agree on standards to confirm an endothelial progenitor phenotype and this should include detailed immunophenotyping, potency assays, and clear separation from hematopoietic angiogenic cells which are not endothelial progenitors. In this review, we seek to discourage the indiscriminate use of “EPCs,” and instead propose precise terminology based on defining cellular phenotype and function. Endothelial colony forming cells and myeloid angiogenic cells are examples of two distinct and well-defined cell types that have been considered EPCs because they both promote vascular repair, albeit by completely different mechanisms of action. It is acknowledged that scientific nomenclature should be a dynamic process driven by technological and conceptual advances; ergo the ongoing “EPC” nomenclature ought not to be permanent and should become more precise in the light of strong scientific evidence. This is especially important as these cells become recognized for their role in vascular repair in health and disease and, in some cases, progress toward use in cell therapy.

KW - Angiogenesis

KW - Cellular therapy

KW - Endothelial cell

KW - Progenitor cells

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019450263&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019450263&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/sctm.16-0360

DO - 10.1002/sctm.16-0360

M3 - Review article

VL - 6

SP - 1316

EP - 1320

JO - Stem cells translational medicine

JF - Stem cells translational medicine

SN - 2157-6564

IS - 5

ER -