| Literature DB >> 29109741 |
Woon Ryoung Kim1, Minjin Kang1, Heejoo Park1, Hyun-Joo Ham1, Hyunji Lee1, Dongho Geum1.
Abstract
Recently, spinal cord researchers have focused on multifaceted approaches for the treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI). However, as there is no cure for the deficits produced by SCI, various therapeutic strategies have been examined using animal models. Due to the lack of standardized functional assessment tools for use in such models, it is important to choose a suitable animal model and precise behavioral test when evaluating the efficacy of potential SCI treatments. In the present review, we discuss recent evidence regarding functional recovery in various animal models of SCI, summarize the representative models currently used, evaluate recent cell-based therapeutic approaches, and aim to identify the most precise and appropriate scales for functional assessment in such research.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29109741 PMCID: PMC5646345 DOI: 10.1155/2017/5160261
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cells Int Impact factor: 5.443
Figure 1Development of animal models of spinal cord injury. (Upper illustration) methods for inducing spinal cord injury via surgical incision include transection and hemisection, both of which can be accomplished using a surgical knife (left). Hind limb paralysis following thoracic spinal cord injury in rats (right). (Lower table) animal models categorized by lesion method (left), the resulting primary pathology (middle), and final result of affected motor neurons (right).
Figure 2Multifaceted strategies for cell-based treatment. (a) List of cell types utilized in cell-based therapy for spinal cord injury. (b–k) Stem cell manipulation in various cell-based therapies. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) can be generated from human somatic cells (b). Stem cells beginning to form embryoid body (c). Neural progenitors were isolated based on the neural rosette pattern and expanded in a culture dish (d, e). Following treatment with morphogenic agents, neural progenitors differentiate into many motor neurons (f, g). When motor neurons are cocultured with muscle fibers (h), the neuromuscular junction (i–k) can be detected on muscle fibers. (l) Scaffolds and biomaterials have developed for use in cell-based therapies. At a certain stage, stem cells can be transplanted alone or encapsulated in various scaffolds. PHEMA-co-MMA: poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-co-methyl methacrylate); PLA: polylactic acid; PLGA: poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid); PCL: polycaprolactone.
Animal models of stem cell injury (SCI) and multifaceted approaches to cellular therapies.
| Reference | SCI animal model | Materials for scaffold | Applied cells | Recovery time | Tests for motor function | Functional outcome | BBB score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ltosaka et al., 2009 | Rat | T8 | Hemisection | Fibrin fibers | BMSC | 4 weeks | BBB | Improved | 15 |
| Okuda, 2017 | T8 | Transection | Cell sheet | 4 weeks | BBB | Improved | 5 | ||
| Kang et al., 2011 | T8-9 | Transection | PLGA scaffold | MSC | 4 weeks | BBB | Improved | 10 | |
| Yang, 2017 | T9-10 | Transection | PLGA scaffold | 4 weeks | BBB | Improved | 7 | ||
| Hejcl et al., 2010 | T8-9 | Compression | HPMA-RGD hydrogel | 35 weeks | BBB, plantar test | Improved | 10 | ||
| Hatami et al., 2009 | T10 | Hemisection | Type1 collagen droplet | NSC | 5 weeks | BBB | Improved | 19 | |
| Nomura et al., 2008 | T8 | Transection | Chitosan channels | 12 weeks | BBB | No effect | 9 | ||
| Bozkurt et al., 2010 | T8 | Compression | 9 weeks | BBB | No effect | 11 | |||
| Teng et al., 2002 | T9-10 | Hemisection | PLGA scaffold | 10 weeks | BBB | Improved | 10 | ||
| Du et al., 2011 | T9-10 | Transection | 8 weeks | BBB, Incline test | Improved | 9 | |||
| Johnson et al., 2010 | T9 | Hemisection | Fibrin scaffold | 8 weeks | BBB, Grid walk | No effect | Data not shown | ||
| Ye, 2016 | T10 | Contrusion | Self-assembling peptide nanofiber | 5 weeks | BBB | Improved | 12 | ||
| Mothes, 2013 | T2 | Compression | Hyaluronan-methy cellulose gel | 9 weeks | BBB | No effect | 12 | ||
| Liu et al., 2015 | T10 | Transection | PLGA scaffold | iNSC | 10 weeks | BBB | Improved | 14 | |
| PLGA-PEG scaffold | 10 weeks | BBB | Improved | 17 | |||||
| Olson et al., 2009 | T8-9 | Transection | PLGA scaffold | SC | 4 weeks | BBB | No effect | 1 | |
| Wang et al., 2011 | T10 | Transection | Gelform | 8 weeks | BBB, incline test | Improved | 8 | ||
| Hurtado et al., 2006 | T9-10 | Transection | PDL tubular scaffold | 6 weeks | BBB | No effect | 7 | ||
| Joosten et al., 2004 | T7-9 | Transection | Collagen gel | Astrocyte | 4 weeks | BBB, grid, catwalk | No effect | 13 | |
| Rochkind et al., 2006 | T7–8 | Transection | Dextran-gelatin tube | NOM, SCC | 12 weeks | BBB | No effect | 10 | |
| Zhang et al., 2016 | T9 | Contrusion | Chitosan scaffold | hDPSC | 4 weeks | BBB | Improved | 12 | |
| Pritchard et al., 2010 | Primate | T9 | Hemisection | PLGA scaffold | NSC | 6 weeks | Babu scale | Improved | 15 |
| Nemati, 2013 | C5–L1 | Contrusion | Direct injection | 49 weeks | Tarlov's scale | Improved | 1.75 | ||
T: thoracic; C: cervical; L: lumbar; PLGA: poly(lactide-co-glycolide) acid; HPMA-RGD: N-(2-hydroxypropyl)-methacrylamide with attached amino acid sequences Arg-Gly-Asp; PDL: poly D-lactic acid; PLA: poly L-lactic acid; BMSC: bone marrow stromal cell; MSC: mesenchymal stem cells; NSC: neural stem cell; iNSC: induced neural stem cell; SC: Schwann cell; NOM: nasal olfactory mucosal cell; SCC: spinal cord cell; BBB: Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan test scale.
Rat models of spinal cord injury (SCI) and suitable test scales.
| Target | Thoracic SCI | Cervical SCI | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | BBB | LSS | CBS | Martinez | |||||||||
| Reference | Basso et al., 1995 | Smith et al., 2006 | Gale et al., 1985 | Martinez et al., 2009 | |||||||||
| Category | Recovery phase | Category I | Category II | Score | Swim ability | Score | Category | Score | Category | Forelimb | Score | Hindlimb | Score |
| Early | Limb movement | Hip | 0–2 | HL movement | 0–4 | HL movement | 0–45 | Articular movement | Shoulder | 0–2 | Hip | 0–2 | |
| Knee | 0–2 | HL alternation | 0–3 | Toe spread | 0–5 | Elbow | 0–2 | Knee | 0–2 | ||||
| Ankle | 0–2 | FL dependency | 0–4 | Placing | 0–5 | Wrist | 0–2 | Ankle | 0–2 | ||||
| Trunk position | Side | 0-1 | Trunk instability | 0–4 | Withdrawal | 0–15 | Weight support | Stationary | 0-1 | Stationary | 0-1 | ||
| Prop | 0-1 | Body angle | 0–2 | Righting | 0–5 | Active | 0-1 | Active | 0-1 | ||||
| Intermediate | Paw placement | Sweep | 0–2 | Inclined plane | 0–15 | Digit position | 0–2 | 0–2 | |||||
| Stepping | Dorsal | 0-1 | Hot plate | 0–5 | Paw placement at initial contact | Stepping | 0–2 | Stepping | 0–2 | ||||
| Plantar | 0-1 | Swim test | 0–5 | ||||||||||
| Limb coordination | Coordination | 0-1 | Paw orientation during lift off | Stepping | 0–2 | Stepping | 0–2 | ||||||
| Late | Paw position | Initial contact | 0–3 | ||||||||||
| Lift off | 0–3 | Movement | 0–2 | 0–2 | |||||||||
| Trunk instability | Instability | 0-1 | Limb coordination | 0–3 | 0–3 | ||||||||
| Tail position | Up or down | 0-1 | Tail position | 0-1 | 0-1 | ||||||||
| Maximum score (−normal) | 21 | (=normal) | 17 | (=severe) | 100 | Maximum score (=normal) | 20 | 20 | |||||
BBB: Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan; LSS: Louisville swimming scale; CBS: combined behavioral score; HL: hindlimb; FL: Forelimb.
Primate models of spinal cord injury (SCI) and suitable test scales.
| Target | Thoracic SCI | Cervical SCI | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | Babu | Nout | |||||
| Reference | Suresh Babu et al., 2000; bonnet monkey | Nout et al., 2012; rhesus monkeys | |||||
| Category 1 | Category II | Category III | Score | Category I | Category II | Category III | Score |
| Reflex | Grasping | 0–3 | Locomotion | General | Forward movement | 0–2 | |
| Hopping | Low speed | 0–3 | Number of limbs used | 0–4 | |||
| Medium speed | 0–3 | Number of perches reached | 0–4 | ||||
| High speed | 0–3 | Number of cups reached | 0–5 | ||||
| Righting | 0–2 | Truncal instability | 0–2 | ||||
| Extension withdrawal | 0–2 | Maximum score | 17 | ||||
| Pressure withdrawal | 0–2 | Hind limb | Extent of movements | 0–8 | |||
| Pain withdrawal | 0–2 | Presence of weight support | 0–3 | ||||
| Placing | 0–2 | Presence of stepping | 0–4 | ||||
| Runways | Runways | Wide runway | 0–5 | Ability and extent of use of the hind limb | 0–6 | ||
| Narrow beam 1 | 0–5 | Maximum score | 21 | ||||
| Narrow beam II | 0–5 | Forelimb | Extent of movements | 0–8 | |||
| Grid runways | 4 cm intervals | 0–5 | Presence of weight support | 0–10 | |||
| 5 cm intervals | 0–5 | Presence of stepping | 0–4 | ||||
| 6 cm intervals | 0–5 | Ability and extent of use of the forelimb | 0–6 | ||||
| 7 cm intervals | 0–5 | Maximum score | 28 | ||||
| ect. | Treadmill test | Low speed | 0–5 | Hand function | Posture of the animal during object manipulation | 0–5 | |
| Medium speed | Use of the impaired hand for support and movement of the object | 0–8 | |||||
| High speed | Grasping method used | 0–2 | |||||
| Inclined plane test | Low degree | 0–5 | Extent of wrist and digit movements | 0–6 | |||
| Medium degree | Maximum score | 21 | |||||
| High degree | |||||||
| Maximum score (=normal) | 67 | Maximum score (=normal) | 87 | ||||