4.5 Article

Magnetic Field-Based Delivery of Human CD133+ Cells Promotes Functional Recovery After Rat Spinal Cord Injury

期刊

SPINE
卷 37, 期 13, 页码 E768-E777

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318246d59c

关键词

spinal cord injury; CD133(+) cell; cell therapy; intrathecal cell transplantation; bioluminescence; magnetic cell

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology-Japan [21249079]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21249079, 23791646] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design. Experimental animal study of spinal cord injury (SCI), using a cell delivery system. Objective. To investigate the therapeutic effects of transplantation of peripheral blood-derived CD133(+) cells, with a magnetic delivery system in a rat SCI model. Summary of Background Data. There are no reports on intrathecal transplantation of peripheral blood-derived CD133(+) cells, with a magnetic cell delivery system to treat SCI. Methods. Magnetically isolated peripheral blood-derived CD133(+) cells were used as the cell source. Contusion SCI was induced by an Infinite Horizon impactor in athymic nude rats. CD133(+) cells or phosphate-buffered saline was administered via a lumbar puncture immediately after SCI, and a magnetic field was applied to rats for 30 minutes. Animals were analyzed at specific times after transplantation by several methods to examine cell tracking, functional recovery, and histological angiogenesis and neurogenesis. Results. A combination of cell transplantation and application of a magnetic field at the site of injury caused significant functional recovery. Transplantation of the cells alone in the absence of the magnetic field showed no effect beyond that observed in control rats. Conclusion. The combination of intrathecal transplantation of CD133(+) cells and application of a magnetic field at the site of injury is a possible therapeutic strategy to treat rat SCI and may therefore find application in clinical settings.

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