4.6 Article

Multiple intravenous infusions of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells reverse hyperglycemia in experimental type 2 diabetes rats

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2013.05.117

关键词

Bone marrow; Mesenchymal stem cells; Type 2 diabetes; Multiple infusion; Hyperglycemia

资金

  1. National Basic Science and Development Program [2012CB518103, 2012CB518105]
  2. 863 Projects of Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2011AA020113, 2013AA020105]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81121004, 81230041]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The worldwide rapid increase in diabetes poses a significant challenge to current therapeutic approaches. Single-dose mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) infusion ameliorates hyperglycemia but fails to restore normoglycemia in diabetic animals. We therefore hypothesized that multiple intravenous MSC infusions may reverse hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes (T2D) rats. We administered serial allogenous bone-marrow derived MSC infusions (1 x 10(6) cells/infusion) via the tail vein once every 2 weeks to T2D rats, induced by high-fat diet and streptozocin (STZ) administration. Hyperglycemia decreased only transiently after a single infusion in early-phase (I week) T2D rats, but approximated normal levels after at least three-time infusions. This normal blood level was maintained for at least 9 weeks. Serum concentrations of both insulin and C-peptide were dramatically increased after serial MSC infusions. Oral glucose tolerance tests revealed that glucose metabolism was significantly ameliorated. Immunofluorescence analysis of insulin/glucagon staining revealed the restoration of islet structure and number after multiple MSC treatments. When multiple-MSC treatment was initiated in late-phase (5 week) T2D rats, the results were slightly different. The results of this study suggested that a multiple-MSC infusion strategy offers a viable clinical option for T2D patients. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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