4.6 Article

Amniotic Mesenchymal Stem Cells Enhance Wound Healing in Diabetic NOD/SCID Mice through High Angiogenic and Engraftment Capabilities

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041105

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [A070001]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  3. Korean government (MEST) [2009 0093191]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2009-0093191] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although human amniotic mesenchymal stem cells (AMMs) have been recognised as a promising stem cell resource, their therapeutic potential for wound healing has not been widely investigated. In this study, we evaluated the therapeutic potential of AMMs using a diabetic mouse wound model. Quantitative real-time PCR and ELISA results revealed that the angiogenic factors, IGF-1, EGF and IL-8 were markedly upregulated in AMMs when compared with adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMs) and dermal fibroblasts. In vitro scratch wound assays also showed that AMM-derived conditioned media (CM) significantly accelerated wound closure. Diabetic mice were generated using streptozotocin and wounds were created by skin excision, followed by AMM transplantation. AMM transplantation significantly promoted wound healing and increased re-epithelialization and cellularity. Notably, transplanted AMMs exhibited high engraftment rates and expressed keratinocyte-specific proteins and cytokeratin in the wound area, indicating a direct contribution to cutaneous closure. Taken together, these data suggest that AMMs possess considerable therapeutic potential for chronic wounds through the secretion of angiogenic factors and enhanced engraftment/differentiation capabilities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available