4.8 Article

Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework (HOF)-Based Single-Neural Stem Cell Encapsulation and Transplantation to Remodel Impaired Neural Networks

期刊

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/anie.202201485

关键词

Cell Encapsulation; Cell Transplantation; Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Frameworks; Neurogenesis; Stem Cells

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2019YFA0709202, 2021YFF1200701]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [91856205, 21820102009, 21871249, CAS QYZDJ-SSW-SLH052]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study encapsulates neural stem cells (NSCs) using porous carbon nanospheres (PCNs) and hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks (HOFs) to resist oxidative stress and enhance viability, demonstrating the promotion of neurogenesis and improvement of cognitive function in an Alzheimer's disease (AD) mouse model.
Herein we present a new way to encapsulate neural stem cells (NSCs) by using hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks (HOFs) to overcome the common causes of low therapeutic efficacy during NSC transplantation: 1) loss of fundamental stem cell properties, stemness, before transplantation, 2) cytomembrane damage during transplantation, and 3) apoptosis due to oxidative stress after transplantation. Porous carbon nanospheres (PCNs) are doped into the HOF shell during the process of mineralization to endow the cellular exoskeletons with hierarchical hydrogen bonds, and the ability to resist oxidative stress due to the catalase and superoxide dismutase-like activities of PCN. Under NIR-II irradiation, thermal-responsive hydrogen bonds dissociate to release NSCs. Stereotactic transplanting encapsulated NSC into the brain of an Alzheimer's disease (AD) mouse model further verifies that our design can enhance NSC viability, promote neurogenesis, and ameliorate cognitive impairment. As the first example of using HOFs to encapsulate NSCs, this work may inspire the design of HOF-based exoskeletons to ameliorate neurogenesis and cognitive behavioral symptoms associated with AD.

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

4.8
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