4.5 Article

Therapeutic effects of various methods of MSC transplantation on cerebral resuscitation following cardiac arrest in rats

期刊

MOLECULAR MEDICINE REPORTS
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 3043-3051

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2016.4927

关键词

bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells; global cerebral ischemic injury; cerebral resuscitation; cardiac arrest; transplantation

资金

  1. Guangdong Provincial Department of Science and Technology of China [2012B03180045]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) were transplanted into the brain of rats following cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by three different methods: Direct stereotaxic injection into the lateral cerebral ventricle (LV), intra-carotid administration (A), and femoral venous infusion (V). The three different methods were compared by observing the effects of MSCs on neurological function following global cerebral hypoxia-ischemia, in order to determine the optimum method for MSC transplantation. MSCs were transplanted in groups A, V and LV following the restoration of spontaneous circulation. Neurological deficit scale scores were higher in the transplantation groups, as compared with the control group. Neuronal damage, brain water content and serum levels of S100 calcium-binding protein B were reduced in the hippocampus and temporal cortex of the transplantation groups, as compared with the control rats following resuscitation. MSCs were able to migrate inside the brain tissue following transplantation, and were predominantly distributed in the hippocampus and temporal cortex where the neurons were vulnerable during global cerebral ischemia. These results suggest that transplantation of MSCs may notably improve neurological function following CPR in a rat model. Of the three different methods of MSC transplantation tested in the present study, LV induced the highest concentration of MSCs in brain areas vulnerable to global cerebral ischemia, and therefore, produced the best neurological outcome.

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