STUDY DESIGN: Three groups of 6 rats received subtotal cervical spinal cord hemisections followed with marrow stromal cell (MSC) transplants by lumbar puncture (LP), intravenous delivery (IV), or direct injection into the injury (control). Animals survived for 4 or 21 days. OBJECTIVE: Cell therapy is a promising strategy for the treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI). The mode of cell delivery is crucial for the translation to the clinic. Injections directly into the parenchyma may further damage already compromised tissue; therefore, less invasive methods like LP or IV delivery are preferable. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Human MSC are multipotent mesenchymal adult stem cells that have a potential for autologous transplantation, obviating the need for immune suppression. Although previous studies have established that MSC can be delivered to the injured spinal cord by both LP and IV, the efficacy of cell delivery has not been directly compared with respect to efficacy of delivery and effects on the host. METHODS: Purified MSC from a human donor were transplanted into the CSF at the lumbar region (LP), into the femoral vein (IV), or directly into the injury (control). After sacrifice, spinal cord sections were analyzed for MSC graft size, tissue sparing, host immune response, and glial scar formation, using specific antibodies and Nissl-myelin staining. RESULTS: LP delivery of MSC to the injured spinal cord is superior to IV delivery. Cell engraftment and tissue sparing were significantly better after LP delivery, and host immune response after LP delivery was reduced compared with IV delivery. CONCLUSION: LP is an ideal minimally invasive technique to deliver cellular transplants to the injured spinal cord. It is superior to IV delivery and, together with the potential for autologous transplantation, lends itself for clinical application.
STUDY DESIGN: Three groups of 6 rats received subtotal cervical spinal cord hemisections followed with marrow stromal cell (MSC) transplants by lumbar puncture (LP), intravenous delivery (IV), or direct injection into the injury (control). Animals survived for 4 or 21 days. OBJECTIVE: Cell therapy is a promising strategy for the treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI). The mode of cell delivery is crucial for the translation to the clinic. Injections directly into the parenchyma may further damage already compromised tissue; therefore, less invasive methods like LP or IV delivery are preferable. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Human MSC are multipotent mesenchymal adult stem cells that have a potential for autologous transplantation, obviating the need for immune suppression. Although previous studies have established that MSC can be delivered to the injured spinal cord by both LP and IV, the efficacy of cell delivery has not been directly compared with respect to efficacy of delivery and effects on the host. METHODS: Purified MSC from a humandonor were transplanted into the CSF at the lumbar region (LP), into the femoral vein (IV), or directly into the injury (control). After sacrifice, spinal cord sections were analyzed for MSC graft size, tissue sparing, host immune response, and glial scar formation, using specific antibodies and Nissl-myelin staining. RESULTS: LP delivery of MSC to the injured spinal cord is superior to IV delivery. Cell engraftment and tissue sparing were significantly better after LP delivery, and host immune response after LP delivery was reduced compared with IV delivery. CONCLUSION: LP is an ideal minimally invasive technique to deliver cellular transplants to the injured spinal cord. It is superior to IV delivery and, together with the potential for autologous transplantation, lends itself for clinical application.
Authors: Israel M Barbash; Pierre Chouraqui; Jack Baron; Micha S Feinberg; Sharon Etzion; Ariel Tessone; Liron Miller; Esther Guetta; Dov Zipori; Laurence H Kedes; Robert A Kloner; Jonathan Leor Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-08-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Barbara G McMahill; Mathieu Spriet; Sílvia Sisó; Michael D Manzer; Gaela Mitchell; Jeannine McGee; Tanya C Garcia; Dori L Borjesson; Maya Sieber-Blum; Jan A Nolta; Beverly K Sturges Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 6.940
Authors: Angelo C Lepore; John O'Donnell; Andrew S Kim; Eun Ju Yang; Alisha Tuteja; Amanda Haidet-Phillips; Colin P O'Banion; Nicholas J Maragakis Journal: Glia Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 7.452
Authors: Jung Hwa Seo; In Keun Jang; Hyongbum Kim; Mal Sook Yang; Jong Eun Lee; Hyo Eun Kim; Yong-Woo Eom; Doo-Hoon Lee; Ji Hea Yu; Ji Yeon Kim; Hyun Ok Kim; Sung-Rae Cho Journal: Cell Med Date: 2011-10-01
Authors: John H Brock; Lori Graham; Eileen Staufenberg; Eileen Collyer; Jacob Koffler; Mark H Tuszynski Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2015-11-13 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: S Oraee-Yazdani; M Hafizi; A Atashi; F Ashrafi; A-S Seddighi; S M Hashemi; A Seddighi; M Soleimani; A Zali Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 2.772