METHODS: Medial femoral condyle defect was created in both knees of twenty-four mature New Zealand white rabbits, and the animals were divided into four groups containing six animals each. After 3 weeks, the right knees were transplanted with PVA-chitosan-MSC, PVA-chitosan scaffold alone, alginate-MSC construct or alginate alone. The left knee was kept as untreated control. Animals were killed at the end of 6 months after transplantation, and the cartilage repair was assessed through Brittberg morphological score, histological grading by O'Driscoll score and quantitative glycosaminoglycan analysis.
RESULTS: Morphological and histological analyses showed significant (p < 0.05) tissue repair when treated with PVA-chitosan-MSC or alginate MSC as compared to the scaffold only and untreated control. In addition, safranin O staining and the glycosaminoglycan (GAG) content were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in MSC treatment groups than in scaffold-only or untreated control group. No significant difference was observed between the PVA-chitosan-MSC- and alginate-MSC-treated groups.
CONCLUSION: PVA-chitosan hydrogel seeded with mesenchymal stem cells provides comparable treatment outcomes to that of previously established alginate-MSC construct implantation. This study supports the potential use of PVA-chitosan hydrogel seeded with MSCs for clinical use in cartilage repair such as traumatic injuries.
METHODS: Three segments of the whole UC, each 3 cm in length, were identified anatomically as the maternal, middle and fetal segments. The hWJMSCs from the different segments were analyzed via trypan blue exclusion assay to determine the growth kinetics and cell viability, flow cytometry for immunophenotyping and immunofluorescence and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for expression of stromal cell transcriptional factors. Furthermore, the trilineage differentiation potential (osteogenic, adipogenic and chondrogenic) of these cells was also assessed.
RESULTS: hWJMSCs isolated from the maternal and fetal segments displayed greater viability and possessed a significantly higher proliferation rate compared with cells from the middle segment. Immunophenotyping revealed that hWJMSCs derived from all three segments expressed the MSC markers CD105, CD73, CD90, CD44, CD13 and CD29, as well as HLA-ABC and HLA-DR, but were negative for hematopoietic markers CD14, CD34 and CD45. Analysis of the embryonic markers showed that all three segments expressed Nanog and Oct 3/4, but only the maternal and fetal segments expressed SSEA 4 and TRA-160. Cells from all three segments were able to differentiate into chondrogenic, osteogenic and adipogenic lineages with the middle segments showing much lower differentiation potential compared with the other two segments.
CONCLUSIONS: hWJMSCs derived from the maternal and fetal segments of the UC are a good source of MSCs compared with cells from the middle segment because of their higher proliferation rate and viability. Fetal and maternal segments are the preferred cell source for bone regeneration.
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.
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.