4.5 Article

Transplanted adult spinal cord-derived neural stem/progenitor cells promote early functional recovery after rat spinal cord injury

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE
卷 155, 期 3, 页码 760-770

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.05.042

关键词

axonal ensheathment; bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells; neuro protection

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR)
  2. International Foundation of Research in Paraplegia
  3. Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the effect of spinal cord-derived neural stem/progenitor cells (NSPCs) after delayed transplantation into the injured adult rat spinal cord with or without earlier transplantation of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (BMSCs). Either BMSCs or culture medium were transplanted immediately after clip compression injury (27 g force), and then, 9 days after injury, NSPCs or culture medium were transplanted. Cell survival and differentiation, functional recovery, retrograde axonal tracing, and immunoelectron microscopy were assessed. A significant improvement in functional recovery based on three different measures was seen only in the group receiving NSPCs without BMSCs, and the improved recovery was evident within 1 week of transplantation. In this group, NSPCs differentiated mainly into oligodendrocytes and astrocytes, there was ensheathing of axons at the injury site by transplanted NSPCs, an increase in host oligodendrocytes, and a trend toward an increase in retrogradely labeled supraspinal nuclei. Transplantation of the BMSC scaffold resulted in a trend toward improved survival of the NSPCs, but there was no increase in function. Thus, transplantation of adult rat NSPCs produced significant early functional improvement after spinal cord injury, suggesting an early neuroprotective action associated with oligodendrocyte survival and axonal ensheathment by transplanted NSPCs. (C) 2008 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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