4.6 Article

Neural differentiation of human Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells improves the recovery of neurological function after transplantation in ischemic stroke rats

期刊

NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 7, 页码 1103-1110

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.211189

关键词

nerve regeneration; human Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells; ischemic stroke; cell transplantation; middle cerebral artery occlusion; neural differentiation; neurological function; neural regeneration

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31171038]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China [BK2011385]
  3. 333 Program Funding of Jiangsu Province of China [BRA2016450]
  4. Training Program of Innovation and Entrepreneurship for Undergraduates of Nantong University of China [201510304033Z, 201610304053Z]
  5. Training Program of Innovation and Entrepreneurship for Graduates of Nantong University of China [YKC14050, YKC15046]
  6. Funds for the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hWJ-MSCs) have excellent proliferative ability, differentiation ability, low immunogenicity, and can be easily obtained. However, there are few studies on their application in the treatment of ischemic stroke, therefore their therapeutic effect requires further verification. In this study, hWJ-MSCs We re transplanted into an ischemic stroke rat model via the tail vein 48 hours after transient middle cerebral artery occlusion After 4 weeks, neurological functions of the rats implanted with hWJ-MSCs were significantly recovered. Furthermore, many hWJ-MSCs homed to the ischemic frontal cortex whereby they differentiated into neuron like cells at this region. These results confirm that hWJ-MSCs transplanted into the ischemic stroke rat can differentiate into neuron-like cells to improve rat neurological function and behavior.

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