4.7 Article

Infusion of human umbilical cord blood cells in a rat model of stroke dose-dependently rescues behavioral deficits and reduces infarct volume

Journal

STROKE
Volume 35, Issue 10, Pages 2390-2395

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000141681.06735.9b

Keywords

acute stroke; cell transplantation; neuroprotection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose-Intravenously delivered human umbilical cord blood cells (HUCBC) have been previously shown to improve functional recovery of stroked rats. To extend these findings, we examined the behavioral recovery and stroke infarct volume in the presence of increasing doses of HUCBC after permanent middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO). Methods-Rats were subjected to MCAO and allowed to recover for 24 hours before intravenous infusion of 10(4) up to 3 to 5x10(7) HUCBC. Behavioral tests ( spontaneous activity, step test, elevated body swing test) were performed 1 week before MCAO and at 2 and 4 weeks after HUCBC infusion. On completion of behavioral testing, animals were euthanized and brain infarct volumes quantified. HUCBC were identified by immunofluorescence for human nuclei and by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using primers specific for human glycerol 3-phosphate dehydrogenase. Results-At 4 weeks after infusion, there was a significant recovery in behavioral performance when 10(6) or more HUCBC were delivered (p=0.001 to p=0.05). Infarct volume measurements revealed an inverse relationship between HUCBC dose and damage volume, which reached significance at the higher HUCBC doses (10(7) cells, p<0.01; 3 to 5X10(7) cells, p<0.05). Moreover, HUCBC were localized by immunohistochemistry and PCR analysis only in the injured brain hemisphere and spleen. Conclusions-These results extend previous observations of HUCBC infusion in the MCAO rat stroke model by demonstrating a dose relationship between HUCBC, behavioral improvement, and neuronal sparing.

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