| Literature DB >> 34277609 |
Huihua Huang1,2, Xuejun Du1, Zhiguo He3, Zifeng Yan3, Wei Han1.
Abstract
Stem cell-based therapies have been shown potential in regenerative medicine. In these cells, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have the ability of self-renewal and being differentiated into different types of cells, such as cardiovascular cells. Moreover, MSCs have low immunogenicity and immunomodulatory properties, and can protect the myocardium, which are ideal qualities for cardiovascular repair. Transplanting mesenchymal stem cells has demonstrated improved outcomes for treating cardiovascular diseases in preclinical trials. However, there still are some challenges, such as their low rate of migration to the ischemic myocardium, low tissue retention, and low survival rate after the transplantation. To solve these problems, an ideal method should be developed to precisely and quantitatively monitor the viability of the transplanted cells in vivo for providing the guidance of clinical translation. Cell imaging is an ideal method, but requires a suitable contrast agent to label and track the cells. This article reviews the uses of nanoparticles as contrast agents for tracking MSCs and the challenges of clinical use of MSCs in the potential treatment of cardiovascular diseases.Entities:
Keywords: cardiovascular diseases; imaging technique; mesenchymal stem cell; nanoparticles; stem cell therapy
Year: 2021 PMID: 34277609 PMCID: PMC8283769 DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2021.662406
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol ISSN: 2296-634X
Comparison between nanoparticles for tracking mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs).
| Superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) NPs | Easy | T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) | Human MSCs | Obvious contrast | Low cell-labeling efficiency for MSCs; necessary to functionalize SPIO NPs | No apparent influences on viability of MSCs | |
| SPIO NPs | Complex | T2-weighted MRI | Human MSCs; mouse MSCs | Obvious contrast; enhancement of cellular internalization | Induce precipitation of NPs; perturb the cell membrane | No apparent influences on viability of MSCs | |
| SPIO NPs | Easy | Proton (1H) MRI images | Human MSCs | High sensitivity of cell detection | Difficult to accurately quantify cell population | No apparent influences on viability of MSCs | |
| SPIO NPs | Complex | Proton (1H) MRI images | Mouse MSCs | High sensitivity of cell detection; quantify the persistence of transplanted MSCs | No apparent influences on viability of MSCs | ||
| Gd-based NPs | Easy | T1-weighted | Human MSCs | Distinguish some similar low signal | Low cellular uptake for MSCs | No apparent influences on viability of MSCs | |
| Gd-based NPs | Easy | T1-weighted MRI | Human MSCs | Distinguish some similar low signal; long-term tracking | No apparent influences on viability of MSCs | ||
| Au-based NPs | Easy | Photoacoustic imaging and CT imaging | Mouse MSCs | Detected in deep tissue at a high resolution; directly labeled; excellent biocompatibility | No apparent influences on viability of MSCs | ||
| QD-based NPs | Complex | Fluorescence imaging | Human MSCs | Longer lifetime than traditional fluorescence dye; photochemical stability | Unsatisfied cytotoxicity and stochastic blinking; the contradiction of sensitivity and definition | No apparent influences on viability of MSCs | |
| UC-based NPs | Complex | UC luminescence imaging | Human MSCs | Detected in deeper tissue; more stable and higher definition | Poor biocompatibility; low uptake for cellular | No apparent influences on viability of MSCs | |
| Silicon-based NPs | Complex | Fluorescence imaging | Human MSCs | Excellent biocompatibility and chemical inertness; easily modified by bioconjugation; good cellular uptake | No apparent influences on viability of MSCs | ||
| Silicon-based NPs | Complex | Photoacoustic imaging | Human MSCs | Good biocompatible and cells tracking capacity; long time | No apparent influences on viability of MSCs | ||
| Other-based NPs | Complex | Aggregation-induced emission imaging | Mouse bone marrow-derived MSCs | Possessing long-term tracking and strong anti-photobleaching ability | No apparent influences on viability of MSCs | ||
| Other-based NPs | Complex | Photoacoustic imaging | Human MSCs | High signal-to-noise; deeper tissue imaging | No apparent influences on viability of MSCs |
FIGURE 1(A) Histological validation showing the presence of MSCs surrounded in connective tissue (CT) and muscle (M) in hematoxylin and eosin at × 10 magnification (scale bar 500 μm). (B) In vivo proton (1H)/fluorine 19 (19F) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic particle imaging (MPI) (adapted Sehl et al., 2019).
FIGURE 2(A) Schematic representation of nanoparticle potential in cell therapy and future impact. (B) Multimodality imaging for tracking mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). (C) Differentiation of MSCs (scale bar 150 μm). (D) Representative phase-contrast images of wound closing. (E) Time-lapse of labeling extracted from video microscopy acquisition. (F) Viability of MSCs after 24-h Gd2O2S:Eu3+ labeling evaluated by MTT. (G) Quantification of MSC labeling with Gd2O2S:Eu3+ expressed as the percentage of cell surface area occupied by NPs (adapted by Santelli et al., 2018).
FIGURE 3(A) Schematic illustration of the synthesis of AA@ICG@PLL gold (Au)-based nanoparticles (NPs). (B) Experimental design for tracking AA@ICG@PLL-labeled MSCs in a silica-induced PF mouse model. (C) Intracellular Au content measured by ICP-MS. (D) Relative viability of BMSCs labeled with AA@ICG@PLL NPs at various Au concentrations. (E) In vivo computed tomography (CT) images of AA@ICG@PLL-labeled BMSCs at 7, 14, and 21 days after transplantation. (F) Bright-field images of Oil Red O staining and ALP staining of NP-loaded and unloaded BMSCs. Scale bar = 20 mm (adapted by Huang et al., 2020). ∗p < 0.05 compared with the unlabeled group.
FIGURE 4(A) A photoluminescence image (PA) of the Ag2S QD-labeled human MSC solution at a density of 4 × 106 cell ml–1. (B) Cell proliferation. Quantification of (C) osteogenic and (D) adipogenic differentiation by measuring the absorbance of Oil-Red O and alizarin red extracted from cell lysates at 404 nm, respectively. (E) The time course of the in vivo near-infrared (NIR) PL images of a healthy mouse after transplantation of Ag2S QD-labeled human MSCs. (F) Higher magnification NIR PL image of mice transplanted with human MSCs only after 2 h (adapted from Chen G. et al., 2015).
FIGURE 5(A) Upconversion (UC)-based NPs synthesis. (B) Cell pretreatment and osteogenic differentiation process. (C) Normalized alkaline phosphatase activity expression by MSCs. (D) Cell viability (adapted by Ma et al., 2016). ∗∗p < 0.01 compared with control group.
FIGURE 6(A) Schematic illustrating the triple functionality of CPMSN@125I-SD for stem cell therapy of brain ischemia. (B) Corresponding average intensities of CPMSN@125I-SD with various cobalt protoporphyrin IX (CoPP) concentrations in the NIR region. (C) Single-photon emission computed tomography imaging (SPECT)/CT images of ischemic mouse brain tissue on different days (0–7 days) after intracerebral injection of the labeled BMSCs (500,000 cells). (D) Cell death assessment for MSCs after treatment with different concentrations of CPMSN@125I-SD (0–100 μg ml–1) and exposure to 100 μM H2O2 for 24 and 48 h. (E) Bar graph showing the quantification of the number of CD31+ cells (adapted from Yao et al., 2020). ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01.
FIGURE 7(A) Illustration of the preparation procedure of OSPNs+ and the photoacoustic labeling of human MSCs after transplantation. (B) The MTT assay of human MSCs treated by OSPNs+ for 12 h under various concentrations. (C) Normalized PA SNR of OSPNs+-labeled hMSCs implanted into mice brain under NIR-I (860 nm) or NIR-II (1,064 nm) light excitation (*p < 0.05). (D) PA imaging of aqueous OSPNs+ solutions (0.573, 0.286, and 0.143 mg/ml) (adapted from Yin et al., 2018).