4.6 Review

Filling the Gap: Neural Stem Cells as A Promising Therapy for Spinal Cord Injury

期刊

PHARMACEUTICALS
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ph12020065

关键词

spinal cord injury; cell-based therapies; induced pluripotent stem cells; neural stem cells; clinical trials

资金

  1. Northern Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the Portugal 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) [NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000013]
  2. FEDER funds, through the Competitiveness Factors Operational Programme (COMPETE)
  3. Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [PTDC/DTP-FTO/5109/2014, NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-029968, POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007038]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/DTP-FTO/5109/2014] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spinal cord injury (SCI) can lead to severe motor, sensory and social impairments having a huge impact on patients' lives. The complex and time-dependent SCI pathophysiology has been hampering the development of novel and effective therapies. Current treatment options include surgical interventions, to stabilize and decompress the spinal cord, and rehabilitative care, without providing a cure for these patients. Novel therapies have been developed targeting different stages during trauma. Among them, cell-based therapies hold great potential for tissue regeneration after injury. Neural stem cells (NSCs), which are multipotent cells with inherent differentiation capabilities committed to the neuronal lineage, are especially relevant to promote and reestablish the damaged neuronal spinal tracts. Several studies demonstrate the regenerative effects of NSCs in SCI after transplantation by providing neurotrophic support and restoring synaptic connectivity. Therefore, human clinical trials have already been launched to assess safety in SCI patients. Here, we review NSC-based experimental studies in a SCI context and how are they currently being translated into human clinical trials.

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

4.6
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