4.7 Article

Comparison of Bone Marrow Stromal Cells Derived From Stroke and Normal Rats for Stroke Treatment

Journal

STROKE
Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages 524-530

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.568881

Keywords

Ang1; angiogenesis; axonal regeneration; bone marrow stromal cell; cerebral infarct; Tie2

Funding

  1. National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke [RO1 AG301811, RO1 NS047682]
  2. American Heart Association [GRNT2300151, PO1 NS23393, PO1 NS042345]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose-We compared the effect of treatment of stroke with bone marrow stromal cells from stroke rats (Isch-BMSC) and normal rats (Nor-BMSC) on functional outcome. Methods-Isch-BMSCs and Nor-BMSCs were intravenously injected into rats 24 hours after middle cerebral artery occlusion. To test the mechanism of Isch-BMSC-enhanced neurorestoration, Isch-BMSC and Nor-BMSC cultures were used. Results-Isch-BMSC significantly promoted functional outcome and enhanced angiogenesis, arterial density, and axonal regeneration compared with Nor-BMSC treatment animals. Isch-BMSCs exhibited increased Angiopoietin-1, Tie2, basic fibroblast growth factor, glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, and Flk1 gene expression compared with Nor-BMSC. Using transwell coculture of BMSCs with brain-derived endothelial cells, Isch-BMSCs increased phosphorylated-Tie2 activity in brain-derived endothelial cells and enhanced brain-derived endothelial cells capillary tube formation compared with Nor-BMSCs. Inhibition of Tie2 gene expression in brain-derived endothelial cells using siRNA significantly attenuated BMSC-induced capillary tube formation. Conclusions-These data suggest that Isch-BMSCs are superior to Nor-BMSCs for the neurorestorative treatment of stroke, which may be mediated by the enhanced trophic factor and angiogenic characteristics of Isch-BMSCs. (Stroke. 2010;41:524-530.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available