4.5 Article

Adipose-derived stem cells promote peripheral nerve repair

Journal

ARCHIVES OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 592-596

Publisher

TERMEDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE LTD
DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2011.24127

Keywords

adipose-derived stem cells; peripheral nerve repair; cell transplantation; sciatic nerve

Funding

  1. Shenyang Science and Technology Development Fund [F10-205-1-69]
  2. Liaoning Science and Technology Development Fund [2010225029]
  3. Heilongjiang Youth Science Fund [QC2010040]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Recent evidence suggests that the implantation of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells improves peripheral nerve regeneration. In this study we aimed to investigate whether adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) can be used for peripheral nerve repair. Material and methods: In a rat model, nerve regeneration was evaluated across a 15 mm lesion in the sciatic nerve by using an acellular nerve injected with allogenic ADSCs. The walking behaviour of rats was measured by footprint analysis, and electrophysiological analysis and histological examination were performed to evaluate the efficacy of nerve regeneration. Results: Cultured ADSCs became morphologically homogeneous with a bipolar, spindle-like shape after ex vivo expansion. Implantation of ADSCs into the rat models led to (i) improved walking behaviour as measured by footprint analysis, (ii) increased conservation of muscle-mass ratio of gastrocnemius and soleus muscles, (iii) increased nerve conduction velocity, and (iv) increased number of myelinated fibres within the graft. Conclusions: Adipose-derived stem cells could promote peripheral nerve repair in a rat model. Although the detailed mechanism by which ADSCs promote peripheral nerve regeneration is being investigated in our lab, our results suggest that ADSCs transplantation represents a powerful therapeutic approach for peripheral nerve injury.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available