Literature DB >> 30720934

Concise Review: Skeletal Muscle as a Delivery Route for Mesenchymal Stromal Cells.

Shiva Hamidian Jahromi1,2, John E Davies1,2.   

Abstract

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have demonstrated extensive capacity to modulate a catabolic microenvironment toward tissue repair. The fate, biodistribution, and dwell time of the in vivo delivered MSCs largely depend on the choice of the cell delivery route. Intramuscular (IM) delivery of MSCs is clinically safe and has been used for the effective treatment of local pathologies. Recent findings have shown that the secretome of the IM-delivered MSCs enters the circulation and provides systemic effects on distant organs. In addition, muscle tissue provides a safe residence for the delivered MSCs and an extended secretorily active dwell time compared with other delivery routes. There are, however, controversies concerning the fate of MSCs post IM-delivery and, specifically, into an injured site with proinflammatory cues. This review seeks to provide a brief overview of the fate and efficacy of IM-delivered MSCs and to identify the gaps that require further assessment for adoption of this promising route in the treatment of systemic disease. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2019;8:456-465.
© 2019 The Authors. Stem Cells Translational Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Inflammation; Intramuscular; Local; MSCs; Systemic

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30720934      PMCID: PMC6477141          DOI: 10.1002/sctm.18-0208

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stem Cells Transl Med        ISSN: 2157-6564            Impact factor:   6.940


Mesenchymal stromal cells exhibit potent immune‐modulatory properties and are used in the treatment of many diseases. However, the dwell time of the cells in vivo, especially when delivered intravenously, is short—a matter of a few days. This dwell time can be extended by using injection into skeletal muscle as the cell delivery route. This route has been shown to be safe and has the advantage of increased longevity of the secretory activity of the delivered cells. This article reviews the intramuscular delivery route of such cells and the potential advantage to treatment regimes.

Introduction

Mesenchymal stromal cells 1 have demonstrated extensive capacity to limit injury and promote regeneration through signaling and secretion of trophic factors 2. Indeed, MSCs provide a putative treatment for immune‐related, infectious, and degenerative diseases, without a requirement for engraftment 3. Despite these beneficial therapeutic effects, one challenge is the short dwell time of the delivered cells in vivo 4. However, Braid et al. 5 recently reported the extended dwell time of human MSCs (hMSCs) delivered intramuscularly (IM—5 months) in healthy athymic mice when compared with the same cells delivered intravenously (IV—3 days), and either subcutaneously or interperitoneally (3 to 4 weeks). Thus, skeletal muscle provides a putative advantage for MSC delivery. To date, skeletal muscle has been principally used as a delivery route for local treatment of myopathic, neurodegenerative, and vascular related diseases. However, recent studies have emphasized the opportunity afforded by IM‐delivery to effect systemic changes. The 3 main advantages of skeletal muscle MSC delivery are: (a) extended dwell time provided by dense muscle fibers that retain the MSCs in situ; (b) high vascular density that provides a conduit for systemic release of MSC trophic factors; and (c) an abundance of tissue that provides for multiple injection sites. Although the IM‐delivery of MSCs has been shown to be clinically safe 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, it is important to critically evaluate the fate of MSCs postdelivery in skeletal muscle. Although the trophic factors secreted by MSCs are often considered to have a paracrine or local effect, their release into the blood stream could effect systemic outcomes. We discuss herein the evidence for engraftment and differentiation of IM‐delivered MSCs, their secreted factors both local and systemic, their dwell time, and biodistribution.

Clinical Safety of IM‐MSC Delivery

Clinical trials that have adopted IM delivery of bone marrow‐derived cells include both bone marrow‐mononuclear cells and MSCs 13. Clinical IM‐MSC delivery has targeted both promotion of angiogenesis in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) and thromboangiitis obliterans (TAO)/Buerger disease, and amelioration of motor neuron loss in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients. Previously, the chosen route of MSC delivery for PAD and TAO was either IV or intraarterial (IA) in anticipation that the cells would reach ischemic sites. However, IV‐delivered MSCs are entrapped in the capillary beds of lungs with minimal engraftment to ischemic sites 14. Clinical studies have validated the safety of IM‐MSC delivery (Table 1). Gupta et al. IM‐delivered allogeneic BMMSCs in the ischemic limbs of patients and reported improvement in clinical scores 6. To overcome the low frequency of MSCs in BM aspirates, Bura et al. IM‐delivered adipose‐derived MSCs (AD‐MSCs) in PAD patients with clinical limb ischemia and reported no sign of edema or necrosis at the site of injury. Clinical signs such as leg pain, ulcer size, and pain‐free walking were all reported to be significantly improved—potentially due to revascularization 7.
Table 1

Examples of clinical studies of intramuscular‐MSC therapy

DiseaseMSC sourceDelivery siteCell doseSingle/multipleOutcomeComplicationsFollow‐up periodRef.
CLIAllogenic BMMSCSGastrocnemius2 × 106 cells per kilogram40–60 sites at proximityImprovement in clinical scores (rest pain scores and ankle pressure)Safety without occurrence of edema at the site of injury24 wk 6
PAD + CLIAutologous ADMSCsInternal and external gastrocnemius andanterior compartment of the ischemic leg1 × 108 15 sites in each muscleClinical signs such as leg pain, ulcer size, and pain‐free walking was reported as significantly improvedNo sign of edema, or necrosis at the site of injury24 wk 7
ALSAutologous BMMSC‐NTF treatedBiceps and triceps24 × 106 24 sites at proximityImprovement in the CAMP amplitudeSlight edema at the site of transplantation. No infection. No tumor formation 24 wk 12
Examples of clinical studies of intramuscular‐MSC therapy The IM delivery of MSCs has, more recently, been pursued as an alternative to intrathecal (IT) and/or IV transplantation in ALS patients. Petrou et al. 12 reported no significant complications, and only slight edema, associated with injection, at 24 sites in the biceps and triceps, of BMMSCS (1 × 106 cells per site)—induced in culture to express neurotrophic factors (NTF) to promote regeneration and neuroprotection. Due to the nature of ALS, direct intrathecal delivery of MSC‐NTFs together with peripheral IM administration of MSC‐NTF was considered to enhance the efficacy of MSC‐therapy compared with the IM‐MSC delivery alone 12. However, the systemic effects of the release of NTF were not assessed. Although clinical studies have confirmed the safety of IM‐MSC delivery only one, conducted in critical limb ischemia (CLI) patients receiving allogeneic placenta‐derived MSCs (PLX), has reported a systemic effect—modulation of dendritic/natural killer cell interactions 15.

Preclinical Studies: IM‐Delivered MSCs to Treat Local Pathologies

MSCs have been delivered IM for local treatment or to locally treat complications associated with systemic diseases (Table 2). These studies have focused predominantly on the local angiogenic and neuro‐supportive effects of MSCs although the systemic sequalae of the secreted trophic factors have not been assessed. Diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN), similar to PAD, is a complication associated with diabetes. Shibata et al. 16 IM‐delivered rat BMMSCs (rBMMSCs) in streptozotocin (STZ)‐induced diabetic Sprague–Dawley (SD) rats. Four weeks postdelivery, the cells were observed in the gaps between the muscle fibers. In addition, a significant increase in the levels of bFGF and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) were observed in the treated muscle. In a similar model in balbC mice, Kim et al. delivered mBMMSCs along the sciatic nerve and reported improvement in motor nerve conduction as early as 2 weeks, whereas no further improvement was observed after 4 weeks 17. On the other hand, Han et al. 18 delivered allogeneic rBMMSCs in the thigh muscle of DNPSTZ induced Wistar rats near the sciatic nerve, and reported engraftment along the vasa nervosa after 4 and 8 weeks. Additionally, upregulation of angiogenic and neurotrophic genes, myelin protein, and nerve growth factor receptor gene in the transplanted muscle were all observed.
Table 2

Intramuscular‐MSC therapies to treat local pathologies

Disease modelSpecies modelI.S.MSC sourceDelivery siteCell dose (×106)Single/multipleEngraftment & differentiationSystemic effectBiodistributionMethod of assessmentStudy lengthIM‐dwell timeComments & general outcomeRef.
DPN‐STZ inducedSD‐ratN/ArBMMSCsThigh and soleus1Single, unilateralEngraftment in the gaps between fibers, no differentiationNot assessedTransplanted muscleMuscle histology, PKH26+ 4 wk4 wk↑bFGF, ↑VEGF, amelioration of diabetes complications 16
DPN‐STZ inducedbalbC miceN/AmBMMSCsAlong the sciatic nerve1Single, 4 sites, bilateralEngraftment, did not assessed differentiationNot assessedTransplanted muscleFunctional loss of improvement4 wk<4 wk↑NGF, ↑NT‐3, improvement in sciatic motor nerve conduction 17
DPN‐STZ inducedWistar‐ratsN/ArBMMSCsThigh near sciatic nerve5Single, bilateralEngraftment to sciatic nerve, no differentiation, assessed with Lectin after 4–8 weeks)Not assessedTransplanted muscle, along vasa nervosaMuscle histology, DiI‐MSCs8 wk>8 wkUpregulation of factors involved in angiogenesis, neural function, and myelination 18
ALS + local IM injury (cardiotoxin‐induced)SD−SODG93A ratsCycloAhBMMSCs‐GDNFTibialis anterior, fore limb triceps branchii, long muscles of the dorsal trunk muscle0.12Multiple:3 injections 1 week apart, bilateralEngraftment and differentiation. Expression of human myosin heavy chain IIx/d(MyHC‐IIx/d) gene in rat muscleNot assessedTransplanted sitesHistology and RT‐PCR (hcDNA)8 wk8 wkAmelioration of motor neuron loss locally and within the spinal cord which connected to the limb muscles with transplants 19
Limb ischemiaMHC mismatched ACI ratsN/ArBMMSCs or rFMIschemic thigh muscle5Single, 5 sites, unilateralEngraftment but not differentiation (assessed with Lectin after 1 week)Not assessedTransplanted siteHistology, GFP+ MSCs3 wk3 wkImprovement of blood perfusion and capillary density 20
Limb ischemiaC57BL/6 miceN/AmADMSCsIschemic adductor muscle1Single, unilateralEngraftment, did not assess differentiationNot assessedTransplanted siteBioluminescence imaging4 wk4 wkImprovement of vascular density and perfusion rate 21
Limb ischemiabalbC miceN/AhPLX‐PADThigh musculatures1Single, unilateralEngraftment, did not assess differentiationNot assessedTransplanted siteBioluminescence imaging3 wk4 daysImprovement of vascular density and blood flow, reduction of endothelial damage 22
NOD/SCID mice3 wk
Limb ischemiabalbCN/AhPDACProximal and distant to the ischemic muscle1Single, 2 sites, unilateralEngraftment, did not assess differentiationNot assessedTransplanted siteBioluminescence imaging49 days<8 daysImprovement of vascular density and blood flow 23
Limb ischemiaNOD/SCID‐IL2Rγ−/− (NSG) miceN/AhBMMSCs‐VEGFIschemic hamstring0.5Single, 2 sites, unilateralEngraftment, did not assess differentiationNot assessedTransplanted siteBioluminescence imaging and PCR (hgDNA)24 wk4 wk, small quantity 4.5 mImprovement of vascular density and blood flow 24
Limb ischemiaLewis ratsN/ArBMMSCsAnteromedial ischemic muscle5Single, unilateralEngraftment and differentiation to endothelial cells that expressed (hVIII), also differentiation to skeletal muscle fibers (expression of desmin) and adipocytesNot assessedTransplanted siteHistology LacZ+ MSCs, X‐gal identification3 wk3 wkImprovement of vascular and arteriolar density, regeneration 25
Limb ischemiaBalbCN/AmBMMSCsAdductor muscle proximal to the site of injury1Single, 6 sites, unilateralEngraftment. B‐gal+ cells found distributed between muscle fibers without incorporation into the vessels, therefore no trans‐ differentiationNot assessedTransplanted siteHistology (GFP+, β‐gal+)17 days17 days small quantityImprovement in perfusion of ischemic tissue and collateral modeling. Attenuation of muscle atrophy and fibrosis 26
Limb ischemiaLewis ratsN/ArBMMSCsIschemic thigh muscle5Single, unilateralEngraftment, and some transplanted MSC were positive for vWF, an endothelial markerNot assessedTransplanted siteHistology PKH263 wk3 wkImprovement of vascular density and blood flow 27
Muscle dystrophy‐ CTX (Latoxan)‐inducedNMRI nu−/−miceN/AhSM‐MSCsInjured muscle0.5Single, unilateralEngraftment and detection of human β2M and human dystrophin and MyHC‐IIx/d in injured muscleNot assessedTransplanted site (60%) detected after 4 weeksIn situ hybridization for human Alu repeats and PCR (hDNA)24 wk4 wk, small quantity 4 wkTransplanted MSCs differentiated and contributed to myofibrils and satellite cells but did not fuse with murine cells 28

Abbreviation: I.S., immunosuppressant.

Intramuscular‐MSC therapies to treat local pathologies Abbreviation: I.S., immunosuppressant. Following their initial use of neural progenitor cells 29, Suzuki et al. pursued delivery of glial cell derived growth factor (GDNF) transfected MSCs into various muscle groups 19. In a SD‐SOD1G93A rat model of ALS—that develops neurodegeneration of spinal motor neurons and progressive motor deficits—GDNFhBMMSCs were delivered together with daily cyclosporine (CsA). First, to ameliorate hBMMSC survival, a focal muscle injury was induced with injection of bupivacaine hydrochloride prior to cell delivery. MSC delivery into the muscle led to significant reduction in the number of denervated endplates, and abrogation of motor neuron loss. IM‐transplanted MSCs were detected after 8 weeks in the muscle at the site of injection 19. In other IM‐MSC studies, human cells were xenotransplanted in animal models of CLI for preclinical and translational assessment of the human MSC functionality in ischemia. Prather et al. 22 IM‐transplanted luciferase expressing PLX, 5 hours after arterial ligation. Cells were delivered locally at the site of injury in both immunocompetent (balbC) and immunocompromised (NOD/SCID) mice. Loss of luminescence signal in the immunocompetent balbC mice was observed after 4 days, whereas in NOD/SCID mice, cells were still detected for 3 weeks. Similarly, Francki et al. IM‐delivered placenta‐derived adherent cells, luciferase‐transduced, in the ischemia‐induced hind limb muscle of BalbC mice 24 hours after injury, and reported significant improvement in the blood flow and vascular density by 35–49 days. Furthermore, at 49 days, the injured muscle showed a reduction of inflammatory infiltrate and improvement in the structure of the regenerated muscle fibers 23. Beegle et al., in a similar CLI model, IM‐transplanted hBMMSCs over‐expressing VEGF in the hamstrings of immunocompromised NOD/SCID‐IL2Rγ−/− (NSG) mice. Significant loss of MSCs was reported within the first 28 days; a small number of cells were detected after 4.5 months, but no cells were detected after 6 months 24. Although these studies reported local upregulation of angiogenic growth factors, they showed model‐dependent variations in the dwell time of MSCs. Even within a single model differences were seen. For example, Braid et al. 5 showed a 2‐log decrease in cells over the first 4 days following IM delivery, although a secretorily active population remained at the injection site for up to 5 months.

IM‐Delivered MSCs to Treat Distant and Systemic Conditions

MSCs are shown to secrete a plethora of immunomodulatory factors in response to inflammatory stimuli 30 and also to stimulate endogenous cell regeneration 31, 32. IM‐MSC delivery has demonstrated a potential to treat distant or systemic conditions where the long dwell time of secretorily‐active cells would provide an advantage over the rapid disappearance of cells from the lungs following IV delivery. The systemic release of the IM‐delivered MSC secretome was first demonstrated in 2001 by Bartholomew et al. who showed that human erythropoietin (hEPO) was released for up to 1 month by baboon MSCs, genetically modified to express hEPO, when IM‐delivered in NOD/SCID mice 33. Shabbir et al. IM‐delivered porcine BMMSCs (pBMMSCs), two injections 2 weeks apart, into the hamstrings of cardiomyopathic TO2 hamsters. Significant ventricular function improvement (i.e., attenuated chamber dilation) and increased systolic wall thickening were reported 3 weeks after a second IM‐delivery of MSCs. MSCs were also shown to reduce apoptosis and myocardial tissue injury, as well as decreased myocardial‐pathological fibrosis by ∼50%. The systemic increase in the level of HGF, LIF, and GM‐CSF were suggested to be the mediators of myocardial repair, which was concomitant with upregulation of HGF, IGF‐II, and VEGF in the myocardium (34; Table 3). Similarly, Zisa et al. IM‐delivered hBMMSCs in the hamstrings of TO2 hamsters and reported improved left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) by 30%, 4 weeks post‐MSC therapy 40: VEGF was considered to be the main factor that improved cardiac repair. Similarly, Mao et al. IM‐delivered human umbilical cord Wharton's jelly MSCs (hWJMSCs) into both fore limb and hind limbs of doxorubicin‐induced SD rats (a model of dilated cardiomyopathy), two injections 2 weeks apart. Improved cardiac function with increased systemic levels of HGF, IGF‐1, LIF, GM‐CSF, and VEGF and cardiac tissue expression level of HGF, VEGF, and IGF‐1 was observed 2 weeks after the second MSC injection 36. Furthermore, Liu et al., using human soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor (hsTNFR) transduced hBMMSCs demonstrated a prophylactic reduction in joint inflammation in an antibody‐induced/LPS‐challenged murine rheumatoid arthritis (RA) model, although the naïve hBMMSCs showed no effect 37. In another study, Braid et al. showed that a depot of IM‐delivered human umbilical cord perivascular cells (HUCPVCs), genetically modified to secrete an antiviral monoclonal antibody, provided systemic protection against exposure to Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV), with secretorily active MSCs detectable for 109 days 39. The engineered HUCPVCs were IM‐delivered in the thigh muscle of balbCnu/nu mice 24 hours or 10 days prior to intranasal inoculation with VEEV. No significant difference was observed between 24 hours or 10 days prophylactic protection. We have also IM‐delivered hBMMSCs, mBMMSCs, or HUCPVCs in the hind limb of immunocompetent CD1 mice, and reported systemic downregulation of TNF‐α and abrogation of neutrophil infiltration at an anatomically distant (contralateral) site of inflammatory injury 38.
Table 3

Intramuscular‐MSC therapies to treat distant and systemic diseases

Disease modelSpecies modelI.S.MSC sourceDelivery siteCell dose (×106)Single/multipleEngraftment & differentiationSystemic effectBio‐distributionMethod of assessment of biodistribution/engraftment/differentiationStudy lengthIM‐dwell timeComments & general outcomeRef.
Dilated cardiomyopathyTO2 hamsterN/ApBMMSCsIntact hamstrings0.25, 1, 4Multiple, 2 injections, 2 weeks apart, bilateralNot assessed at the IM transplantation site↑LIF and GM‐CSF, ↓cTnINot assessedFunctional effect4 wk4 wkMobilization of progenitor cells to the heart. Significant cardiac output improvement and higher MSC dose resulted in higher functional improvement 34
Dilated cardiomyopathyBio‐TO2 hamsterN/AhBMMSCspBMMSCsIntact hamstrings2–4Single, bilateralNot assessed at the IM transplantation siteVEGFNot assessedFunctional effect4 wk4 wkImproved cardiac output. hBMMSCs express less VEGF compared with pBMMSCs 35
Dilated cardiomyopathy‐ doxorubicin‐inducedSD‐ratsN/AhUC‐WJMSCsFore‐ and hind limb skeletal muscles0.25, 1Multiple, 2 sites, 2 injections, and 2 weeks apart, bilateralNot assessed at the IM transplantation site↓BNP and cTnI, ↑LIF, HGF, GM‐CSF, and VEGFNot assessedFunctional effect4 wk4 wkImproved cardiac output, MSC‐dose independent 36
RA‐ antibody/LPS inducedBalbC/SCID miceN/AhBMMSCshBMMSC‐hsTNFRThigh quadriceps2Single, bilateralNot assessed at the IM transplantation sitehsTNFRNot assessedFunctional effect27 days27 daysProphylactic concept, only hsTNFR transduced hBMMSCs protected joints from inflammation, 20 days of hsTNFR detection in circulation 37
Focal paw inflammation, induced by γ‐carrageenanCD1 miceN/AHUCPVCs, hBMMSCsmBMMSCsContralateral to the injured limb, quadriceps muscle1.3Single, unilateralEngraftment, did not assess differentiationReduced TNF‐α, increased TSG‐6 (indirect measurement)Transplanted site, no distribution to organsHistology, RT‐PCR (hgDNA)48 hours48 hoursReduction of inflammation in the paw, reduction of neutrophil infiltration, HUCPVCs and hBMMSCs performed better than mBMMSCs, HUCPVCs showed earliest response 38
Systemic virus infection‐induced with VEEVbalbCnu/nu miceN/AHUCPVCs‐anti‐VEEVThigh skeletal muscle2.5Single, bilateralEngraftment, did not assess differentiationAnti‐VEEV IgGTransplanted siteSecreted IgG, bioluminescence imaging123 daysBioluminescence, systemic IgG secretion: 109 daysProphylactic concept, protection against exposure to a VEEV 39

Abbreviation: I.S., immunosuppressant.

Intramuscular‐MSC therapies to treat distant and systemic diseases Abbreviation: I.S., immunosuppressant. These studies provide evidence that factors released from MSCs are the primary therapeutic mediators independent of their engraftment and differentiation at the site of injury and therefore illustrate that IM delivery could be used to treat any condition where a sustained level of circulating mediators secreted by the MSCs would be required. Nevertheless, 3 important factors that affect the efficacy of IM‐MSC delivery for a systemic effect are the dwell time of the cells, the cell dose and frequency of injection.

Dwell Time of IM‐Delivered MSCs

The extended dwell time of transplanted MSCs in the skeletal muscle (compared with other routes of administration) enables putative extended therapeutic effects. Nevertheless, the reported dwell time of MSCs delivered to the skeletal muscle varies from 72 hours to 8 months. Two key factors profoundly affect these dwell‐time variations: (a) immune‐rejection and (b) the methods used for MSC detection. Although autologous MSCs are often used in clinical trials, they can show disease 41 or age‐related 42 impairments. Therefore, allotransplantation provides an advantage since MSCs exhibit low immunogenicity, and are expected to evade the immune system. Although the innate immune system is known to contribute to skeletal muscle repair 43. Davoudi et al. 44 have recently reported that neutrophils and macrophages are scarce in undamaged muscle, which may contribute to the longer dwell time of allogeneic MSCs when compared with lodgment in macrophage‐rich lungs following IV delivery. MSCs in vitro exhibit low expression of MHC‐I, and costimulatory molecules CD40, B7‐1 (CD80), and B7‐2 (CD86)—which are involved in T‐cell costimulation or coactivation—and lack expression of MHC‐II 45. However, it is not clear whether MSCs maintain their low immunogenicity post‐transplantation 20, especially in an inflamed site. Hemeda et al. demonstrated that MSCs exposed to IFN‐γ increased MHC class I expression and also triggered the expression of MHC‐II cell surface markers 46. Ishikane et al. showed a significantly lower number of T‐lymphocytes in rBMMSC‐transplanted healthy muscle compared with ischemia‐induced MSC‐transplanted muscle 47. Even with autologous transplantation, in vitro cell culture expansion conditions may cause phenotypic changes that facilitate innate recognition of the cells when transplanted 48, resulting in physiological clearance. The only reported preclinical IM‐autologous MSC transplantation study, records a dwell time of 6 weeks at the transplanted site 49, which is significantly less than the dwell time of MSCs in immunocompromised animals. Importantly, even immune‐compromised animal models differ in their reaction to xenotransplanted MSCs. Athymic‐nude rodents do not produce mature T‐cells and have high activity of macrophages, natural killer (NK) and dendritic cells (DC) 50, 51. In contrast, SCID mice have impaired production of mature T‐cells, and severely reduced macrophages NK and DC activity. These factors all affect the dwell time of exogenously transplanted MSCs 25, 27, 52. The majority of the preclinical studies are conducted in small animals and MSCs are often allotransplanted. Such studies have shown 17 days to 4 weeks of in situ dwell time 21, 26, 47, 53, 54, but the length of the study also affects the reported dwell time. A somewhat extended dwell time, ranging from less than 4 to more than 8 weeks, is reported when MSCs are allo‐IM transplanted in noninjured muscles in models of systemic conditions such as STZ‐induced DPN 16, 17, 18. MSCs IM‐delivered in immunosuppressed (CsA)‐rats exhibited a dwell time of 8 weeks when transplanted in a knock out ALS model 19. It is important to note that CsA blocks recipient T‐lymphocyte reactions 28, and compromises granulocyte migration during acute inflammation. When hMSCs are IM‐transplanted in immunocompetent animals, a short dwell time of 4–8 days has been reported by Prather et al. 22, Francki et al. 23, and Hamidian Jahromi et al. 38. Exceptions are the studies by Mao et al. 36 and Shabbir et al. 34 who reported therapeutic effects for 4 weeks that may infer survival of IM‐transplanted hWJ‐MSC or pBMMSCs in immunocompetent SD‐rats and TO2 hamsters respectively, although more probably reflect the “hit‐and‐run” mechanism by which MSCs are considered to have their effects 55. On the contrary, some of the studies that have IM‐transplanted MSCs in genetically immunocompromised animal models have reported significant dwell times of 3–24 weeks in injured muscle 22, 24, 56, ∼4–16 weeks in intact skeletal muscle of animals with systemic disease 37, 39, and ∼4–32 weeks in intact healthy animals 5, 33, 57, 58, 59. One factor that was similar in all reports was the fast decay in cell density over the first 14 days with further decline up to 28 days. For example, Liu et al. 53 transplanted mouse AD‐MSCs into the hind limb adductor muscle of ischemic C57BL/6 mice 24 hours postinjury; gradual loss of the IM‐transplanted MSCs was reported over 28 days. Ishikane et al. IM‐delivered rBMMSCs or rat fetal membrane MSCs (rFM‐MSCs) in a CLI model in MHC mismatched rats 47. Loss of MSC engraftment was observed 3 weeks post IM‐MSC delivery with a small quantity of cells still present at the site of injury. The fraction of cells remaining in the muscle for a longer period has been reported to be 10% of the transplanted cells after 8 months 57. Suzuki et al. have reported a short MSC dwell time when transplanted into intact muscle. A focal injury in the skeletal muscle, prior to transplantation, extended the MSCs dwell‐time 19. The short dwell time of MSCs in intact muscle does not corroborate the findings of Shibata et al. 16, Kim et al. 17, and Han et al. 18 where cells were injected in the intact muscle of DPN‐STZ induced animal models and other studies that have injected MSCs in healthy mice (5, 33, 49, 57, 58, 59; Table 4). Interestingly, Laurila et al. reported detection of MSCs near the needle injury site 60 and Braid et al. 5 reported accumulation of MSCs around the site of needle injury which indeed was more pronounced when the density of IM‐delivered MSCs declined over time. Although the discussed work does not support the notion of extended dwell time of MSCs in an injured site, it is understood that needle injury itself is a small focal injury created in every IM‐delivery model.
Table 4

Intramuscular‐MSC studies in healthy animals

Disease modelSpecies modelI.S.MSC sourceDelivery siteCell dose (×106)Single/multipleEngraftment & differentiationSystemic effectBio‐distributionMethod of assessment of biodistribution/engraftment/differentiationStudy lengthIM‐dwell timeComments & general outcomeRef.
HealthybalbCnu/nu miceN/AHUCPVCs, hBMMSCsThigh skeletal muscle1Single, unilateralEngraftment, did not assess differentiationNot assessedTransplanted siteHistology, bioluminescence5 m5 mIM: 5 m dwell time and no distribution to organs 5
HealthyNOD/SCID miceN/AbBMMSCs‐hBMMSCs‐hEPOQuadriceps muscle1Single, bilateralEngraftment, did not assess differentiationIncreased human EPO and hematocrit levelNot assessedSecreted hEPO4 wk4 wkNonhuman primate MSCs can also be engineered to deliver biological products 33
HealthybalbCnu/nu miceN/AhADMSCsThigh muscles1Single, bilateralEngraftment, did not assess differentiationNot assessedTransplanted site and liverHistology, bioluminescence imaging, genomic hybridization (hgDNA)8 m8 mMajority of transplanted cells disappeared within 1 wk, 10% remained in the muscle through 8 m 55
HealthyNu/nu Foxn1 miceN/AhBMMSCsHind limb skeletal muscles1.5Single, bilateralEngraftment, did not assess differentiationNot assessedTransplanted siteMRI26 days26 daysSignificant reduction in signal between 3 to 12 days 56
HealthyMerino‐cross sheepN/AsBMMSCsGastrocnemius muscle2Single, unilateralEngraftment, did not assess differentiationNot assessedTransplanted siteHistology6 wk6 wkCM‐DiI labeled sBMMSC into skeletal muscle showed dye retention for 6 wk 47
HealthyNOD/SCID miceN/APLX‐PADThigh muscle1Single, 2 sites, unilateralEngraftment, did not assess differentiationNot assessedTransplanted siteHistology, RT‐qPCR (hgDNA)3 m3 m80% of cells lost within 1 m. Neither single nor multiple caused toxicity 57

Abbreviations: r, rat; m, mouse; h, human; p, porcine; s, sheep; b, baboon; d, day; wk, week; m, month; LIF, leukemia inhibitory factor; GM‐CSF, granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor; cTn1, cardiac troponin 1; HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; bFGF, basic fibroblast growth factor; NGF, nerve growth factor; NT‐3, neurotrophin‐3; GFP, green fluorescent protein; gDNA, genomic DNA; cDNA, complementary DNA; RT‐qPCR, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; I.S., immunosuppressant.

Intramuscular‐MSC studies in healthy animals Abbreviations: r, rat; m, mouse; h, human; p, porcine; s, sheep; b, baboon; d, day; wk, week; m, month; LIF, leukemia inhibitory factor; GM‐CSF, granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor; cTn1, cardiac troponin 1; HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; bFGF, basic fibroblast growth factor; NGF, nerve growth factor; NT‐3, neurotrophin‐3; GFP, green fluorescent protein; gDNA, genomic DNA; cDNA, complementary DNA; RT‐qPCR, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; I.S., immunosuppressant.

Cell Dose and Frequency of Injections

To date, MSC dosing, both in clinical trials and animal studies has been chosen rather arbitrarily. For IV infusion in humans, 1–2 × 106 cells per kilogram body weight is commonly used. As expected for local delivery, lower cell numbers are reported; examples of which are from 1 × 106–108 for injection into OA knee joints 61, and 6 × 106 cells delivered into the intervertebral disc for the treatment of lower back pain caused by degenerative disc disease 62. Interestingly, the latter clinical trial showed no therapeutic advantage of using the higher dose, although the clinical study was based, in part, on a sheep study employing both a low 0.5 × 106, and high 4 × 106 ovine BMMSCs in which the higher dose was more effective 63. In an ex vivo pig lung dose escalation study using HUCPVCs, Mordant et al. 64 found a medium dose (5 × 107 cells) to be more effective than either a lower or higher dose. For IM delivery of MSCs, little information is currently available and is contradictory. For example, although Petrou et al. 12 undertook a dose escalation study in patients with ALS (see above), no differential effects of the 3 dosing cohorts of combined IT and IM‐delivered autologous BMMSCs were reported. In preclinical studies, Suzuki et al. 19 delivered 0.12 × 106 gene‐modified human neonatal BMMSCs (see above) either unilaterally or bilaterally into 3 muscle groups (tibialis anterior, triceps brachii, and dorsal trunk musculature) of rats at 24 hours, 1 week, and 2 weeks after local muscle injury. Although the number of surviving cells was reported to increase with multiple injections, no other differences were attributed to the multiple dosing. On the contrary, Kang et al. 65 delivered high and low doses of hBMMSCs in ischemic limbs of Balb/c mice and reported no dose–effect relationship but enhanced results were obtained with higher frequency of MSC injection. Similarly, Mao et al. injected hUCMSCs twice into both fore and hind limb musculature of DCM rats (see above), 2 weeks apart, but reported no differences in outcome with low and high dose (0.25 or 1 × 106 cells) although the second treatment did result in significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction 36. On the other hand, Shabbir et al. reported that the highest injection dose used, of 0.25, 1, and 4 × 106 pBMMSCs into bilateral hamstrings, resulted in the most effective cardiac function improvement in the recipient hamsters 34. As all MSCs populations are heterogeneous, but to varying extents, the therapeutically optimum cell dose for a particular delivery route can be expected to vary with MSC tissue source and the therapeutic target condition in addition to variations in the dosing regimen which, for IM administration, can include the number of IM sites chosen, their anatomical location and frequency (for multiple deliveries). Furthermore, gene‐modified cells could be expected to be used at different dosing regimens than unmodified populations. Several authors have shown that neonatal MSCs are more potent than those derived from adult tissues including higher MSC frequency, growth rate, life span, and superior immunomodulatory properties 35, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72.

Differentiation of IM‐Delivered MSCs

Environmental cues can drive the phenotype of transplanted MSCs. IM‐MSC delivery has also been used to treat other local pathologies in local muscle injuries. De Bari et al. 56, assessed myogenic differentiation of human synovial membrane (hSM)‐MSCs‐LacZ+, delivered either IV or IM, to treat Latoxan‐induced muscle injury in NMRI nu−/− mice. After 4 weeks, cells expressing human myosin heavy chain type IIx/d (MyHC‐IIx/d)—a terminal differentiation marker—were found in both injured and noninjured tibialis anterior (TA) muscles. In addition, human β2‐microglobulin (β2M) was detected between the basal lamina and muscle fibers at the injured site, but without fusion with the latter. Similar results were obtained when hSM‐MSCs were IM‐transplanted in the TA muscle of Dystrophin‐deficient mdx mice (C57BL/10ScSn DMDmdx/J) immunosuppressed with Tacrolimus (FK506). After 4 weeks, human dystrophin and MyHC‐IIx/d were detected in the injected muscle implicating differentiation and contribution of hSM‐MSCs to regeneration of myofibers but without fusion 56. Similar results were demonstrated by Suzuki et al. as the hBMMSCs transplanted in focally‐induced skeletal muscle expressed β‐actin and hMyHC‐IIx/d suggesting myogenic differentiation 19. Furthermore, 3 weeks post‐IM‐transplantation of rBMMSCs, Iwase et al. reported detection of double‐positive PKH26/von Willebrand (vWF) cells 26. Similarly, in a CLI Lewis rat model, Al‐Khaldi et al. demonstrated that rBMMSCs transplanted in the ischemic limb of rats express factor VIII, α‐SMA actin and desmin, markers of endothelial, smooth muscle and skeletal muscle cells respectively and concluded that the transplanted cells spontaneously regenerated the various components of muscular tissues 21. Ishikane et al. assessed fusion of MSCs with blood vessel endothelial cells after 1 week of MSC transplantation in the ischemic limb and did not observe GFP+/Lectin double‐positive cells 47 which was similar to the reported results of Han et al. observed after 4 and 8 weeks 18. Studies that did not use specific markers reported that MSCs reside in the gaps between the fibers without differentiation 16, 54. The collective opinion is that myogenic environmental cues affect the phenotype of exogenously transplanted MSCs, and that this may happen earlier in an injured site.

Biodistribution of MSCs after IM‐Delivery

The biodistribution of MSCs is important for both safety and survival of MSCs. It is important to assess whether MSCs distribute to unwanted organs postdelivery, cause microembolism, or disappear which could shorten the duration of therapeutic effect. Although it has been shown by many that MSCs can migrate toward the site of injury, this was not demonstrated with the IM‐delivery route, except if the injury site was local as shown by Han et al. 18, who demonstrated a close spatial relationship between IM‐delivered BMMSCs and vasa nervora. They considered it likely that the observed increase in angiogenesis was due to both secreted cytokines and physical interaction but provided no evidence for direct cell–cell contact as an effector mechanism. MSCs transplanted in the skeletal muscle are shown to reside locally and secrete trophic factors that enter the systemic circulation. Upon loss of the IM‐delivered MSCs from skeletal muscle, either a small (1.5%) portion was found in the liver 57, or none was observed in any organs other than the muscle site 5, 22, 23, 24, 38, 58, 60. Furthermore, it has been shown that if the needle accidently punctures a major blood vessel, then the IM‐delivered MSCs rapidly enter the circulation and transfer into distal organs. This could cause a problem more specifically in small animals that is, mice that exhibit small size muscles.

Concluding Remarks

The studies reviewed collectively support the notion of broadening the applicability of IM‐delivery route from a local therapy to the treatment of systemic disease. Multiple studies have shown that IM‐delivered MSCs safely reside in situ for an extended dwell time and are secretorily active. Current assessment of the fate of MSCs post IM‐delivery is largely limited to conditions where MSCs are transplanted in an injured site consisting of a significant amount of inflammation. This is a concern, since local injury environmental cues are shown to both impair MSC viability and functionality while driving phenotypic change and lineage differentiation. This raises many questions, of which the following are examples: What degree of inflammation primes MSCs without affecting their viability and engraftment? What is the degree of inflammation in which MSCs can survive and still exert an immunomodulatory response? and What is the timeframe for a change in MSC phenotype? Answers to these questions are vital in determining the dose of a particular MSC population, and the frequency of their IM‐delivery to optimize therapeutic performance.

Author Contributions

S.H.J.: literature search, drafted the manuscript; J.E.D.: manuscript revisions; S.H.J., J.E.D.: approved the final version.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

J.E.D. is the founding president and officer of Tissue Regeneration Therapeutics, Inc. (TRT), Toronto. The other author indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
  69 in total

Review 1.  The innate immune system in allograft rejection and tolerance.

Authors:  David F LaRosa; Adeeb H Rahman; Laurence A Turka
Journal:  J Immunol       Date:  2007-06-15       Impact factor: 5.422

2.  Human embryonic stem cell-derived mesenchymal stromal cell transplantation in a rat hind limb injury model.

Authors:  Juha P Laurila; Lilja Laatikainen; Maria D Castellone; Parul Trivedi; Jari Heikkila; Ari Hinkkanen; Peiman Hematti; Mikko O Laukkanen
Journal:  Cytotherapy       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 5.414

3.  Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Improve Diabetic Neuropathy by Direct Modulation of Both Angiogenesis and Myelination in Peripheral Nerves.

Authors:  Ji Woong Han; Dabin Choi; Min Young Lee; Yang Hoon Huh; Young-sup Yoon
Journal:  Cell Transplant       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  Phase I trial: the use of autologous cultured adipose-derived stroma/stem cells to treat patients with non-revascularizable critical limb ischemia.

Authors:  Alessandra Bura; Valerie Planat-Benard; Philippe Bourin; Jean-Sebastien Silvestre; Fabian Gross; Jean-Louis Grolleau; Bertrand Saint-Lebese; Julie-Anne Peyrafitte; Sandrine Fleury; Melanie Gadelorge; Marion Taurand; Sophie Dupuis-Coronas; Bertrand Leobon; Louis Casteilla
Journal:  Cytotherapy       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 5.414

5.  Allogeneic injection of fetal membrane-derived mesenchymal stem cells induces therapeutic angiogenesis in a rat model of hind limb ischemia.

Authors:  Shin Ishikane; Shunsuke Ohnishi; Kenichi Yamahara; Masaharu Sada; Kazuhiko Harada; Kenichi Mishima; Katsunori Iwasaki; Michihiro Fujiwara; Soichiro Kitamura; Noritoshi Nagaya; Tomoaki Ikeda
Journal:  Stem Cells       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 6.277

6.  Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as a key therapeutic trophic factor in bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell-mediated cardiac repair.

Authors:  David Zisa; Arsalan Shabbir; Gen Suzuki; Techung Lee
Journal:  Biochem Biophys Res Commun       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 3.575

7.  Mesenchymal stem cell treatment is associated with decreased perfusate concentration of interleukin-8 during ex vivo perfusion of donor lungs after 18-hour preservation.

Authors:  Pierre Mordant; Daisuke Nakajima; Ricardo Kalaf; Ilker Iskender; Lucas Maahs; Paula Behrens; Rafael Coutinho; Rohin K Iyer; John E Davies; Marcelo Cypel; Mingyao Liu; Thomas K Waddell; Shaf Keshavjee
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 10.247

Review 8.  Cardiac cell therapy: a realistic concept for elderly patients?

Authors:  Christof Stamm; Boris Nasseri; Thorsten Drews; Roland Hetzer
Journal:  Exp Gerontol       Date:  2008-05-24       Impact factor: 4.032

Review 9.  Stem cell stimulation of endogenous myocyte regeneration.

Authors:  Brian R Weil; John M Canty
Journal:  Clin Sci (Lond)       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 6.124

Review 10.  Autologous bone marrow cell therapy for peripheral arterial disease.

Authors:  C Botti; C Maione; A Coppola; V Sica; G Cobellis
Journal:  Stem Cells Cloning       Date:  2012-09-06
View more
  8 in total

1.  Human placental mesenchymal stromal cell therapy restores the cytokine efflux and insulin signaling in the skeletal muscle of obesity-induced type 2 diabetes rat model.

Authors:  Nagasuryaprasad Kotikalapudi; Samuel Joshua Pragasam Sampath; Sukesh Narayan Sinha; R Bhonde; Sathish Kumar Mungamuri; Vijayalakshmi Venkatesan
Journal:  Hum Cell       Date:  2022-01-29       Impact factor: 4.174

2.  Assessment of endothelial colony forming cells delivery routes in a murine model of critical limb threatening ischemia using an optimized cell tracking approach.

Authors:  Marta Rojas-Torres; Ismael Sánchez-Gomar; Antonio Rosal-Vela; Lucía Beltrán-Camacho; Sara Eslava-Alcón; José Ángel Alonso-Piñeiro; Javier Martín-Ramírez; Rafael Moreno-Luna; Mª Carmen Durán-Ruiz
Journal:  Stem Cell Res Ther       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 8.079

Review 3.  MicroRNAs and long noncoding RNAs: new regulators in cell fate determination of mesenchymal stem cells.

Authors:  Zixiang Wu; Shujing Liang; Wenyu Kuai; Lifang Hu; Airong Qian
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 4.036

4.  Single-cell sequencing deconvolutes cellular responses to exercise in human skeletal muscle.

Authors:  Alen Lovrić; Ali Rassolie; Seher Alam; Mirko Mandić; Amarjit Saini; Mikael Altun; Rodrigo Fernandez-Gonzalo; Thomas Gustafsson; Eric Rullman
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2022-10-22

5.  In Vivo Printing of Nanoenabled Scaffolds for the Treatment of Skeletal Muscle Injuries.

Authors:  Jacob P Quint; Azadeh Mostafavi; Yori Endo; Adriana Panayi; Carina S Russell; Atousa Nourmahnad; Chris Wiseman; Laleh Abbasi; Mohamadmahdi Samandari; Amir Sheikhi; Kristo Nuutila; Indranil Sinha; Ali Tamayol
Journal:  Adv Healthc Mater       Date:  2021-02-28       Impact factor: 9.933

Review 6.  Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Therapeutic Delivery: Translational Challenges to Clinical Application.

Authors:  Henry Caplan; Scott D Olson; Akshita Kumar; Mitchell George; Karthik S Prabhakara; Pamela Wenzel; Supinder Bedi; Naama E Toledano-Furman; Fabio Triolo; Julian Kamhieh-Milz; Guido Moll; Charles S Cox
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 7.561

7.  Efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cells co-infusion in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Teng Li; Chengxin Luo; Jiasi Zhang; Ling Wei; Wei Sun; Qin Xie; Yan Liu; Yongli Zhao; Shuangnian Xu; Lihua Wang
Journal:  Stem Cell Res Ther       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 6.832

Review 8.  Stem Cell Therapy for Neurodegenerative Diseases: How Do Stem Cells Bypass the Blood-Brain Barrier and Home to the Brain?

Authors:  Yvonne Cashinn Chia; Clarice Evey Anjum; Hui Rong Yee; Yenny Kenisi; Mike K S Chan; Michelle B F Wong; Shing Yi Pan
Journal:  Stem Cells Int       Date:  2020-09-04       Impact factor: 5.443

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.