4.7 Article

Therapeutic benefit of intravenous administration of bone marrow stromal cells after cerebral ischemia in rats

期刊

STROKE
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 1005-1011

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.32.4.1005

关键词

bone marrow transplantation; middle cerebral artery occlusion; neuronal plasticity; stroke, experimental; stromal cells; rats

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [P01-NS23393, R01-NS35504] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-We tested the hypothesis that intravenous infusion of bone marrow derived-marrow stromal cells (MSCs) enter the brain and reduce neurological functional deficits after stroke in rats. Methods-Rats (n=32) were subjected to 2 hours of middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO). Test groups consisted of MCAO alone (group 1, n=6); intravenous infusion of 1 x 10(6) MSCs at 24 hours after MCAO (group 2, n=6); or infusion of 3x10(6) MSCs (group 3, n=7). Rats in groups 1 to 3 were euthanized at 14 days after MCAO. Group 4 consisted of MCAO alone (n=6) and group 5, intravenous infusion of 3x10(6) MSCs at 7 days after MCAO (n=7). Rats in groups 4 and 5 were euthanized at 35 days after MCAO. For cellular identification, MSCs were prelabeled with bromodeoxyuridine. Behavioral tests (rotarod, adhesive-removal, and modified Neurological Severity Score [NSS]) were performed before and at 1, 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days after MCAO. Immunohistochemistry was used to identify MSCs or cells derived from MSCs in brain and other organs. Results-Significant recovery of somatosensory behavior and Neurological Severity Score (P<0.05) were found in animals infused with 3x106 MSCs at 1 day or 7 days compared with control animals. MSCs survive and are localized to the ipsilateral ischemic hemisphere, and a few cells express protein marker phenotypic neural cells. Conclusions-MSCs delivered to ischemic brain tissue through an intravenous route provide therapeutic benefit after stroke. MSCs may provide a powerful autoplastic therapy for stroke.

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

4.7
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