| Literature DB >> 25860455 |
Haitao Shan1, Fengzhi Chen2, Tao Zhang2, Shuhua He2, Le Xu1, Anyang Wei2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Stem cell treatment is a novel therapeutic strategy for erectile dysfunction (ED) patients with bilateral cavernous nerve injury (CNI). The relative animal studies provide important clues to design pre-clinical studies and clinical studies further in the future.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25860455 PMCID: PMC4393097 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121428
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of the articles published.
| Year | First author | Institution | Impact Factor | Model | Stem cell |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | Bochinski [ | University of California | 3.046 | Crush | Allogeneic NESCs |
| 2006 | Y Kim [ | University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine | 1.511 | Transection | Allogeneic SkMSCs |
| 2009 | Fall [ | Henri Mondor Teaching Hospital France | 10.476 | Ablation | Allogeneic BMMNCs |
| 2010 | Albersen [ | University of California | 3.513 | Crush | Autologous ADSCs |
| 2010 | Kendirci [ | Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital Turkey | 3.696 | Crush | Allogeneic BMSCs |
| 2011 | Lin [ | University of California | 1.511 | Crush | Autologous ADSCs or Allogeneic ADSCs |
| 2011 | Lin [ | University of California | 2.424 | Resection | Autologous ADSCs |
| 2011 | Woo [ | The Catholic University of Korea | Not SCI | Transection | Allogeneic SkMSCs |
| 2012 | Fandel [ | University of California | 10.476 | Crush | Autologous ADSCs |
| 2012 | SJ Kim [ | The Catholic University of Korea | 0.742 | Crush | Allogeneic BMSCs |
| 2012 | SJ Kim [ | The Catholic University of Korea | Not SCI | Crush | Allogeneic BMSCs |
| 2012 | Kovanecz [ | Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute | 3.513 | Resection | Heterogeneous SkMSCs |
| 2012 | Piao [ | The Catholic University of Korea | 3.513 | Crush | Heterogeneous ADSCs |
| 2012 | Qiu [ | University of California | 3.513 | Radiation | Allogeneic ADSCs |
| 2012 | Qiu [ | University of California | 10.476 | Crush | Autologous SVF |
| 2013 | Jeong [ | The Catholic University of Korea | 2.424 | Crush | Heterogeneous ADSCs |
| 2013 | You [ | University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Korea | 3.843 | Stretch | Heterogeneous ADSCs |
| 2013 | You [ | University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Korea | 2.424 | Not described | Heterogeneous BMSCs |
| 2013 | IG Kim [ | The Catholic University of Korea | 4.254 | Crush | Heterogeneous ADSCs |
| 2013 | Choi [ | CHA University, Seoul, Korea | 4.67 | Crush | Heterogeneous TDSCs |
| 2013 | Ying [ | Zhongnan Hospital,Wuhan University | 2.293 | Crush | Allogeneic ADSCs |
| 2014 | Ying[ | Zhongnan Hospital,Wuhan University | 2.293 | Resection | Allogeneic ADSCs |
| 2014 | Miyamoto [ | Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan | 3.513 | excision | Heterogeneous BMCD133+ |
| 2014 | Lee [ | Gangnam Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea | 4.254 | Crush | Heterogeneous ADSCs |
NESCs:neural embryonic stem cells; SkMSCs:skeletal muscle-derived stem cells; BMMNCs:bone marrow mononucleated cells;ADSCs:adipose tissue-derived stem cells; BMSCs:bone marrow stem Cells; SVF:adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction; TDSCs:testis-derived stem cells; BMCD133+:Bone Marrow Derived CD133+ Cells.
Characteristics of stem cells.
| Year | First Author | numbers | Label | Modification | Follow-up Time | Fate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | Bochinski [ | 5 X103 | GFP | BDNF transduction | 3 months | undetectable |
| 2006 | Y Kim [ | 1X106 | lacZ | none | 2 weeks / 4 weeks | detected |
| 2009 | Fall [ | 1X107 | PKH-26 | none | 3 weeks / 5 weeks | detected |
| 2010 | Albersen [ | 1X106 | Edu | none | 4weeks | very few |
| 2010 | Kendirci [ | 0.5 X106 | GFP transgene | p75LNGFR selection | 4weeks | undetectable |
| 2011 | Lin [ | 1X106 | Edu | none | 7days | time-dependent disappearance |
| 2011 | Lin [ | unclear | Edu | none | 3 months | detected |
| 2011 | Woo [ | 1X106 | PKH-26 | none | 4 weeks | detected |
| 2012 | Fandel [ | 2X106 | Edu | none | 4 weeks | time-dependent disappearance |
| 2012 | SJ Kim [ | 1X106 | PKH-26 | none | 4 weeks | detected |
| 2012 | SJ Kim [ | 1X106 | unclear | BDNF transduction | 4 weeks | detected |
| 2012 | Kovanecz [ | 1X106 | unclear | Oral sildenafil | 42days | undetectable |
| 2012 | Piao [ | 1X106 | PKH-26 | BDNF | 4 weeks | quantify |
| 2012 | Qiu [ | 1X106 | Edu | none | 17 weeks | very few |
| 2012 | Qiu [ | 2X106 | none | none | 12 weeks | No mentioned |
| 2013 | Jeong [ | 1X106 | none | BDNF Oral udenafil | 4 weeks | No mentioned |
| 2013 | You [ | 1X106 | CELL STALKER | None | 4 weeks | detected |
| 2013 | You [ | 1X106 | CELL STALKER | None | 4 weeks | detected |
| 2013 | IG Kim [ | 1X106 | PKH-26 | NGF | 4 weeks | quantify |
| 2013 | Choi [ | 1X107 | CM-DiI | none | 4 weeks | detected |
| 2013 | Ying [ | 1X106 | none | none | 3 months | No mentioned |
| 2014 | Ying [ | 1X106 | none | none | 3 months | No mentioned |
| 2014 | Miyamoto [ | 1X106 | none | none | 12 weeks | detected |
| 2014 | Lee [ | 1X106 | PKH-26 | BDNF, bFGF | 4 weeks | detected |
Fig 1Flowchart of enrolled studies on stem cell therapy in ED rats with CNI.
Methodological quality assessment.
| Studies | Peer evaluation (1score) | Study design (3 scores) | Confining the interference factors (4 scores) | Outcomes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | First Author | Impact Factors | Sample Size | Blind & Random | Cells Label | Phenotype Identify | Erectile Function | Structural Changes | Scores |
| 2004 | Bochinski [ | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 3.5 |
| 2006 | Y Kim [ | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 3.5 |
| 2009 | Fall [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4.5 |
| 2010 | Albersen [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 4.5 |
| 2010 | Kendirci [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| 2012 | Piao [ | 1 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 |
| 2012 | Qiu [ | 1 | 0.5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 5 |
| 2013 | Jeong [ | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 5 |
| 2013 | You [ | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| 2013 | IG Kim [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 5 |
| 2013 | Choi [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 5 |
| 2013 | Ying [ | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 |
| 2014 | Miyamoto [ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| 2014 | Lee [ | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
Characteristics of Studies Enrolled.
| Studies | Rats | Group | Immunohistochemistry | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Author | Spices | Age | Weight(g) | Group | Sample size/group | Quantitatively evaluated outcomes |
| 2009 | Fall [ | Fisher | Adult | 170–200 | Normal vs CNI vs CNI+BMMNCs ICI (3week vs 5week) | 40/4 | eNOS, nNOS, apoptotic index |
| 2010 | Albersen [ | SD | 12w | No mentioned | Normal vs CNI vs CNI+ADSCs ICI vs CNI+lystate | 32/4 | a-SMA, collagen III, nNOS |
| 2010 | Kendirci [ | SD | Adult | 300–350 | Normal vs CNI+PBS vs CNI+ fibroblasts vs CNI+BMSCs ICI vs CNI+P75MSCs ICI | 40/5 | VEGF, NGF, BDNF, FGF, IGF |
| 2012 | Piao [ | SD | Adult | 250–300 | Normal vs CNI vs CNI+ADSCs ICNC vs CNI+BDNF+PLGA vs CNI+ADSCs ICNC +BNDF+PLGA | 50/5 | nNOS, eNOS, cGMP smooth muscle/collagen, |
| 2012 | Qiu [ | SD | 12w | No mentioned | Normal vs CNI vs CNI+ vehicle vs CNI+SVFICI (immediate vs delayed) | 89/4 | a-SMA, neurofilament, smooth muscle/collagen, nNOS |
| 2013 | Jeong [ | SD | Adult | 250–300 | Normal vs CNI vs CNI+ udenafil vs CNI+ADSCs ICNC+BDNF+PLGA vs CNI+ADSCs ICNC+BDNF+PLGA+ udenafil | 30/5 | VEGF, nNOS, cGMP, smooth muscle/collagen, a-SMA, |
| 2013 | You[ | SD | 8w | 250 | Normal vs CNI vs CNI+ADSCs ICI vs CNI+ fibrin sealant vs CNI+ADSCs PPI+ fibrin sealant vs CNI+ADSCs ICI+ ADSCs PPI+ fibrin sealant | 60/6 | a-SMA, nNOS |
| 2013 | IG Kim [ | SD | 8-10w | No mentioned | Normal vs CNI vs CNI+ADSCs ICNC vs CNI+ NGF-hydrogel vs CNI+ADSCs ICNC+ NGF-hydrogel | 25/5 | eNOS, a-SMA |
| 2013 | Choi [ | SD | 12w | No mentioned | Normal vs CNI vs CNI+BMSCs PPI vs CNI+TDSCs PPI | 32/4 | none |
| 2013 | Ying [ | SD | 4m | Normal | Normal vs CNI vs CNI+ADSCs ICI | 130/3 | myelinated axons, nNOS, smooth muscle/collagen, NADPH-d |
| 2014 | Miyamoto [ | athymic | 8w | 230–250 | Normal vs CNI vs CNI+ alginate gel sponge Sheet vs CNI +BMCD133 ICNC + alginate gel sponge Sheet | 28/4 | VEGF, NGF, blood vessel density, nNOS |
| 2014 | Lee [ | SD | 8-10w | No mentioned | Normal vs CNI vs CNI+ADSCs+ BDNF+PLGA vs CNI+bFGF-hydrogel ICI vs CNI+ADSCs ICNC+ BDNF+PLGA +bFGF-hydrogel ICI | 75/5 | smooth muscle/collagen, a-SMA, cGMP |
SkMSCs: skeletal muscle-derived stem cells; BMMNCs: bone marrow mononucleated cells; ADSCs: adipose tissue-derived stem cells; BMSCs: bone marrow stem Cells; SVF: adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction; TDSCs: testis-derived stem cells; BMCD133+: Bone Marrow Derived CD133+ Cells. ICI: intracavernousal Injection; ICNC: Injured cavernous nerve cover; PPI: periprostatic implantation.
Fig 2The random-effect model forest plot graph shows the standard mean differences (SMD), 95% confidence intervals (CI) while the meta-analysis of ICP/MAP was evaluated and the number of cases (n), mean and standard deviation (SD) in the stem cell treatment and control groups.
Fig 3The fixed-effect model forest plot graph shows there is no significant difference between the stem cells with BDNF modification (subgroup 2) or without growth factor modification (subgroup1).
But subgroups with NGF modification, p75LNGFR isolation, BDNF+ udenafil or BDNF+bFGF (subgroup3) can get better effects than those modified by BDNF only (subgroup2) or without any modification (subgroup1). (subgroup 1 vs. subgroup 3 p<0.001; subgroup2 vs. subgroup 3 p<0.001).
Fig 4The fixed-effect model forest plot graphs show the uncultured stem cells (BMMNCs and SVF) are significantly less effective than cultured stem cells(4a), while there is no significant difference among the following subgroups: CNI models(4b), following time(4c), stem cells species(4d), cell sources(4e), labels(4f) and delivered approaches(4g).
Fig 4a: cultured stem cells (subgroup1) vs. uncultured stem cells; (subgroup 2), p = 0.011. Fig 4b: cavernous nerve continuous (subgroup1) vs. cavernous nerve discontinuous (subgroup2). Fig 4C: Follow-up time: one month (subgroup1) vs. three months (subgroup2). Fig 4d: autotransplantation (subgroup1) vs. allotransplantation (subgroup2) vs. heterotransplantation (subgroup3). Fig 4e: ADSCs (subgroup1) vs. BMSCs (subgroup2) vs. TDSCs (subgroup3). Fig 4f: nuclear labelling (subgroup1) vs. lipid-soluble markers (subgroup2). Fig 4g: ICI (subgroup1) vs. PPI (subgroup2) vs. PPI + acellular scaffolds (subgroup3).
Fig 5The fixed-effect model forest plot graph shows there is no significant difference between different delivery approach of ICI (subgroup1), PPI+ acellular scaffolds (subgroup2) or PPI+ acellular scaffolds+BDNF (subgroup3) in the a-SMA expression; the NGF, BDNF+ udenafil, BDNF+ bFGF subgroup(subgroup4) can restore the a-SMA expression more effectively than the other subgroups (subgroup 1 vs. subgroup 4 p = 0.029; subgroup 2 vs. subgroup 4 p = 0.026; subgroup 3 vs. subgroup 4 p = 0.023).
Fig 6The fixed-effect model forest plot graph shows PPI+ acellular scaffolds subgroup (subgroup2) is significantly higher than the ICI subgroup (subgroup1) in the restoring of nNOS expression, (p = 0.046).