| Literature DB >> 21941433 |
Bérengère Phulpin1, Gilles Dolivet, Pierre-Yves Marie, Sylvain Poussier, Sandrine Huger, Pierre Bravetti, Pierre Graff, Jean-Louis Merlin, Nguyen Tran.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to explore (i) the short-term retention of intramedullary implanted mesenchymal stem cells BMSCs and (ii) their impact on the bone blood flow and metabolism in a rat model of hindlimb irradiation.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21941433 PMCID: PMC3163406 DOI: 10.1155/2011/560257
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Biotechnol ISSN: 1110-7243
Figure 1Animal model of hindlimb irradiation. (a) Examples of pictures showing alopecia of the hindlimb 3 months after irradiation at a monodose of 30 Gy. (b) Examples of scintigraphic imaging showing the decrease of bone 99mTc-HDP on the irradiated hindlimb 3 months after irradiation.
Pretherapeutic value of 99mTc-HDP bone uptake of the rat hindlimbs. Results were expressed as percentage of total corporel activity.
| Group 1 | Group 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonirradiated hindlimb | Irradiated hindlimb | Nonirradiated hindlimb | Irradiated hindlimb | ||
| Bone blood flow | Knee | 7.9 ± 1.0 | 8.3 ± 1.2 | 8.1 ± 1.3 | 8.3 ± 1.3 |
| Tibia | 3.82 ± 0.6 | 3.0 ± 0.8* | 3.79 ± 1.0 | 3.2 ± 0.3* | |
| Foot | 2.4 ± 0.7 | 2.6 ± 0.8 | 2.7 ± 0.6 | 2.6 ± 0.7 | |
| Bone osteoblastic metabolism | Knee | 10.3 ± 3.0 | 9.9 ± 1.7 | 11.3 ± 4.9 | 8.9 ± 1.9 |
| Tibia | 2.2 ± 0.2 | 2.1 ± 0.1 | 2.3 ± 0.2 | 2.0 ± 0.3 | |
| Foot | 3.8 ± 0.7 | 3.3 ± 1.0 | 3.7 ± 3.0 | 3.5 ± 1.4 | |
*P < 0.05 versus contralateral nonirradiated legs.
Figure 2Mesenchymal quality of the engrafted BMSCs and injection procedure. (a) flow cytometry data depicting several conventional surface antigens of mesenchymal cells (CD34−, CD44+, CD45−, and CD90+) prior to implantation (passage 4). (b) technique of intramedullary injection (left panel) and on the right panel, the arrow indicates the bandage on the surgical site after BMSC engraftment.
Post-therapeutic value of 99mTc-HDP bone uptake of the irradiated hindlimbs. Results were expressed as relative to the unirradiated hindlimb.
| Hindlimb | posttherapeutic 48 H | posttherapeutic 168 H | posttherapeutic 2 months | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bone blood flow | Knee | Irradiated untreated | −0.40 ± 1.30 | −0.76 ± 1.62 | +0.16 ± 0.91 |
| Irradiated treated | −0.30 ± 0.89 | −1.18 ± 0.87 | +0.20 ± 0.98 | ||
| Tibia | Irradiated untreated | +0.95 ± 1.43 | +0.21 ± 1.45 | −0.01 ± 0.49 | |
| Irradiated treated | +2.00 ± 0.68* | +0.70 ± 1.03* | +0.40 ± 0.53 | ||
| Foot | Irradiated untreated | +1.05 ± 1.12 | +0.26 ± 1.57 | +0.46 ± 0.31 | |
| Irradiated treated | +1.64 ± 1.25 | +1.02 ± 0.96 | +0.56 ± 0.90 | ||
| Bone osteoblastic metabolism | Knee | Irradiated untreated | −2.12 ± 1.25 | −1.06 ± 1.06 | −1.21 ± 1.13 |
| Irradiated treated | −1.68 ± 1.43 | −1.57 ± 1.44 | −1.16 ± 0.98 | ||
| Tibia | Irradiated untreated | +0.28 ± 0.85 | −0.04 ± 0.67 | −0.01 ± 0.66 | |
| Irradiated treated | +0.77 ± 0.56* | +0.47 ± 0.58* | +0.07 ± 0.56 | ||
| Foot | Irradiated untreated | +0.36 ± 0.89 | +0.01 ± 1.19 | +0.07 ± 0.59 | |
| Irradiated treated | +1.07 ± 1.21 | +0.58 ± 0.62 | +0.43 ± 0.96 | ||
*P < 0.05 versus contralateral nonirradiated legs.
Figure 5Two-month evolution of bone flood flow (a) and bone osteoblastic metabolism (b) in irradiated tibias treated with BMSCs (dark columns) and control (white columns), values being expressed as relative to baseline (% of uptake variations with regard to untreated hindlimb values). *P < 0.05 versus pretherapeutic data, †P < 0.05 versus control group.