4.3 Article

The Size of Mesenchymal Stem Cells is a Significant Cause of Vascular Obstructions and Stroke

期刊

STEM CELL REVIEWS AND REPORTS
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 295-303

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12015-013-9492-x

关键词

Mesenchymal stem cells; Vascular obstruction; Cell size

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [30871273, 31371404, U1032003]
  2. Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Committee [JC201005280597A, GJHZ20120614194251967, JCYJ20130402145002397]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intravascular injection of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) has been found to cause considerable vascular obstructions which may lead to serious outcomes, particularly after intra-arterial injection. However, the underlying mechanisms have been poorly understood. In this study, we fractionated MSCs that had been cultured in monolayer for six passages into small (average diameter = 17.9 mu m) and large (average diameter 30.4 mu m) populations according to their sizes, and examined their vascular obstructions after intra-internal carotid artery injection in rats and mice in comparison with MSCs derived from 3D spheroids which were uniformly smaller in size (average diameter 12.6 mu m). We found that 3D MSCs did not cause detectable infarct in the brain as evidenced by MRI scan and TTC stain, 2D MSCs in small size caused a microinfarct in one of five animals, which was co-localized to the area of entrapped MSCs (labeled with DiI), while 2D MSCs in large size caused much larger infarcts in all five animals, and substantial amounts of DiI-positive MSCs were found in the infarct. Meanwhile, corresponding neurological defects were observed in the animals with stroke. In consistence, injection of 2D MSCs (average diameter 26.5) caused a marked loss of cortical neurons and their axons in Thy1-GFP transgenic mice and the activation of microglia in CX3CR1-GFP transgenic mice in the area with MSC entrapment. Our results suggest that the size of MSCs is a significant cause of MSC caused vascular obstructions and stroke.

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

4.3
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