4.4 Article

Biocompatibility of intravitreal injection of human mesenchymal stem cells in immunocompetent rabbits

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-017-3842-3

关键词

Mesenchymal stem cells; Cell therapy; Intravitreal injection; Ischemic optic neuropathy; Neuroprotection

资金

  1. Consejeria de Educacion de la Junta de Castilla y Leon [VA118U14]
  2. Centro en Red de Medicina Regenerativa y Terapia Celular de la Junta de Castilla y Leon, Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and biocompatibility of intravitreal injection of human mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in immunocompetent pigmented rabbits. Thirty-two pigmented rabbits (24 females, 8 males; Chinchilla-New Zealand White) were divided into 8 groups of 4 animals. Commercially prepared human MSCs were injected (0.05 ml) into the post-lens vitreous of the right eyes. Groups 1 and 4 received isotonic medium (Ringer lactate-based), groups 2, 5, 7, and 8 received a low dose of 15 x 10(6) cells/ml. Groups 3 and 6 received a high dose of 30 x 10(6) cells/ml. Clinical signs were evaluated and scored before MSCs injection and weekly for 2 or 6 weeks. Animals were sacrificed at 2 or 6 weeks after injection. Eyes, liver, spleen, and gonads were assessed by histology and by fluorescent in situ hybridization to evaluate survival and extraocular migration of MSCs. There were no relevant clinical findings between control and MSC-injected rabbit eyes at any time point. There were also no relevant histological findings between control and MSC-injected rabbits related to ocular, liver, spleen, or gonad tissues modifications. MSCs survived intravitreally for at least 2 weeks after injection. Extraocular migration of MSCs was not detected. MSCs are safe and well-tolerated when administered intravitreally at a dose of 15 x 10(6) cells/ml in pigmented rabbits. These findings enable future research to explore the intravitreal use of commercially prepared allogenic human MSCs in clinical trials of retinal diseases.

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

4.4
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