MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated simple statistics and published model-based approaches. Multiplex-qPCR was conducted to determine the expression of 24 candidate RG in AMLs (N=9). Singleplex-qPCR was carried out on selected RG (SRP14, B2M and ATP5B) and genes of interest in AML (N=15) and healthy controls, HC (N=12).
RESULTS: RG expression levels in AML samples were highly variable and coefficient of variance (CV) ranged from 0.37% to 10.17%. Analysis using GeNorm and Normfinder listed different orders of most stable genes but the top seven (ACTB, UBE2D2, B2M, NF45, RPL37A, GK, QARS) were the same. In singleplex-qPCR, SRP14 maintained the lowest CV in AML samples. B2M, one of most stable reference genes in AML, was expressed near significantly different in AML and HC. GeNorm selected ATP5B+SRP14 while Normfinder chose SRP14+B2M as the best two RG in combination. The median expressions of combined RG genes in AML compared to HC were less significantly different than individually implying smaller expression variation after combination. Genes of interest normalised with RG in combination or individually, displayed significantly different expression patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: The selection of best reference gene in qPCR must consider all sample sets. Model-based approaches are important in large candidate gene analysis. This study showed combination of RG SRP14+B2M was the most suitable normalisation factor for qPCR analysis of AML and healthy individuals.
METHODS: Hepatotoxicity was induced in adult female Wistar rats using carbon tetrachloride (CCl4 ). Thirty-six rats were randomly divided into six groups with six rats in each group: Group 1 (normal control group), Group 2 (received only CCl 4 ), Group 3 (CCl 4 +low dose BM-MSCs), Group 4 (CCl 4 +high dose BM-MSCs), Group 5 (CCl 4 + silymarin), Group 6 (CCl 4 +silymarin+high dose BM-MSCs). Thirty days after the treatment, blood samples were collected for hepatocyte growth factor estimation. The rats were then killed, bone marrow was extracted for chromosomal aberration assay. Liver tissue was processed for evaluating the DNA fragmentation assay, histopathology, and scanning electron microscopy study.
RESULTS: Combination treatment of silymarin and high dose BM-MSCs significantly (P
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients.
SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and trials registries (16 May 2018). Review authors searched PubMed until February 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 'no-option' CLI patients comparing a particular source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy against another source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of the trials. We extracted outcome data from each trial and pooled them for meta-analysis. We calculated effect estimates using a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), or a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs with a total of 359 participants. These studies compared bone marrow-mononuclear cells (BM-MNCs) versus mobilised peripheral blood stem cells (mPBSCs), BM-MNCs versus bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), high cell dose versus low cell dose, and intramuscular (IM) versus intra-arterial (IA) routes of cell implantation. We identified no other comparisons in these studies. We considered most studies to be at low risk of bias in random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting; at high risk of bias in blinding of patients and personnel; and at unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors. The quality of evidence was most often low to very low, with risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness of outcomes the major downgrading factors.Three RCTs (100 participants) reported a total of nine deaths during the study follow-up period. These studies did not report deaths according to treatment group.Results show no clear difference in amputation rates between IM and IA routes (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.18; three RCTs, 95 participants; low-quality evidence). Single-study data show no clear difference in amputation rates between BM-MNC- and mPBSC-treated groups (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.24; 150 participants; low-quality evidence) and between high and low cell dose (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.87 to 11.90; 16 participants; very low-quality evidence). The study comparing BM-MNCs versus BM-MSCs reported no amputations.Single-study data with low-quality evidence show similar numbers of participants with healing ulcers between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.83; 49 participants) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.76; 41 participants). In contrast, more participants appeared to have healing ulcers in the BM-MSC group than in the BM-MNC group (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.92; one RCT, 22 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers comparing high versus low cell doses did not report ulcer healing.Single-study data show similar numbers of participants with reduction in rest pain between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64; 32 participants; low-quality evidence). One study reported no clear difference in rest pain scores between BM-MNC and BM-MSC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.61; 37 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Trials comparing high versus low cell doses did not report rest pain.Single-study data show no clear difference in the number of participants with increased ankle-brachial index (ABI; increase of > 0.1 from pretreatment), between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and between IM and IA routes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.00; 35 participants; very low-quality evidence). In contrast, ABI scores appeared higher in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; one RCT, 37 participants; low-quality evidence). ABI was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Similar numbers of participants had improved transcutaneous oxygen tension (TcO₂) with IM versus IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.72; two RCTs, 62 participants; very low-quality evidence). Single-study data with low-quality evidence show a higher TcO₂ reading in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 8.00, 95% CI 3.46 to 12.54; 37 participants) and in mPBSC- versus BM-MNC-treated groups (MD 1.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.99; 150 participants). TcO₂ was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Study authors reported no significant short-term adverse effects attributed to autologous cell implantation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mostly low- and very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between different stem cell sources and different treatment regimens of autologous cell implantation for outcomes such as all-cause mortality, amputation rate, ulcer healing, and rest pain for 'no-option' CLI patients. Pooled analyses did not show a clear difference in clinical outcomes whether cells were administered via IM or IA routes. High-quality evidence is lacking; therefore the efficacy and long-term safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients, remain to be confirmed.Future RCTs with larger numbers of participants are needed to determine the efficacy of cell-based therapy for CLI patients, along with the optimal cell source, phenotype, dose, and route of implantation. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the durability of angiogenic potential and the long-term safety of cell-based therapy.
METHODS: In this study, endothelial progenitor cells were induced in-vitro with photoreceptor growth factor (taurine) for 21 days. Subsequently, the morphology and gene expression of CRX and RHO of the photoreceptors-induced EPCs were examined through immunostaining assay.
FINDINGS: The results indicated that the induced endothelial progenitor cells demonstrated positive gene expression of CRX and RHO. Our findings suggested that EPC cells may have a high advantage in cell replacement therapy for treating eye disease, in addition to other neural diseases, and may be a suitable cell source in regenerative medicine for eye disorders.
METHODS: Osteoarthritis was induced at the right knee of sheep by complete resection of ACL and medial meniscus. Stem cells from sheep were induced to chondrogenic lineage. Test sheep received 5 mls single doses of 2 × 107 autologous PKH26-labelled ADSCs or BMSCs, while controls received basal medium. Functional recovery of the knees was evaluated via electromyography.
RESULTS: Induced ADSCs had 625, 255, 393, 908, 409, 157 and 1062 folds increases of collagen I, collagen II, aggrecan, SOX9, cartilage oligomeric protein, chondroadherin and fibromodullin compare to uninduced cells, while BMSCs had 702, 657, 321, 276, 337, 233 and 1163 respectively; p = .001. Immunocytochemistry was positive for these chondrogenic markers. 12 months post-treatment, controls scored 4 in most regions using ICRS, while the treated had 8; P = .001. Regenerated cartilages were positive to PKH26 and demonstrated the presence of condensing cartilages on haematoxylin and eosin; and Safranin O. OA degenerations caused significant amplitude shift from right to left hind limb. After treatments, controls persisted with significant decreases; while treated samples regained balance.
CONCLUSIONS: Both ADSCs and BMSCs had increased chondrogenic gene expressions using TGF-β3 and BMP-6. The treated knees had improved cartilage scores; PKH26 can provide elongated tracking, while EMG results revealed improved joint recoveries. These could be suitable therapies for osteoarthritis.
OBJECTIVE: Thus, the present study is designed to compare the neuroprotective potential of MSC derived exosomes with MSC-condition medium or neuron-MSC-co-culture system against kainic acid induced excitotoxicity in in vitro condition. The study also aims at comparing the neuroprotective efficacy of exosomes/condition medium/co-culture of two MSC viz., neural crest derived human Dental Pulp Stem Cells (hDPSC) and human Bone-Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells (hBM-MSC) to identify the appropriate MSC source for treating neurodegenerative diseases.
RESULT: Our results demonstrated that neuroprotective efficacy of MSC-exosomes is as efficient as MSC-condition medium or neuron-MSC co-culture system and treating degenerating hippocampal neurons with all three MSC based approaches could up-regulate host's endogenous growth factor expressions and prevent apoptosis by activating cell survival PI3K-B-cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2) pathway.
CONCLUSION: Thus, the current study highlights the possibilities of treating neurodegenerative diseases with "Nano" size exosomes as opposed to transplanting billions of stem cells which inherit several disadvantages.
OBJECTIVE: To pool all published studies that compared the safety and efficacy of autologous CBT derived from different sources and phenotypes with non cell-based therapy (NCT) in CLI patients.
METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1974-2017. Sixteen randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving 775 patients receiving the following interventions: mobilised peripheral blood stem cells(m-PBSC), bone marrow mononuclear cells(BM-MNC), bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells(BM-MSC), cultured BM-MNC(Ixmyelocel-T), cultured PB cells(VesCell) and CD34+ cells were included in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: High-quality evidence (QoE) showed similar all-cause mortality rates between CBT and NCT. AR reduction by approximately 60% were observed in patients receiving CBT compared to NCT (moderate QoE). CBT patients experienced improvement in ulcer healing, ABI, TcO2, pain free walking capacity and collateral vessel formation (moderate QoE). Low-to-moderate QoE showed that compared to NCT, intramuscular BM-MNC and m-PBSC may reduce amputation rate, rest pain, and improve ulcer healing and ankle-brachial pressure index, while intramuscular BM-MSC appeared to improve rest pain, ulcer healing and pain-free walking distance but not AR. Efficacy of other types of CBT could not be confirmed due to limited data. Cell harvesting and implantation appeared safe and well-tolerated with similar rates of adverse-events between groups.
CONCLUSION: Implantation of autologous CBT may be an effective therapeutic strategy for no-option CLI patients. BM-MNC and m-PSBC appear more effective than NCT in improving AR and other limb perfusion parameters. BM-MSC may be beneficial in improving perfusion parameters but not AR, however, this observation needs to be confirmed in a larger population of patients. Generally, treatment using various sources and phenotypes of cell products appeared safe and well tolerated. Large-size RCTs with long follow-up are warranted to determine the superiority and durability of angiogenic potential of a particular CBT and the optimal treatment regimen for CLI.