4.2 Article

Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells expressing the bFGF transgene promote axon regeneration and functional recovery after spinal cord injury in rats

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 7, 页码 686-693

出版社

MANEY PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1179/1743132810Y.0000000031

关键词

Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells; bFGF; Transplantation; Spinal cord injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate neurological effects of transplanting bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) transfected with the basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) gene in spinal cord-injured rats. Methods: Ninety-six male adult Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized into four groups: (1) pcDNA3.1-bFGF group; (2) pcDNA3.1 group; (3) BMSCs group; and (4) vehicle control (DMEM) group. After the rat model of acute spinal cord injury (SCI) was established, 1 x 10(6) BMSCs or cells transfected with pcDNA3.1-bFGF or pcDNA3.1 were injected into rats of groups 1-3. At days 1, 7, 14, and 21 after injection, the Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan (BBB) locomotor rating scale was used to evaluate recovery of motor function. Expression changes of bFGF, myelin basic protein (MBP), and NF200 were examined by immunohistochemistry. Results: The BBB score of DMEM group was significantly lower than those of groups 1-3 (P<0.05), but the score of pcDNA3.1-bFGF group was significantly higher than that of BMSCs group or pcDNA3.1 group at day 14 or 21 after injection (P<0.01). The number of bFGF-positive neurons in rats of pcDNA3.1-bFGF group was significantly higher than those of groups 1-3 at any time point (P<0.05). The optical density values of NF200-positive neurons and MBP-positive MBP axons in rats of pcDNA3.1-bFGF group were significantly higher than those of groups 1-3 at day 7 or 14 after injection (P<0.05). Conclusions: bFGF gene-modified BMSCs not only effectively promoted axonal outgrowth but also enhanced recovery of neurological function after SCI in rats, and may be a good candidate to evaluate gene therapy of SCI in man.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据