|Year : 2015 | Volume
| Issue : 5 | Page : 726-742
Advances in regenerative therapies for spinal cord injury: a biomaterials approach
Magdalini Tsintou1, Kyriakos Dalamagkas1, Alexander Marcus Seifalian2
1 UCL Centre for Nanotechnology & Regenerative Medicine, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College of London, UK
2 UCL Centre for Nanotechnology & Regenerative Medicine, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College of London; Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, London, UK
|Date of Acceptance||22-Jan-2015|
|Date of Web Publication||29-May-2015|
Alexander Marcus Seifalian
UCL Centre for Nanotechnology & Regenerative Medicine, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College of London; Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, London
Source of Support: This work was partially funded by the Program "IKY (Greek State Scholarships Foundation) Scholarships" from funds of the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong Learning", of the European Social Fund (ESF) of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF), 2007-2013. It was also partially funded by Scholarships from the A.G. Leventis Foundation, by a Scholarship from John S. Latsis Public Benefit Foundation and by a special Scholarship from the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Thessaly (Greece).
Tsintou M, Dalamagkas K, Seifalian AM (2015) Advances in regenerative therapies for spinal cord injury: a biomaterials approach. Neural Regen Res 10(5):726-742.
, Conflict of Interest: None
Spinal cord injury results in the permanent loss of function, causing enormous personal, social and economic problems. Even though neural regeneration has been proven to be a natural mechanism, central nervous system repair mechanisms are ineffective due to the imbalance of the inhibitory and excitatory factors implicated in neuroregeneration. Therefore, there is growing research interest on discovering a novel therapeutic strategy for effective spinal cord injury repair. To this direction, cell-based delivery strategies, biomolecule delivery strategies as well as scaffold-based therapeutic strategies have been developed with a tendency to seek for the answer to a combinatorial approach of all the above. Here we review the recent advances on regenerative/neural engineering therapies for spinal cord injury, aiming at providing an insight to the most promising repair strategies, in order to facilitate future research conduction.
Keywords: tissue engineering; neuroregeneration; repair; central nervous system; biomaterial; regenerative medicine; nanotechnology; spinal cord injury
|How to cite this article:|
Tsintou M, Dalamagkas K, Seifalian AM. Advances in regenerative therapies for spinal cord injury: a biomaterials approach. Neural Regen Res 2015;10:726-42
|How to cite this URL:|
Tsintou M, Dalamagkas K, Seifalian AM. Advances in regenerative therapies for spinal cord injury: a biomaterials approach. Neural Regen Res [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Nov 20];10:726-42. Available from: http://www.nrronline.org/text.asp?2015/10/5/726/156966
Magdalini Tsintou, Kyriakos Dalamagkas
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Author contributions: MT, KD and AMS were responsible for the conception and design of this review. MT and KD collected all the data, analyzed and interpreted them. MT wrote the paper, KD wrote additional parts and revised them. AMS critically reviewed the paper, was responsible for fundraising and guided the whole review process. All authors approved the final version of this paper.
Conflicts of interest: None declared.
| Introduction|| |
Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a highly debilitating disorder with no effective therapeutic plan until now. Regardless of the extensive research conducted nowadays, it still remains one of the most daunting challenges in all neuroscience research. Due to the development of novel cell-based and scaffold-based treatment strategies with the advances of neural tissue engineering, there are now some promising results that raise hope for the treatment of SCI in the future. Given the rapid pace of the advancement in the field of neural engineering and neuroregeneration, there is a need for constant vigilance. The aim of the current review is to summarize all the current therapeutic options for SCI and brief the scientists for novel emerging therapies of great potential that could soon be applied to the clinic.
SCI is a devastating disorder worldwide. Excluding the number of people who die at the scene of the accident, it is estimated that the annual incidence of SCI is approximately 40 cases per million population in the United States, or, in other words, about 12,000 new cases of SCI patients each year, while at the same time it primarily affects young adults (Sebastià-Alcácer et al., 2013; National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center, March 2013). The main cause of SCI refers to motor vehicle crashes, followed by falls and violent acts (Akdemir et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2013). There is tremendous impact of the disorder to their social, personal and professional life and a great financial and psychological burden for the patient himself and the whole family (Selvarajah et al., 2013). Nevertheless, despite the fact that there are certain benefits on the overall outcome of the SCI patients due to the medical and surgical management, there is currently no effective treatment plan for the major SCI-related neurological deficits (Garcia-Altes et al., 2012; National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center, March 2013). The different types of the injuries, as well as the complex pathophysiology of SCI, may account for the difficulty in establishing an efficient treatment plan (Blesch and Tuszynski, 2009; Lo et al., 2013).
In fact, traumatic injury to the spinal cord can be caused by compression, laceration or contusion, which in turn leads to motor, sensory and/or autonomic deficits at the injured site and below. The range of signs and symptoms (sensory and motor impairment, neuropathic pain, bowel and bladder dysfunction, autonomic dysreflexia, etc.) is dependent on the level and severity of SCI (Akdemir et al., 2013; Ovechkin et al., 2013). The pathophysiology relies on two separate mechanisms: primary injury mechanisms and secondary injury mechanisms (Lis et al., 2013; Silva et al., 2013). In the acute phase of SCI (seconds to minutes after the injury), the initial mechanical impact leads to direct damage of the tissue, meaning hemorrhage, local edema, necrosis, and laceration of the tissue (Kakulas, 2004; Silva et al., 2013). During this phase, various systemic and local events emerge (Hulsebosch, 2002), such as systemic hypotension, spinal shock, vasospasm, plasma membrane compromise, ischemia, neurotransmitter/ionic disturbances (Pineau and Lacroix, 2007; Rowland et al., 2008; Silva et al., 2013). Some of the acute phase events pass into the subacute phase (minutes to weeks after the injury), just like some subacute phase events continue into the chronic phase of SCI (months to years after injury). In the subacute phase, a cascade of secondary events take place, including further edema, vasospasm, excitotoxicity, inflammation, free radical production, lipid peroxidation, ischemia, apoptosis, demyelination and neurotransmitter/electrolyte disturbances (Donnelly and Popovich, 2008; Silva et al., 2013). In the subacute and chronic phases, the central part of the spinal cord contains a lentiform-shaped cyst filled with fluid, while hypertrophic astrocytes are found around that cyst, initiating a process called "cavitation" process (Rowland et al., 2008; Bauchet et al., 2009; Silva et al., 2013) [Figure 1]. Those astrocytes along with other cells secrete extracellular matrix and inhibitory molecules, thereby inhibitory factors such as chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs) get up-regulated locally. In turn, that leads to the glial scar formation, which sets both a physical and a chemical barrier to the process of neuroregeneration (Yiu and He, 2006; Liu et al., 2013b). Interestingly though, it has been observed that the subpial region contains a certain amount of preserved tissue (Hulsebosch, 2002), thereafter, trying to remyelinate the axons of the region is for sure one of the future treatment targets (Mekhail et al., 2012).
|Figure 1 Schematic illustration of glial scarring in spinal cord injury (SCI). |
The figure schematically demonstrates the process of cavitation during the subacute and chronic phases of SCI and the inflammatory response triggered. Around the cyst there are hypertrophic astrocytes initiating the cavitation process. The inflammatory response is shown with inflammatory cells invading the central nervous system from the periphery. Many neuronal axons are interrupted and undergo Wallerian degeneration. From: Obermair et al. (2008). Copyright © and courtesy of the American Physiological Society (2008).
Click here to view
The current therapeutic approach to the SCI patient mainly aims at eliminating further damage to the spinal cord. The spinal cord gets operatively decompressed, any unstable lesions are stabilized and fused, the secondary complications are addressed and the patient enters a rehabilitation program to improve functional outcome (Wilson et al., 2013). Even though they do improve the clinical outcome of SCI patients, no therapeutic approach targets the neurologic deficits after SCI. The ultimate goal for the management of SCI patients is: 1) to reduce cell death and minimize the extent of the injury, while 2) to facilitate the process of neuroregeneration to repair the damaged tissue (Wilcox et al., 2012). To this direction, there are a few ongoing clinical trials which are currently testing the use of neuroprotective agents for SCI patients (Kwon et al., 2011; Tator et al., 2012). This might serve the first part of the aforementioned goal but it is not thought to promote regeneration and tissue repair. Thus, in terms of neuroregeneration, stem cell therapy is thought to provide several attractive potentials for neural repair (Mothe and Tator, 2012; Wilson et al., 2013). Strategies improving the survival and the function of the grafted stem cells are needed, leading to further research to optimize the therapeutic strategies used (Guest et al., 2011; Silva et al., 2013), i.e., stem cell seeding on various biomaterials and scaffolds, growth factor administration, etc.
It is beyond the scope of this review to analyze all the therapeutic approaches for SCI patients. There is a tremendous amount of ongoing research projects, in vivo, in vitro models and clinical trials for SCI, making it hard to follow the advances on the field as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each method tested. There are also many questions, which need to be addressed in order to maximize the efficiency of future research experiments. The aim of this article is to gather all the pieces of this puzzle in order to provide insight into the recent advances on the regenerative therapies for SCI. The main focus is the use of biomaterials, trying to find the missing parts, which will give rise to the future perspectives and facilitate the research of the scientific community worldwide.
| Treatment strategies|| |
Cell-based treatment strategies
There was an accepted dogma for several years up to the 1960s, supporting the opinion that the central nervous system (CNS) has no regenerative ability. Shortly after that period though, specific regions of the adult human brain were found to maintain the capacity for neuroregeneration for a lifetime (Mothe and Tator, 2012; English et al., 2013). In particular, the subependymal zone of the lateral ventricles and the subgranular zone of the hippocampus are two major regions of neuroregeneration in the adult human brain (Aimone et al., 2010; Mothe and Tator, 2012; English et al., 2013). This microenvironment, which facilitates neurogenesis in the subependymal zone and subgranular zone is called neural stem cell niche (Mothe and Tator, 2012; English et al., 2013).
Ever since then, neural stem cells (NSCs) have been isolated from several areas in the CNS (Ourednik et al., 2001; English et al., 2013), opening the pathway for stem cell based therapies to facilitate regenerative processes in the adult brain. Cell-based therapies aim at facilitating neuroregeneration, either directly via having the cells to replace and/or repair the damaged cells themselves or indirectly via secreting factors, which alter the environment, thereafter making it more conductive for regeneration (Miller and Gauthier-Fisher, 2009; Bliss et al., 2010; Mothe and Tator, 2012). Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) (Kode et al., 2009; English et al., 2013; Silva et al., 2013), neural stem/progenitor cells (Kokaia et al., 2012; English et al., 2013; Silva et al., 2013), embryonic stem cells (English et al., 2013; Silva et al., 2013), induced pluripotent stem cells (Willerth SM., 2011; English et al., 2013), and their differentiated progeny have been used as treatment strategies into the injured CNS (Fehlings and Vawda, 2011; Tetzlaff et al., 2011; Thomas KE., 2011; Mothe and Tator, 2012). Recently, ectomesenchymal stem cells have shown promise for spinal cord repair as well (Ibarretxe et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2013a). At the moment, adipose-derived MSCs have been thought to be the most promising cells for tissue engineering since they can easily be obtained in larger quantities than bone marrow (BM). They proliferate more rapidly and undergo more efficient neural differentiation in comparison to BM-MSCs (Zhang et al., 2012). Each of those types of cells can be obtained from various sources [Figure 2] and has its own advantages and disadvantages for treating SCI patients (Fehlings and Vawda, 2011; English et al., 2013), even though this goes beyond the scope of this review.
|Figure 2 The figure demonstrates transplantation of different sources of stem cells into the injured spinal cord. |
The stem cells depicted include neural stem/progenitor cells (NSPCs), induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), skin-derived precursors (SKPs) and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and direct conversion methods are used for yielding nerve cells for transplantation. The differentiation of NSPCs can either lead to oligodendrocyte precursor cells (OPCs), mature oligodendrocytes, astrocytes or neurons depending on the culture conditions and the growth factors exposure. There are certain conditions that can promote OPC generation derived by embryonic stem cells (ESCs) even though by default they differentiate to neural cells. MSCs can be harvested by a variety of different tissues such as the bone marrow, umbilical cord, adipose tissue, muscle and dental pulp from deciduous baby teeth and, in vitro in culture, they show neural cell properties. Many studies have used a variety of methods to reprogram fibroblasts from the skin into iPSCs or even to directly convert them to neurons and NSPCs without the need to pass into the pluripotent stage. This opens a window of great potential for the neural cell transplantation techniques. From: Advances in stem cell therapy for spinal cord injury. (Mothe and Tator, 2012). Copyright © and courtesy of the American Society for Clinical Investigation (2012).
Click here to view
The main issue in regard to this therapeutic approach for CNS disorders, is the limited clinical efficacy of stem cell transplantation techniques primarily due to the inhospitable environment at and around the injury site (inhibitory molecule up-regulation, glial scar formation, inflammation, absence of astrocytes to guide axon regrowth), which lead to the poor cell survival, uncontrolled differentiation and ineffective integration into the host tissue (Parr et al., 2008; Mothe et al., 2013). There are several reports supporting the aforementioned problems. For example, in the adult rat lesioned brain, rosettes (Schulz et al., 2004), teratomas (Brederlau et al., 2006; Sonntag et al., 2007) or cellular masses inducing a gliotic host response have been reported after the free injection of hESC-derived neural cells. After non-human ESC injection, the formation of a mass, showing signs of overgrowth in the core and deformations, has been found (Erdo et al., 2003; Dihne et al., 2006; Hayashi et al., 2006). Since the injection of stem cells can lead to tumor formation (Hansmann et al., 2012), and given that most of the effects obtained with free stem cells injection have been mainly attributed so far to the growth factors rather than the ability of the cells to differentiate and form new tissue (Joyce et al., 2010; English et al., 2013), there was a hypothesis that the delivery of specific growth factors may cause a more favorable outcome in terms of regeneration. It is actually known today that lack of growth factors, as well as inhibiting biomolecules and the lesion cavity itself are some of the factors which inhibit the effective regeneration in CNS (Liu et al., 2013a; Silva et al., 2013) [Figure 3].
|Figure 3 The figure illustrates the various inhibitory factors which are blocking the axon regeneration in the central nervous system (CNS). |
This schematically demonstrates the imbalance within the CNS between the factors inhibiting nerve regeneration and the factors enabling it. The CNS is a "hostile" environment for nerve regeneration after an injury and this is why the nerves can not regrow properly even though there is such a potential. This inhibition can either be central due to the "switched off " growth program of the CNS neurons, or it can be caused by environmental factors around the lesion site. The latter one can be either due to the increase of inhibitory molecules or due to the reduction of promoting factors. Around the lesion site inhibitory molecules of nerve regeneration such as Nogo, MAG, and OMgp, which are being included in the myelin sheath, are up-regulated; the same applies for the inhibitory surface molecules within the extracellular matrix. Contrary to that, neurotrophins, which are growth factors facilitating nerve growth are down-regulated, further inhibiting the regenerative potential within the CNS. Mechanically speaking, it is proven that neurons can not grow well through empty spaces and this is the concept of neural tissue engineering which uses scaffolds to mechanically support neurons to enable their regrowth. From: http://tuszynskilab.ucsd.edu/ rosenz.php Copyright © and courtesy of Dr. Ephron Rosenzweig (2006). With the kind permission of Dr. Ephron Rosenzweig, Center for Neural Repair, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Click here to view
Taking this to the next level, the development of advanced novel biomaterials, which will mimic the natural stem cell niche's microenvironment in order to support the cell growth effectively, while providing structural support at the same time, could hold the key of success in neuroregeneration for SCI.
Biomolecules delivery treatment strategies
Bioactive molecules, such as growth factors, are implicated in neuroregeneration mechanisms since, as mentioned above, the trophic microenvironment plays a crucial role in the whole process. The supporting cells in the neurogenic niches normally release extrinsic factors such as epidermal growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Noggin, Sonic hedgehog, bone morphogenetic protein, etc. (Panchision and McKay, 2002; Jiao and Chen, 2008). In addition, the extracellular matrix proteins (laminin, fibronectin, collagen) of the niches (Kazanis et al., 2010) are highly important for activating stem cell integrins to bind growth factors (Campos et al., 2004); this way they facilitate the formation of a protein scaffold is supportive of the survival, proliferation, migration and differentiation of the cells.
Trying to mimic this system, the delivery of such molecules in the CNS has been pursued in order to promote neural regeneration. The grafted stem cells themselves are capable of producing neurotrophic factors such as nerve growth factor, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, neurotrophin-3, ciliary neurotrophic factor, glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor, leukemia inhibitory factor (Sahni and Kessler, 2010; Hawryluk et al., 2012a; Hawryluk et al., 2012b). Although the proteins such as laminins, fibronectin and collagen I/III and IV (White and Jakeman, 2008; Fortun et al., 2009), promote CNS neural repair, but there are several concerns linked to free stem cell injection for CNS repair (Kozłowska et al., 2007; Sahni and Kessler, 2010). Another option is the in situ growth factor injection, which facilitated neurogenesis and improved functional recovery. Nevertheless, the low permeability of the blood-brain barrier and blood-spinal cord barrier limits diffusion of the molecules (Pardridge, 2012); therefore, conventional delivery strategies require high systemic doses of the growth factors in order to achieve a therapeutic concentration at the injury site, resulting in systemic cytotoxicity. Once again, tumor formation, as well as fibrosis and other undesired effects are possible due to the off-target therapeutic distribution of the molecules (Sahni and Kessler, 2010). To avoid these, local delivery strategies have been pursued. In terms of SCI, the injections into the intrathecal space surrounding the spinal cord can in fact yield higher local concentration of the therapeutic agent, but the rapid distribution and the elimination of the therapeutics by the cerebrospinal fluid affect the efficiency of this method too (Pardridge, 2012). Thus, the encapsulation of growth factors in liposomes, nanoparticles or different kinds of scaffolds is considered a better approach (Mekhail et al., 2012; Collins and Birkinshaw, 2013; Silva et al., 2013). The delivery of the growth factors can be controlled and guided, showing promising research results so far.
Apart from the use of growth factors, drug delivery therapeutic strategies have been applied, affecting different pathways. Some of those include inhibition of inflammatory response (Silva et al., 2013), inhibition of inflammatory angiogenesis, administration of classical immunosuppressives (Hawryluk et al., 2012a; Silva et al., 2013), stimulation of inflammatory response, vaccination with myelin self-antigens (Hauben et al., 2001; Tetzlaff et al., 2011), suppression of myelin-associated inhibitor molecules (e.g., NOGO-A, myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG), OMgp) and its pathways (Borisoff et al., 2003; Wright et al., 2011), and CSPGs digestion (e.g., administration of chondroitinase ABC (ChABC) or hyaluronidase) (Tetzlaff et al., 2011; Wilcox et al., 2012; Silva et al., 2013). Even though some of the above seems controversial, in fact it has been indicated that the inflammatory response has a dual role; therefore, even though acute inflammation leads to increased neuronal loss and reduced neurogenesis (Liu et al., 2012b; Mekhail et al., 2012), there is also growing evidence that inflammation may support neurogenesis and recovery, facilitating the migration of progenitors to the lesion site and the expression of neurotrophic factors (Liu et al., 2012b; Mekhail et al., 2012). In support to that, the inhibition of the Rho/ROCK signaling pathway, which is the pathway activated by the axonal growth-inhibitory molecules (i.e., Nogo, MAP, CSPGs) (Raad et al., 2012; Forgione and Fehlings, 2013; Silva et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2013), has demonstrated beneficial effects via the modulation of the inflammatory response after the injury (Silva et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2013). There have been several studies though which are associated with negative effects, such as increased spinal cord tissue atrophy (Silva et al., 2013), decreased axonal sprouting/regeneration, impaired functional recovery (Sung et al., 2003; Chan et al., 2005) and increased astroglial activation and CSPGs deposition (Chan et al., 2005). A recent promising technique regards the administration of ChABC, which has been shown to degrade CSPGs, allowing significant axon regeneration both in vitro and in vivo (Karimi-Abdolrezaee et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2012a; Silva et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2013; Zhao and Fawcett, 2013). Yet, the short half-life of the enzyme remains an obstacle, which needs to be addressed (Tester et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2012a).
Thus, the complexity of the CNS and its response to the injury imposes the advancement of those strategies or the combination of them with other more effective techniques, which will overcome the obstacles of neuroregeneration in CNS.
Scaffold-based or combination strategies
Scaffold-based strategies have established a very attractive alternative for neuroregeneration after SCI. Scaffolds are, by definition, temporary supporting structures for growing cells and tissues (Murugan and Ramakrishna, 2007; Zhong and Bellamkonda, 2008). Different types of scaffolds have been used for CNS repair, taking into account aspects such as the biodegradability, mechanical strength, channels/fibers, porosity, capability of cell adhesion, and electrical activity of the scaffold (O'Brien, 2011). Up to date, electrospun guidance channels and hydrogels, seem to be very promising for neural engineering in SCI (Liu et al., 2012b, 2013b; Collins and Birkinshaw, 2013; Silva et al., 2013).
Hydrogels are found to be biocompatible implants for SCI repair. They not only can mechanically support the injured spinal cord, forming a local bridge for nerve regeneration, but also can prevent scarring, thereafter creating a permissive environment for tissue regeneration. The three-dimensional porous structure of the hydrogels provides a matrix for the ingrowth of supportive tissue, while it can be combined with other regenerative strategies (i.e., growth factors, stem cells), further contributing to neural regeneration after SCI. They can also be synthesized in large quantities, while they have similar elastic modulus to the spinal cord, something that has been proven to contribute to axonal regrowth. Especially, fabrication of injectable hydrogels is highly beneficial for treatment of SCI since it is a minimally invasive technique and is easily applied by neurosurgeons (Macaya and Spector, 2012).
Electrospun nanofiber guidance channels have also been highly promising, either alone or after being implemented in a hydrogel. Various techniques have been reported to develop nanofibers namely, template synthesis, phase separation, self-assembly, drawing and electrospinning. Among these techniques, electrospinning offers more advantages due to its ease of fabrication (Subramanian et al., 2009). The nanofibres provide a three-dimensional network, which is proven to be better for cell attachment, migration, proliferation and differentiation in comparison to traditional scaffolds (Fan et al., 2013). The fibers morphology and diameter highly resemble to the native extracellular matrix, providing an excellent supportive environment for neuroregeneration. The extent of the axonal ingrowth is dependent on the fibers density and the spatial orientation of the nanofibre layers. There is strong evidence that electrospun nanofibers, especially aligned nanofibers, are suitable for neural tissue engineering due to their extraordinary mechanical strength and high surface area/volume ratio (Liu et al., 2012b).
Scaffolds can often be based on particular extracellular matrix molecules (e.g., fibrin, collagen, fibronectin) (Collins and Birkinshaw, 2013; Li et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2013a; Macaya et al., 2013; Yao et al., 2013), other natural polymers (alginate, agarose, chitosan) (Mekhail et al., 2012; Tan et al., 2012; Collins and Birkinshaw, 2013; Silva et al., 2013) or synthetic polymers (e.g., poly(α-hydroxy acids), poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate), polyethylene glycol) (Xiong et al., 2012; Donoghue et al., 2013; Hejcl et al., 2013; Kubinova et al., 2013). Their aim is to provide structural and active growth support to the damaged axons (Brock et al., 2010; Park et al., 2010; Lu et al., 2012; He and Lu, 2013); some biomaterials can provide both through the biofunctionalization with biologically active peptide sequences (Park et al., 2011; Hejcl et al., 2013; Kubinova et al., 2013). The implantation of a scaffold not only aims at the mechanical and trophic support of the spinal cord, or at the seeding of stem cells to facilitate nerve regeneration, but it also discourages the scar formation through the bridging of the lesion site. To this direction, a study by Liu et al. (2012b) using nanofibrous collagen nerve conduits not only demonstrated that this type of scaffold is capable of promoting neural ingrowth after SCI, but it is also capable of inhibiting glial scar hyperplasia. Therefore, scaffolds can not only be used as space filling agents, but they can also act as bioactive molecule delivery systems (Lu et al., 2012; Macaya et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2013; Zhao and Fawcett, 2013) and as cell delivery systems (Chen et al., 2012; Xiong et al., 2012; Caicco et al., 2013; Hejcl et al., 2013). In the latter cases, their aim is to enhance cell survival and integration after cell transplantation and to achieve local delivery of therapeutic factors locally, avoiding any systemic side effects.
| Materials Used for Scaffold Fabrication|| |
The biomaterials used for scaffold fabrication can be natural or synthetic polymers (degradable or non-degradable). Each of those has its own advantages and disadvantages (Kubinova and Sykova, 2012; Liu et al., 2012b). Natural polymers are easily obtained from natural sources and they have predictable physical, mechanical and biologic properties since they undergo highly controlled synthesis, resulting in regular structures. They are biodegradable and contain signals for cell adhesion, but they are also hard to be sterilized, thereby containing contaminating molecules often. Another thing that we need to consider is the low reproducibility of the research results, since the exact parameters, which affected the experiment, are unknown like their impact on the results (Kubinova and Sykova, 2012; Saracino et al., 2013). The fast biodegradation rate of natural materials (i.e., collagen) and the low mechanical strength come as great disadvantages, which need to be addressed via cross-linking techniques in order to achieve the optimal results (Mitra et al., 2013). On the other hand, synthetic biomaterials are easy to sterilize. Key parameters of the synthetic biomaterials are easily controlled and modified according to our needs (e.g., porosity, architecture, stiffness, degradation rate). Even though they lack recognition signals and they usually have poor biocompatibility, their biofunctionalization can easily overcome such issues (Kubinova and Sykova, 2012; Saracino et al., 2013). Below, we summarize some of the most commonly used biomaterials in the construction of hydrogel scaffolds or conduits [Table 1], [Table 2].
| Studies and Clinical Trials on Regenerative Therapies for SCI|| |
There is a growing number of research studies on regenerative therapies for SCI, since the investigation remains ongoing due to the complexity of the condition and the lack of effective treatments. Some studies have investigated the role of stem cells alone for the treatment of SCI, others have studied the role of growth factor delivery systems in neuroregeneration, while some others have looked into the possibility of developing a novel scaffold to facilitate nerve regeneration or even better combine the aforementioned approaches.
The aim of this section is not to comprehensively analyze the various studies conducted on the field of regenerative medicine in regard to SCI management. However, since there is an enormous amount of information on nerve regeneration for SCI patients, the main concept is to summarize most of the significant advances on neuroregeneration/neural engineering SCI-related research.
Stem cell therapy clinical trials
Ever since 1998, stem cell in vivo studies have started manifesting positive results in terms of CNS repair, leading to a gradually increased number of stem cell clinical trials that are currently running today. The preclinical data of stem cell transplants in SCI models in vivo were that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved the conduction of a human ESC trial in 2009. With the stem cells-related clinical trials reaching almost 5,000, there is a growing number of ongoing [Table 3] and completed clinical trials [Table 4] on CNS repair and SCI in particular.
|Table 3 Currently running stem cell clinical trials for spinal cord injury|
Click here to view
|Table 4 Previously completed stem cell clinical trials for spinal cord injury|
Click here to view
The first attempts from 2005 up to date also assessed the safety of stem cells use, indicating that there are no adverse effects from their use in spinal cord injured people. Several studies have demonstrated that there are functional improvements in the acute and subacute stages of SCI but no significant improvement was manifested in the chronic stage of SCI. The transplantation of autologous Bone Marrow Stromal Cells (BMSCs) also showed improvement in hand-limb function according to one study conducted in Korea. The results of those clinical trials, as well as the results of the ongoing clinical trials of stem cell therapy for SCI are anticipated by 2016 according to the researchers' estimates, in order to provide insight into the effectiveness of stem cells on neuroregeneration. It is definitely too early to jump into conclusions since this research field is still in its infancy.
Tissue engineering therapy studies
On the other hand, tissue engineers have started their own combinatorial approaches in order to help to regenerate neurons in the CNS [Table 5]. The approaches are using scaffolds encapsulated with cells and or embedded with molecules to achieve neural regeneration.
|Table 5 Selected in vivo neural engineering studies for spinal cord injury repair|
Click here to view
Fibrin/fibronectin (Itosaka et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2013a) and collagen (Guo et al., 2007; Han et al., 2009; Hatami et al., 2009; Fan et al., 2010; Cholas et al., 2012) are the mostly used natural biomaterials for scaffolds to be used for neural tissue engineering application in the CNS repair and they have manifested very promising results so far. On the other hand, poly(α-hydroxy acid) are the most commonly used biomaterials for scaffolds in SCI repair from the synthetic biomaterials point of view (Hurtado et al., 2006; Piantino et al., 2006; Olson et al., 2009; Xiong et al., 2012). The stem cells are the most commonly studied supporting cells (Nomura et al., 2008b; Hatami et al., 2009; Itosaka et al., 2009; Gros et al., 2010; Mothe et al., 2013; Ribeiro-Samy et al., 2013), followed by Schwann cells (SCs) (Hurtado et al., 2006; Guo et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2007; Olson et al., 2009; Suri and Schmidt, 2010; Xiong et al., 2012). Other cell types have also been studied though, such as modified SCs releasing various neurotrophic factors (Hurtado et al., 2006), neonatal astroglial cells (Joosten et al., 2004), nasal olfactory mucosal cells (Rochkind et al., 2006; Ribeiro-Samy et al., 2013), human embryonic spinal cord cells (Rochkind et al., 2006; Lu et al., 2012), embryonic nerve cells (Yarygin et al., 2006), neural stem cells-derived progenitor cells (Nomura et al., 2008b; Li et al., 2013; Mothe et al., 2013), human embryonic stem cells-derived neuronal progenitor cells (Hatami et al., 2009) and recently ectomesenchymal stem cells (Liu et al., 2013a). The transplanted cell survival has been shown to be prolonged in most of the studies, even though there are studies which withhold the respective information (Rochkind et al., 2006; Pan et al., 2008; Gros et al., 2010). Even though in most studies stem cells seem to remain undifferentiated, there are studies commenting on the increased differentiation of stem cells into neuronal cell lines in the presence of 3D collagen (Guo et al., 2007; Hatami et al., 2009; Li et al., 2013), and fibrin scaffolds (Pan et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2013a).
In terms of the neurotrophic factors, most studies have used the NT-3 (Johnson et al., 2009; Fan et al., 2010; Gros et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2012a; Xiong et al., 2012; Yao et al., 2013), or BDNF (Hurtado et al., 2006; Stokols et al., 2006; Han et al., 2009; Horne et al., 2010), NGF (King et al., 2003; Iwata et al., 2006) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (Pan et al., 2008). Scaffold binding domains (Han et al., 2009; Fan et al., 2010; Kubinova et al., 2013) as well as heparin-based delivery systems (Johnson et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2012a) are some of the delivery methods commonly employed. Interestingly, a dose-response curve for axonal regeneration has been shown by Johnson et al. (2009), suggesting that a target delivery of 500 ng/mL of NT-3 incurs more growth in comparison with a delivery of 1,000 ng/mL.
Still, all those attempts are limited to in vivo animal models and mainly to transection (Nomura et al., 2008b; Pan et al., 2008; Olson et al., 2009; Fan et al., 2010; Gros et al., 2010; Lu et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2013a; Zhao and Fawcett, 2013) or hemisection models (Han et al., 2009; Hatami et al., 2009; Itosaka et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2009; Hejcl et al., 2013; Kubinova et al., 2013; Li et al., 2013; Ribeiro-Samy et al., 2013), with promising results so far. The majority of publications reported axonal regeneration with only a couple of exceptions (Hatami et al., 2009; Itosaka et al., 2009). The most significant study so far seems to be the study of Lu et al. (2012) which has manifested a rapid, enormous growth of axons in high density, with elongation rates of 1-2 mm per day, despite the inhibitory white matter, after having grafted fibrin matrices, which were embedded with green fluorescent protein (GFP)-expressing NSCs, and also contained growth factors cocktails, to sites of severe SCI. It is evident that the fibrin matrices along with the growth factors cocktail could trigger long-distance axonal growth, leading to the functional improvement of severe SCI models, with no need of manipulating the inhibitory environment of the adult CNS. This study might soon lead to the initiation of clinical trials on SCI repair in humans, but once again further studies need to be conducted in order to secure those promising results and optimize the techniques to achieve a better outcome.
| Conclusion and Future Perspectives|| |
While stem cells alone have been investigated before as a potential answer for nerve regeneration, there is now a growing number of researchers who are turning to tissue engineering or even better to combinatorial approaches which are more likely to give the answer. It is the complexity of the condition of SCI itself, which urges researchers to seek for a combinatorial approach. This approach could, thereafter, provide not only structural support, but also a trophic microenvironment via biomolecule and cell delivery strategies, in order to mimic nature, trying to achieve effective neuroregeneration and functional improvement in SCI patients.
Some of these approaches have shown promising results in vitro and have also met some success in small-animal models, promoting nerve regeneration. Stem cells therapeutic strategies have even reached the stage of clinical trials, but it is too early to determine the effectiveness on neuroregeneration. Most of the studies were conducted to test the safety of stem cell use during the acute or subacute stages of SCI, so more studies are needed, especially during the chronic stage of SCI in order to investigate the real regenerative capacity of stem cells transplanted to SCI patients.
On the other hand, tissue engineering techniques have developed a variety of scaffolds taking into account the biodegradability, mechanical strength, channels/fibers, porosity, cell adhesion-capability or electrical activity of the scaffolds. There are many factors which seem to influence the effectiveness of a scaffold. It is suggested that the biomaterials used in a scaffold should have similar mechanical properties to the spinal cord.
Given that the elastic modulus of the spinal cord (including pia/dura) is approximately 230 kPa (Dalton et al., 2002), while that of the gray/white matter is 2-5 kPa (Ozawa et al., 2001), there is a tendency to consider that an elastic modulus between 2-230 kPa could be the range for an ideal scaffold construction. Therefore, hydrogels have preferable properties for SCI repair, even though gel patterning in a relatively new approach in this area of research. Another parameter which is widely discussed is whether nano- or micro-scale fibers are better for SCI repair with an increasing number of researchers supporting the necessity to go for the nanoscale in the CNS to achieve better outcomes (Xie et al., 2009; Silva et al., 2013). The different fabrication and micro-patterning techniques of conduits or hydrogels have provided such a wide variety of options that the studies are hard to follow. For now, electrospinning, self-assembly and phase separation techniques seem to be very promising for designing a good scaffold for SCI repair (Kubinova and Sykova, 2012; Tan et al., 2012). In addition, the 3D architecture of CNS imposes to seek better patterning techniques, since most of them are currently producing only 2D structures. While the biomaterial choice seems crucial for scaffold fabrication, researchers have not yet determined the optimal choice of biomaterial for CNS repair. Fibrin/fibronectin and collagen-based scaffolds seem to manifest currently the more promising results though. As for the nanofibers, not only the alignment of the fibers in a scaffold is significant, but also there is also evidence suggesting that the density of the fibers can also affect the outcome (Lanfer et al., 2010).
Taken all together, it is well understood that there is room for major research advances on neural tissue engineering in order to investigate all the different parameters which could help to optimize the results in terms of neuroregeneration in SCI. The combination of the scaffolds with stem cells and/or growth factors and biomolecules such as the enzyme ChABC seems beneficial in order to regulate the balance between the inhibitory and excitatory factors implicated in neuroregeneration. Thus, it is more and more prominent that a combinatorial therapeutic approach will be the one that will probably provide the conclusive solution to the complex problem of SCI repair.
| References|| |
Aimone JB, Deng W, Gage FH (2010) Adult neurogenesis: integrating theories and separating functions. Trends Cogn Sci 14:325-337.
Akdemir HU, Aygün D, Katı C, Altuntaº M, Çokluk C (2013) Three-year experience in the Emergency Department: the approach to patients with spinal trauma and their prognosis. Ulus Travma Acil Cerr Derg 19:441-448.
Austin JW, Kang CE, Baumann MD, DiDiodato L, Satkunendrarajah K, Wilson JR, Stanisz GJ, Shoichet MS, Fehlings MG (2012) The effects of intrathecal injection of a hyaluronan-based hydrogel on inflammation, scarring and neurobehavioural outcomes in a rat model of severe spinal cord injury associated with arachnoiditis. Biomaterials 33:4555-4564.
Bauchet L, Lonjon N, Perrin FE, Gilbert C, Privat A, Fattal C (2009) Strategies for spinal cord repair after injury: a review of the literature and information. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 52:330-351.
Blesch A, Tuszynski MH (2009) Spinal cord injury: plasticity, regeneration and the challenge of translational drug development. Trends Neurosci 32:41-47.
Bliss TM, Andres RH, Steinberg GK (2010) Optimizing the success of cell transplantation therapy for stroke. Neurobiol Dis 37:275-283.
Borisoff JF, Chan CC, Hiebert GW, Oschipok L, Robertson GS, Zamboni R, Steeves JD, Tetzlaff W (2003) Suppression of Rho-kinase activity promotes axonal growth on inhibitory CNS substrates. Mol Cell Neurosci 22:405-416.
Brederlau A, Correia AS, Anisimov SV, Elmi M, Paul G, Roybon L, Morizane A, Bergquist F, Riebe I, Nannmark U, Carta M, Hanse E, Takahashi J, Sasai Y, Funa K, Brundin P, Eriksson PS, Li JY (2006) Transplantation of human embryonic stem cell-derived cells to a rat model of Parkinson's disease: effect of in vitro differentiation on graft survival and teratoma formation. Stem Cells 24:1433-1440.
Brock JH, Rosenzweig ES, Blesch A, Moseanko R, Havton LA, Edgerton VR, Tuszynski MH (2010) Local and remote growth factor effects after primate spinal cord injury. J Neurosci 30:9728-9737.
Caicco MJ, Zahir T, Mothe AJ, Ballios BG, Kihm AJ, Tator CH, Shoichet MS (2013) Characterization of hyaluronan-methylcellulose hydrogels for cell delivery to the injured spinal cord. J Biomed Mater Res A 101:1472-1477.
Callera F, do Nascimento RX (2006) Delivery of autologous bone marrow precursor cells into the spinal cord via lumbar puncture technique in patients with spinal cord injury: a preliminary safety study. Exp Hematol 34:130-131.
Campos LS, Leone DP, Relvas JB, Brakebusch C, Fässler R, Suter U, ffrench-Constant C (2004) Beta1 integrins activate a MAPK signalling pathway in neural stem cells that contributes to their maintenance. Development 131:3433-3444.
Chan CC, Khodarahmi K, Liu J, Sutherland D, Oschipok LW, Steeves JD, Tetzlaff W (2005) Dose-dependent beneficial and detrimental effects of ROCK inhibitor Y27632 on axonal sprouting and functional recovery after rat spinal cord injury. Exp Neurol 196:352-364.
Chen N, Zhang Z, Soontornworajit B, Zhou J, Wang Y (2012) Cell adhesion on an artificial extracellular matrix using aptamer-functionalized PEG hydrogels. Biomaterials 33:1353-1362.
Chen Y, Tang Y, Vogel LC, Devivo MJ (2013) Causes of spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 19:1-8.
Cholas RH, Hsu HP, Spector M (2012) The reparative response to cross-linked collagen-based scaffolds in a rat spinal cord gap model. Biomaterials 33:2050-2059.
Collins MN, Birkinshaw C (2013) Hyaluronic acid based scaffolds for tissue engineering--a review. Carbohydr Polym 92:1262-1279.
Crompton KE, Tomas D, Finkelstein DI, Marr M, Forsythe JS, Horne MK (2006) Inflammatory response on injection of chitosan/GP to the brain. J Mater Sci Mater Med 17:633-639.
Dalton PD, Flynn L, Shoichet MS (2002) Manufacture of poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-co-methyl methacrylate) hydrogel tubes for use as nerve guidance channels. Biomaterials 23:3843-3851.
Dihne M, Bernreuther C, Hagel C, Wesche KO, Schachner M (2006) Embryonic stem cell-derived neuronally committed precursor cells with reduced teratoma formation after transplantation into the lesioned adult mouse brain. Stem Cells 24:1458-1466.
Donnelly DJ, Popovich PG (2008) Inflammation and its role in neuroprotection, axonal regeneration and functional recovery after spinal cord injury. Exp Neurol 209:378-388.
Donoghue PS, Lamond R, Boomkamp SD, Sun T, Gadegaard N, Riehle MO, Barnett SC (2013) The development of a epsilon-polycaprolactone scaffold for central nervous system repair. Tissue Eng Part A 19:497-507.
English D, Sharma NK, Sharma K, Anand A (2013) Neural stem cells-trends and advances. J Cell Biochem 114:764-772.
Erdo F, Buhrle C, Blunk J, Hoehn M, Xia Y, Fleischmann B, Focking M, Kustermann E, Kolossov E, Hescheler J, Hossmann KA, Trapp T (2003) Host-dependent tumorigenesis of embryonic stem cell transplantation in experimental stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 23:780-785.
Fan J, Xiao Z, Zhang H, Chen B, Tang G, Hou X, Ding W, Wang B, Zhang P, Dai J, Xu R (2010) Linear ordered collagen scaffolds loaded with collagen-binding neurotrophin-3 promotes axonal regeneration and partial functional recovery after complete spinal cord transection. J Neurotrauma 27:1671-1683.
Fan Z, Shen Y, Zhang F, Zuo B, Lu Q, Wu P, Xie Z, Dong Q, Zhang H (2013) Control of olfactory ensheathing cell behaviors by electrospun silk fibroin fibers. Cell Transplant 22 Suppl 1:S39-50.
Fehlings MG, Vawda R (2011) Cellular treatments for spinal cord injury: the time is right for clinical trials. Neurotherapeutics 8:704-720.
Forgione N, Fehlings MG (2013) Rho-ROCK Inhibition in the Treatment of Spinal Cord Injury. World Neurosurg.
Fortun J, Hill CE, Bunge MB (2009) Combinatorial strategies with Schwann cell transplantation to improve repair of the injured spinal cord. Neurosci Lett 456:124-132.
Freier T, Koh HS, Kazazian K, Shoichet MS (2005) Controlling cell adhesion and degradation of chitosan films by N-acetylation. Biomaterials 26:5872-5878.
Garcia-Altes A, Perez K, Novoa A, Suelves JM, Bernabeu M, Vidal J, Arrufat V, Santamarina-Rubio E, Ferrando J, Cogollos M, Cantera CM, Luque JC (2012) Spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury: a cost-of-illness study. Neuroepidemiology 39:103-108.
Geffner LF, Santacruz P, Izurieta M, Flor L, Maldonado B, Auad AH, Montenegro X, Gonzalez R, Silva F (2008) Administration of autologous bone marrow stem cells into spinal cord injury patients via multiple routes is safe and improves their quality of life: comprehensive case studies. Cell Transplant 17:1277-1293.
Gros T, Sakamoto JS, Blesch A, Havton LA, Tuszynski MH (2010) Regeneration of long-tract axons through sites of spinal cord injury using templated agarose scaffolds. Biomaterials 31:6719-6729.
Guest J, Benavides F, Padgett K, Mendez E, Tovar D (2011) Technical aspects of spinal cord injections for cell transplantation. Clinical and translational considerations. Brain Res Bull 84:267-279.
Guo JS, Zeng YS, Li HB, Huang WL, Liu RY, Li XB, Ding Y, Wu LZ, Cai DZ (2007) Cotransplant of neural stem cells and NT-3 gene modified Schwann cells promote the recovery of transected spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 45:15-24.
Han Q, Sun W, Lin H, Zhao W, Gao Y, Zhao Y, Chen B, Xiao Z, Hu W, Li Y, Yang B, Dai J (2009) Linear ordered collagen scaffolds loaded with collagen-binding brain-derived neurotrophic factor improve the recovery of spinal cord injury in rats. Tissue Eng Part A 15:2927-2935.
Hansmann F, Pringproa K, Ulrich R, Sun Y, Herder V, Kreutzer M, Baumg?rtner W, Wewetzer K (2012) Highly malignant behavior of a murine oligodendrocyte precursor cell line following transplantation into the demyelinated and nondemyelinated central nervous system. Cell Transplant 21:1161-1175.
Hatami M, Mehrjardi NZ, Kiani S, Hemmesi K, Azizi H, Shahverdi A, Baharvand H (2009) Human embryonic stem cell-derived neural precursor transplants in collagen scaffolds promote recovery in injured rat spinal cord. Cytotherapy 11:618-630.
Hauben E, Ibarra A, Mizrahi T, Barouch R, Agranov E, Schwartz M (2001) Vaccination with a Nogo-A-derived peptide after incomplete spinal-cord injury promotes recovery via a T-cell-mediated neuroprotective response: comparison with other myelin antigens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:15173-15178.
Hawryluk GW, Mothe A, Wang J, Wang S, Tator C, Fehlings MG (2012a) An in vivo characterization of trophic factor production following neural precursor cell or bone marrow stromal cell transplantation for spinal cord injury. Stem Cells Dev 21:2222-2238.
Hawryluk GW, Mothe AJ, Chamankhah M, Wang J, Tator C, Fehlings MG (2012b) In vitro characterization of trophic factor expression in neural precursor cells. Stem Cells Dev 21:432-447.
Hayashi J, Takagi Y, Fukuda H, Imazato T, Nishimura M, Fujimoto M, Takahashi J, Hashimoto N, Nozaki K (2006) Primate embryonic stem cell-derived neuronal progenitors transplanted into ischemic brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 26:906-914.
He L, Lu QR (2013) Coordinated control of oligodendrocyte development by extrinsic and intrinsic signaling cues. Neurosci Bull 29:129-143.
Hejcl A, Ruzicka J, Kapcalova M, Turnovcova K, Krumbholcova E, Pradny M, Michalek J, Cihlar J, Jendelova P, Sykova E (2013) Adjusting the chemical and physical properties of hydrogels leads to improved stem cell survival and tissue ingrowth in spinal cord injury reconstruction: a comparative study of four methacrylate hydrogels. Stem Cells Dev 22:2794-2805.
Hejcl A, Urdzikova L, Sedy J, Lesny P, Pradny M, Michalek J, Burian M, Hajek M, Zamecnik J, Jendelova P, Sykova E (2008) Acute and delayed implantation of positively charged 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate scaffolds in spinal cord injury in the rat. J Neurosurg Spine 8:67-73.
Hiemstra C, van der Aa LJ, Zhong ZY, Dijkstra PJ, Feijen J (2007) Rapidly in situ-forming degradable hydrogels from dextran thiols through michael addition. Biomacromolecules 8:1548-1556.
Horne MK, Nisbet DR, Forsythe JS, Parish CL (2010) Three-dimensional nanofibrous scaffolds incorporating immobilized BDNF promote proliferation and differentiation of cortical neural stem cells. Stem Cells Dev 19:843-852.
Hulsebosch CE (2002) Recent advances in pathophysiology and treatment of spinal cord injury. Adv Physiol Educ 26:238-255.
Hung CH, Lin YL, Young TH (2006) The effect of chitosan and PVDF substrates on the behavior of embryonic rat cerebral cortical stem cells. Biomaterials 27:4461-4469.
Hurtado A, Moon LD, Maquet V, Blits B, Jerome R, Oudega M (2006) Poly (D,L-lactic acid) macroporous guidance scaffolds seeded with Schwann cells genetically modified to secrete a bi-functional neurotrophin implanted in the completely transected adult rat thoracic spinal cord. Biomaterials 27:430-442.
Ibarretxe G, Crende O, Aurrekoetxea M, Garcia-Murga V, Etxaniz J, Unda F (2012) Neural crest stem cells from dental tissues: a new hope for dental and neural regeneration. Stem Cells Int 2012: 103503.
Itosaka H, Kuroda S, Shichinohe H, Yasuda H, Yano S, Kamei S, Kawamura R, Hida K, Iwasaki Y (2009) Fibrin matrix provides a suitable scaffold for bone marrow stromal cells transplanted into injured spinal cord: a novel material for CNS tissue engineering. Neuropathology 29:248-257.
Iwata A, Browne KD, Pfister BJ, Gruner JA, Smith DH (2006) Long-term survival and outgrowth of mechanically engineered nervous tissue constructs implanted into spinal cord lesions. Tissue Eng 12:101-110.
Jiao J, Chen DF (2008) Induction of neurogenesis in non-conventional neurogenic regions of the adult central nervous system by niche astrocyte-produced signals. Stem Cells 26:1221-1230.
Johnson PJ, Parker SR, Sakiyama-Elbert SE (2009) Controlled release of neurotrophin-3 from fibrin-based tissue engineering scaffolds enhances neural fiber sprouting following subacute spinal cord injury. Biotechnol Bioeng 104:1207-1214.
Joosten EA, Veldhuis WB, Hamers FP (2004) Collagen containing neonatal astrocytes stimulates regrowth of injured fibers and promotes modest locomotor recovery after spinal cord injury. J Neurosci Res 77:127-142.
Joyce N, Annett G, Wirthlin L, Olson S, Bauer G, Nolta JA (2010) Mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of neurodegenerative disease. Regen Med 5:933-946.
Kakulas BA (2004) Neuropathology: the foundation for new treatments in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 42:549-563.
Karimi-Abdolrezaee S, Schut D, Wang J, Fehlings MG (2012) Chondroitinase and growth factors enhance activation and oligodendrocyte differentiation of endogenous neural precursor cells after spinal cord injury. PLoS One 7:e37589.
Kazanis I, Lathia JD, Vadakkan TJ, Raborn E, Wan R, Mughal MR, Eckley DM, Sasaki T, Patton B, Mattson MP, Hirschi KK, Dickinson ME, ffrench-Constant C (2010) Quiescence and activation of stem and precursor cell populations in the subependymal zone of the mammalian brain are associated with distinct cellular and extracellular matrix signals. J Neurosci 30:9771-9781.
King VR, Henseler M, Brown RA, Priestley JV (2003) Mats made from fibronectin support oriented growth of axons in the damaged spinal cord of the adult rat. Exp Neurol 182:383-398.
King VR, Alovskaya A, Wei DY, Brown RA, Priestley JV (2010) The use of injectable forms of fibrin and fibronectin to support axonal ingrowth after spinal cord injury. Biomaterials 31:4447-4456.
Kode JA, Mukherjee S, Joglekar MV, Hardikar AA (2009) Mesenchymal stem cells: immunobiology and role in immunomodulation and tissue regeneration. Cytotherapy 11:377-391.
Kokaia Z, Martino G, Schwartz M, Lindvall O (2012) Cross-talk between neural stem cells and immune cells: the key to better brain repair? Nat Neurosci 15:1078-1087.
Kozłowska H, Jabłonka J, Janowski M, Jurga M, Kossut M, Domañska-Janik K (2007) Transplantation of a novel human cord blood-derived neural-like stem cell line in a rat model of cortical infarct. Stem Cells Dev 16:481-488.
Kubinova S, Sykova E (2012) Biomaterials combined with cell therapy for treatment of spinal cord injury. Regen Med 7:207-224.
Kubinova S, Horak D, Hejcl A, Plichta Z, Kotek J, Proks V, Forostyak S, Sykova E (2013) SIKVAV-modified highly superporous PHEMA scaffolds with oriented pores for spinal cord injury repair. J Tissue Eng Regen Med doi: 10.1002/term.1694.
Kwon BK, Okon E, Hillyer J, Mann C, Baptiste D, Weaver LC, Fehlings MG, Tetzlaff W (2011) A systematic review of non-invasive pharmacologicneuroprotective treatments for acute spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma 28:1545-1588.
Lanfer B, Hermann A, Kirsch M, Freudenberg U, Reuner U, Werner C, Storch A (2010) Directed growth of adult human white matter stem cell-derived neurons on aligned fibrillar collagen. Tissue Eng Part A 16:1103-1113.
Lee JY, Bashur CA, Goldstein AS, Schmidt CE (2009) Polypyrrole-coated electrospun PLGA nanofibers for neural tissue applications. Biomaterials 30:4325-4335.
Li X, Yang Z, Zhang A (2009) The effect of neurotrophin-3/chitosan carriers on the proliferation and differentiation of neural stem cells. Biomaterials 30:4978-4985.
Li X, Xiao Z, Han J, Chen L, Xiao H, Ma F, Hou X, Li X, Sun J, Ding W, Zhao Y, Chen B, Dai J (2013) Promotion of neuronal differentiation of neural progenitor cells by using EGFR antibody functionalized collagen scaffolds for spinal cord injury repair. Biomaterials 34:5107-5116.
Lis A, Szarek D, Laska J (2013) Biomaterials engineering strategies for spinal cord regeneration: state of the art. Polim Med 43:59-80.
Liu J, Chen Q, Zhang Z, Zheng Y, Sun X, Cao X, Gong A, Cui Y, He Q, Jiang P (2013a) Fibrin scaffolds containing ectomesenchymal stem cells enhance behavioral and histological improvement in a rat model of spinal cord injury. Cells Tissues Organs 198:35-46.
Liu T, Xu J, Chan BP, Chew SY (2012a) Sustained release of neurotrophin-3 and chondroitinase ABC from electrospun collagen nanofiber scaffold for spinal cord injury repair. J Biomed Mater Res A 100:236-242.
Liu T, Houle JD, Xu J, Chan BP, Chew SY (2012b) Nanofibrous collagen nerve conduits for spinal cord repair. Tissue Eng Part A 18:1057-1066.
Liu Y, Ye H, Satkunendrarajah K, Yao GS, Bayon Y, Fehlings MG (2013b) A self-assembling peptide reduces glial scarring, attenuates post-traumatic inflammation and promotes neurological recovery following spinal cord injury. Acta Biomater 9:8075-8088.
Lo V, Esquenazi Y, Han MK, Lee K (2013) Critical care management of patients with acute spinal cord injury. J Neurosurg Sci 57:281-292.
Lu P, Wang Y, Graham L, McHale K, Gao M, Wu D, Brock J, Blesch A, Rosenzweig ES, Havton LA, Zheng B, Conner JM, Marsala M, Tuszynski MH (2012) Long-distance growth and connectivity of neural stem cells after severe spinal cord injury. Cell 150:1264-1273.
Macaya D, Spector M (2012) Injectable hydrogel materials for spinal cord regeneration: a review. Biomed Mater 7:012001.
Macaya DJ, Hayakawa K, Arai K, Spector M (2013) Astrocyte infiltration into injectable collagen-based hydrogels containing FGF-2 to treat spinal cord injury. Biomaterials 34:3591-3602.
Mekhail M, Almazan G, Tabrizian M (2012) Oligodendrocyte-protection and remyelination post-spinal cord injuries: A review. Prog Neurobiol 96:322-339.
Miller FD, Gauthier-Fisher A (2009) Home at last: neural stem cell niches defined. Cell Stem Cell 4:507-510.
Mitra T, Sailakshmi G, Gnanamani A, Mandal AB (2013) Studies on Cross-linking of succinic acid with chitosan/collagen. Mater Res 16:755-765.
Moon LD, Leasure JL, Gage FH, Bunge MB (2006) Motor enrichment sustains hindlimb movement recovered after spinal cord injury and glial transplantation. Restor Neurol Neurosci 24:147-161.
Mothe AJ, Tator CH (2012) Advances in stem cell therapy for spinal cord injury. J Clin Invest 122:3824-3834.
Mothe AJ, Tam RY, Zahir T, Tator CH, Shoichet MS (2013) Repair of the injured spinal cord by transplantation of neural stem cells in a hyaluronan-based hydrogel. Biomaterials 34:3775-3783.
Murugan R, Ramakrishna S (2007) Design strategies of tissue engineering scaffolds with controlled fiber orientation. Tissue Eng 13:1845-1866.
National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (March 2013) Facts and Figures At a Glance. In.
Nomura H, Baladie B, Katayama Y, Morshead CM, Shoichet MS, Tator CH (2008a) Delayed implantation of intramedullary chitosan channels containing nerve grafts promotes extensive axonal regeneration after spinal cord injury. Neurosurgery 63:127-141; discussion 141-123.
Nomura H, Zahir T, Kim H, Katayama Y, Kulbatski I, Morshead CM, Shoichet MS, Tator CH (2008b) Extramedullary chitosan channels promote survival of transplanted neural stem and progenitor cells and create a tissue bridge after complete spinal cord transection. Tissue Eng Part A 14:649-665.
Novikova LN, Pettersson J, Brohlin M, Wiberg M, Novikov LN (2008) Biodegradable poly-beta-hydroxybutyrate scaffold seeded with Schwann cells to promote spinal cord repair. Biomaterials 29:1198-1206.
O'Brien FJ (2011) Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Materials Today 14:88-95.
Obermair FJ, Schroter A, Thallmair M (2008) Endogenous neural progenitor cells as therapeutic target after spinal cord injury. Physiology (Bethesda) 23:296-304.
Olson HE, Rooney GE, Gross L, Nesbitt JJ, Galvin KE, Knight A, Chen B, Yaszemski MJ, Windebank AJ (2009) Neural stem cell- and Schwann cell-loaded biodegradable polymer scaffolds support axonal regeneration in the transected spinal cord. Tissue Eng Part A 15:1797-1805.
Ourednik V, Ourednik J, Flax JD, Zawada WM, Hutt C, Yang C, Park KI, Kim SU, Sidman RL, Freed CR, Snyder EY (2001) Segregation of human neural stem cells in the developing primate forebrain. Science 293:1820-1824.
Ovechkin AV, Vitaz TW, Terson de Paleville DG, McKay WB (2013) Quality of residual neuromuscular control and functional deficits in patients with spinal cord injury. Front Neurol 4:174.
Ozawa H, Matsumoto T, Ohashi T, Sato M, Kokubun S (2001) Comparison of spinal cord gray matter and white matter softness: measurement by pipette aspiration method. J Neurosurg 95:221-224.
Pan HC, Cheng FC, Lai SZ, Yang DY, Wang YC, Lee MS (2008) Enhanced regeneration in spinal cord injury by concomitant treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and neuronal stem cells. J Clin Neurosci 15:656-664.
Panchision DM, McKay RD (2002) The control of neural stem cells by morphogenic signals. Curr Opin Genet Dev 12:478-487.
Pardridge WM (2012) Drug transport across the blood-brain barrier. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 32:1959-1972.
Park D, Wu W, Wang Y (2011) A functionalizable reverse thermal gel based on a polyurethane/PEG block copolymer. Biomaterials 32:777-786.
Park J, Lim E, Back S, Na H, Park Y, Sun K (2010) Nerve regeneration following spinal cord injury using matrix metalloproteinase-sensitive, hyaluronic acid-based biomimetic hydrogel scaffold containing brain-derived neurotrophic factor. J Biomed Mater Res A 93:1091-1099.
Park JH, Kim DY, Sung IY, Choi GH, Jeon MH, Kim KK, Jeon SR (2012) Long-term results of spinal cord injury therapy using mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow in humans. Neurosurgery 70:1238-1247.
Parr AM, Kulbatski I, Zahir T, Wang X, Yue C, Keating A, Tator CH (2008) Transplanted adult spinal cord-derived neural stem/progenitor cells promote early functional recovery after rat spinal cord injury. Neuroscience 155:760-770.
Piantino J, Burdick JA, Goldberg D, Langer R, Benowitz LI (2006) An injectable, biodegradable hydrogel for trophic factor delivery enhances axonal rewiring and improves performance after spinal cord injury. Exp Neurol 201:359-367.
Pineau I, Lacroix S (2007) Proinflammatory cytokine synthesis in the injured mouse spinal cord: multiphasic expression pattern and identification of the cell types involved. J Comp Neurol 500:267-285.
Ra JC, Shin IS, Kim SH, Kang SK, Kang BC, Lee HY, Kim YJ, Jo JY, Yoon EJ, Choi HJ, Kwon E (2011) Safety of intravenous infusion of human adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells in animals and humans. Stem Cells Dev 20:1297-1308.
Raad M, El Tal T, Gul R, Mondello S, Zhang Z, Boustany RM, Guingab J, Wang KK, Kobeissy F (2012) Neuroproteomics approach and neurosystems biology analysis: ROCK inhibitors as promising therapeutic targets in neurodegeneration and neurotrauma. Electrophoresis 33:3659-3668.
Ribeiro-Samy S, Silva NA, Correlo VM, Fraga JS, Pinto L, Teixeira-Castro A, Leite-Almeida H, Almeida A, Gimble JM, Sousa N, Salgado AJ, Reis RL (2013) Development and characterization of a PHB-HV-based 3D scaffold for a tissue engineering and cell-therapy combinatorial approach for spinal cord injury regeneration. Macromol Biosci 13:1576-1592.
Rochkind S, Shahar A, Fliss D, El-Ani D, Astachov L, Hayon T, Alon M, Zamostiano R, Ayalon O, Biton IE, Cohen Y, Halperin R, Schneider D, Oron A, Nevo Z (2006) Development of a tissue-engineered composite implant for treating traumatic paraplegia in rats. Eur Spine J 15:234-245.
Rowland JW, Hawryluk GW, Kwon B, Fehlings MG (2008) Current status of acute spinal cord injury pathophysiology and emerging therapies: promise on the horizon. Neurosurg Focus 25:E2.
Sahni V, Kessler JA (2010) Stem cell therapies for spinal cord injury. Nat Rev Neurol 6:363-372.
Saracino GA, Cigognini D, Silva D, Caprini A, Gelain F (2013) Nanomaterials design and tests for neural tissue engineering. Chem Soc Rev 42:225-262.
Schulz TC, Noggle SA, Palmarini GM, Weiler DA, Lyons IG, Pensa KA, Meedeniya AC, Davidson BP, Lambert NA, Condie BG (2004) Differentiation of human embryonic stem cells to dopaminergic neurons in serum-free suspension culture. Stem Cells 22:1218-1238.
Sebastià-Alcácer V, Alcanyis-Alberola M, Giner-Pascual M, Gomez-Pajares F (2014) Are the characteristics of the patient with a spinal cord injury changing? Spinal Cord 52:29-33.
Selvarajah S, Hammond ER, Haider AH, Abularrage CJ, Becker D, Dhiman N, Hyder O, Gupta D, Black JH 3rd, Schneider EB (2014) The burden of acute traumatic spinal cord injury among adults in the united states: an update. J Neurotrauma 31:228-238.
Silva NA, Sousa N, Reis RL, Salgado AJ (2014) From basics to clinical: A comprehensive review on spinal cord injury. Prog Neurobiol 114:25-57.
Sonntag KC, Pruszak J, Yoshizaki T, van Arensbergen J, Sanchez-Pernaute R, Isacson O (2007) Enhanced yield of neuroepithelial precursors and midbrain-like dopaminergic neurons from human embryonic stem cells using the bone morphogenic protein antagonist noggin. Stem Cells 25:411-418.
Stokols S, Sakamoto J, Breckon C, Holt T, Weiss J, Tuszynski MH (2006) Templated agarose scaffolds support linear axonal regeneration. Tissue Eng 12:2777-2787.
Subramanian A, Krishnan UM, Sethuraman S (2009) Development of biomaterial scaffold for nerve tissue engineering: Biomaterial mediated neural regeneration. J Biomed Sci 16:108.
Sung JK, Miao L, Calvert JW, Huang L, Louis Harkey H, Zhang JH (2003) A possible role of RhoA/Rho-kinase in experimental spinal cord injury in rat. Brain Res 959:29-38.
Suri S, Schmidt CE (2010) Cell-laden hydrogel constructs of hyaluronic acid, collagen, and laminin for neural tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part A 16:1703-1716.
Syková E, Homola A, Mazanec R, Lachmann H, Konrádová SL, Kobylka P, Pádr R, Neuwirth J, Komrska V, Vávra V, Stulík J, Bojar M (2006) Autologous bone marrow transplantation in patients with subacute and chronic spinal cord injury. Cell Transplant 15:675-687.
Tan A, Rajadas J, Seifalian AM (2012) Biochemical engineering nerve conduits using peptide amphiphiles. J Control Release 163:342-352.
Tator CH, Hashimoto R, Raich A, Norvell D, Fehlings MG, Harrop JS, Guest J, Aarabi B, Grossman RG (2012) Translational potential of preclinical trials ofneuroprotection through pharmacotherapy for spinal cord injury. J Neurosurg Spine 17:157-229.
Tester NJ, Plaas AH, Howland DR (2007) Effect of body temperature on chondroitinase ABC's ability to cleave chondroitin sulfate glycosaminoglycans. J Neurosci Res 85:1110-1118.
Tetzlaff W, Okon EB, Karimi-Abdolrezaee S, Hill CE, Sparling JS, Plemel JR, Plunet WT, Tsai EC, Baptiste D, Smithson LJ, Kawaja MD, Fehlings MG, Kwon BK (2011) A systematic review of cellular transplantation therapies forspinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma 28:1611-1682.
Thomas KE, Moon LD (2011) Will stem cell therapies be safe and effective fortreating spinal cord injuries? Br Med Bull 98:127-142.
Tysseling-Mattiace VM, Sahni V, Niece KL, Birch D, Czeisler C, Fehlings MG, Stupp SI, Kessler JA (2008) Self-assembling nanofibers inhibit glial scar formation and promote axon elongation after spinal cord injury. J Neurosci 28:3814-3823.
Wan Y, Yu A, Wu H, Wang Z, Wen D (2005) Porous-conductive chitosan scaffolds for tissue engineering II. in vitro and in vivo degradation. J Mater Sci Mater Med 16:1017-1028.
White RE, Jakeman LB (2008) Don't fence me in: harnessing the beneficial roles of astrocytes for spinal cord repair. Restor Neurol Neurosci 26:197-214.
Wilcox JT, Cadotte D, Fehlings MG (2012) Spinal cord clinical trials and the role for bioengineering. Neurosci Lett 519:93-102.
Willerth SM (2011) Neural tissue engineering using embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther 2:17.
Wilson JR, Forgione N, Fehlings MG (2013) Emerging therapies for acute traumatic spinal cord injury. CMAJ 185:485-492.
Wright KT, El Masri W, Osman A, Chowdhury J, Johnson WE (2011) Concise review: Bone marrow for the treatment of spinal cord injury: mechanisms and clinical applications. Stem Cells 29:169-178.
Wu BQ, Bi ZG, Qi Q (2013) Inactivation of the Rho-ROCK signaling pathway to promote neurologic recovery after spinal cord injuries in rats. Chin Med J (Engl) 126:3723-3727.
Wylie RG, Shoichet MS (2008) Two-photon micropatterning of amines within an agarose hydrogel. J Mater Chem 18:2716-2721.
Xie J, Willerth SM, Li X, Macewan MR, Rader A, Sakiyama-Elbert SE, Xia Y (2009) The differentiation of embryonic stem cells seeded on electrospun nanofibers into neural lineages. Biomaterials 30:354-362.
Xiong Y, Zhu JX, Fang ZY, Zeng CG, Zhang C, Qi GL, Li MH, Zhang W, Quan DP, Wan J (2012) Coseeded Schwann cells myelinate neurites from differentiated neural stem cells in neurotrophin-3-loaded PLGA carriers. Int J Nanomedicine 7:1977-1989.
Yao L, Daly W, Newland B, Yao S, Wang W, Chen BK, Madigan N, Windebank A, Pandit A (2013) Improved axonal regeneration of transected spinal cord mediated by multichannel collagen conduits functionalized with neurotrophin-3 gene. Gene Ther 20:1149-1157.
Yarygin VN, Banin VV, Yarygin KN (2006) Regeneration of the rat spinal cord after thoracic segmentectomy: restoration of the anatomical integrity of the spinal cord. Neurosci Behav Physiol 36:483-490.
Yiu G, He Z (2006) Glial inhibition of CNS axon regeneration. Nat Rev Neurosci 7:617-627.
Yoon SH, Shim YS, Park YH, Chung JK, Nam JH, Kim MO, Park HC, Park SR, Min BH, Kim EY, Choi BH, Park H, Ha Y (2007) Complete spinal cord injury treatment using autologous bone marrow cell transplantation and bone marrow stimulation with granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor: Phase I/II clinical trial. Stem Cells 25:2066-2073.
Zhang HT, Liu ZL, Yao XQ, Yang ZJ, Xu RX (2012) Neural differentiation ability of mesenchymal stromal cells from bone marrow and adipose tissue: a comparative study. Cytotherapy 14:1203-1214.
Zhang X, Zeng Y, Zhang W, Wang J, Wu J, Li J (2007) Co-transplantation of neural stem cells and NT-3-overexpressing Schwann cells in transected spinal cord. J Neurotrauma 24:1863-1877.
Zhao RR, Fawcett JW (2013) Combination treatment with chondroitinase ABC in spinal cord injury--breaking the barrier. Neurosci Bull 29:477-483.
Zhao RR, Andrews MR, Wang D, Warren P, Gullo M, Schnell L, Schwab ME, Fawcett JW (2013) Combination treatment with anti-Nogo-A and chondroitinase ABC is more effective than single treatments at enhancing functional recovery after spinal cord injury. Eur J Neurosci 38:2946-2961.
Zhong Y, Bellamkonda RV (2008) Biomaterials for the central nervous system. J R Soc Interface 5:957-975.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]
|This article has been cited by|
||The blood–brain barrier and beyond: Nano-based neuropharmacology and the role of extracellular matrix
| ||Petra Henrich-Noack,Dragana Nikitovic,Monica Neagu,Anca Oana Docea,Ayse Basak Engin,Svetlana Gelperina,Michael Shtilman,Panayiotis Mitsias,George Tzanakakis,Illana Gozes,Aristidis Tsatsakis |
| ||Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine. 2019; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Controlling the Surface Chemistry of a Hydrogel for Spatially Defined Cell Adhesion
| ||Jeffrey Chen,Kelly Lim,Stephen Bandini,Greg Harris,Joshua Spechler,Craig B. Arnold,Romain Fardel,Jean E. Schwarzbauer,Jeffrey Schwartz |
| ||ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 2019; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Role and prospects of regenerative biomaterials in the repair of spinal cord injury
| ||Shuo Liu,Yuan-Yuan Xie,Bin Wang |
| ||Neural Regeneration Research. 2019; 14(8): 1352 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||3D Printed Neural Regeneration Devices
| ||Daeha Joung,Nicolas S. Lavoie,Shuang-Zhuang Guo,Sung Hyun Park,Ann M. Parr,Michael C. McAlpine |
| ||Advanced Functional Materials. 2019; : 1906237 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Research progress and prospects of tissue engineering scaffolds for spinal cord injury repair and protection
| ||Zhanjun Ma,Yubao Lu,Yang Yang,Jing Wang,Xuewen Kang |
| ||Regenerative Medicine. 2019; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Advances in Nano Neuroscience: From Nanomaterials to Nanotools
| ||Niccolò Paolo Pampaloni,Michele Giugliano,Denis Scaini,Laura Ballerini,Rossana Rauti |
| ||Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2019; 12 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Photosensitive Hydrogel Creates Favorable Biologic Niches to Promote Spinal Cord Injury Repair
| ||Zhengwei Cai,Yibo Gan,Chunyan Bao,Wanjiang Wu,Xuebin Wang,Zetong Zhang,Qiang Zhou,Qiuning Lin,Yi Yang,Linyong Zhu |
| ||Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2019; : 1900013 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Spinal cord injury: pathophysiology, treatment strategies, associated challenges, and future implications
| ||Katari Venkatesh,Shounak K. Ghosh,Madhubanti Mullick,Geetha Manivasagam,Dwaipayan Sen |
| ||Cell and Tissue Research. 2019; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Motor and sensitive recovery after injection of a physically cross-linked PNIPAAm-g-PEG hydrogel in rat hemisectioned spinal cord
| ||Maxime Bonnet,Thomas Trimaille,Brezun Jean-Michel,François Feron,Didier Gigmes,Tanguy Marqueste,Patrick Decherchi |
| ||Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2019; : 110354 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Spinal Cord Injury: Animal Models, Imaging Tools and the Treatment Strategies
| ||Dasa Cizkova,Adriana-Natalia Murgoci,Veronika Cubinkova,Filip Humenik,Zuzana Mojzisova,Marcela Maloveska,Milan Cizek,Isabelle Fournier,Michel Salzet |
| ||Neurochemical Research. 2019; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Alginate Hydrogels as Scaffolds and Delivery Systems to Repair the Damaged Spinal Cord
| ||Santiago Grijalvo,Manuel Nieto-Díaz,Rodrigo M. Maza,Ramón Eritja,David Díaz Díaz |
| ||Biotechnology Journal. 2019; : 1900275 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Label-free multiphoton microscopy reveals relevant tissue changes induced by alginate hydrogel implantation in rat spinal cord injury
| ||Roberta Galli,Kerim H. Sitoci-Ficici,Ortrud Uckermann,Robert Later,Magda Marecková,Maria Koch,Elke Leipnitz,Gabriele Schackert,Edmund Koch,Michael Gelinsky,Gerald Steiner,Matthias Kirsch |
| ||Scientific Reports. 2018; 8(1) |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Significant Improvement of Acute Complete Spinal Cord Injury Patients Diagnosed by a Combined Criteria Implanted with NeuroRegen Scaffolds and Mesenchymal Stem Cells
| ||Zhifeng Xiao,Fengwu Tang,Yannan Zhao,Guang Han,Na Yin,Xing Li,Bing Chen,Sufang Han,Xianfeng Jiang,Chen Yun,Changyu Zhao,Shixiang Cheng,Sai Zhang,Jianwu Dai |
| ||Cell Transplantation. 2018; 27(6): 907 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Using biomaterials to promote pro-regenerative glial phenotypes after nervous system injuries
| ||Russell Thompson,Shelly Sakiyama-Elbert |
| ||Biomedical Materials. 2018; 13(2): 024104 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||On the Viability and Potential Value of Stem Cells for Repair and Treatment of Central Neurotrauma: Overview and Speculations
| ||Samantha Wu,Kevin T. FitzGerald,James Giordano |
| ||Frontiers in Neurology. 2018; 9 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Cetuximab and Taxol co-modified collagen scaffolds show combination effects for the repair of acute spinal cord injury
| ||Caixia Fan,Xing Li,Yannan Zhao,Zhifeng Xiao,Weiwei Xue,Jie Sun,Xiaoran Li,Yan Zhuang,Yanyan Chen,Jianwu Dai |
| ||Biomaterials Science. 2018; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Microenvironment Imbalance of Spinal Cord Injury
| ||Baoyou Fan,Zhijian Wei,Xue Yao,Guidong Shi,Xin Cheng,Xianhu Zhou,Hengxing Zhou,Guangzhi Ning,Xiaohong Kong,Shiqing Feng |
| ||Cell Transplantation. 2018; 27(6): 853 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Recent advances in nanotherapeutic strategies for spinal cord injury repair
| ||Young Hye Song,Nikunj K. Agrawal,Jonathan M. Griffin,Christine E. Schmidt |
| ||Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 2018; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Engineering Neural Tissue from Human Pluripotent Stem Cells Using Novel Small Molecule Releasing Microspheres
| ||Laura De la Vega,Karina Karmirian,Stephanie Michelle Willerth |
| ||Advanced Biosystems. 2018; : 1800133 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Collagen-Binding Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF) alone or with a Gelatin- furfurylamine Hydrogel Enhances Functional Recovery in Mice after Spinal Cord Injury
| ||Kentaro Yamane,Tetsuro Mazaki,Yasuyuki Shiozaki,Aki Yoshida,Kensuke Shinohara,Mariko Nakamura,Yasuhiro Yoshida,Di Zhou,Takashi Kitajima,Masato Tanaka,Yoshihiro Ito,Toshifumi Ozaki,Akihiro Matsukawa |
| ||Scientific Reports. 2018; 8(1) |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Functional Multichannel Poly(Propylene Fumarate)-Collagen Scaffold with Collagen-Binding Neurotrophic Factor 3 Promotes Neural Regeneration After Transected Spinal Cord Injury
| ||Xi Chen,Yannan Zhao,Xing Li,Zhifeng Xiao,Yuanjiang Yao,Yun Chu,Balázs Farkas,Ilaria Romano,Fernando Brandi,Jianwu Dai |
| ||Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2018; : 1800315 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||A Thermosensitive heparin-poloxamer hydrogel bridge aFGF to treat spinal cord injury
| ||Qingqing Wang,Yan He,Yingzheng Zhao,Huixu Xie,Qian Lin,Zili He,Xiaoyan Wang,Jiawei Li,Hongyu Zhang,Chenggui Wang,Fanghua Gong,Xiaokun Li,Huazi Xu,Qingsong Ye,Jian Xiao |
| ||ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 2017; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Three-dimensional aligned nanofibers-hydrogel scaffold for controlled non-viral drug/gene delivery to direct axon regeneration in spinal cord injury treatment
| ||Lan Huong Nguyen,Mingyong Gao,Junquan Lin,Wutian Wu,Jun Wang,Sing Yian Chew |
| ||Scientific Reports. 2017; 7: 42212 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Novel biomaterials to study neural stem cell mechanobiology and improve cell-replacement therapies
| ||Phillip H. Kang,Sanjay Kumar,David V. Schaffer |
| ||Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering. 2017; 4: 13 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||An injectable hydrogel enhances tissue repair after spinal cord injury by promoting extracellular matrix remodeling
| ||Le Thi Anh Hong,Young-Min Kim,Hee Hwan Park,Dong Hoon Hwang,Yuexian Cui,Eun Mi Lee,Stephanie Yahn,Jae K. Lee,Soo-Chang Song,Byung Gon Kim |
| ||Nature Communications. 2017; 8(1) |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||3-D Bioprinting of Neural Tissue for Applications in Cell Therapy and Drug Screening
| ||Michaela Thomas,Stephanie M. Willerth |
| ||Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2017; 5 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Combinatorial Therapies After Spinal Cord Injury: How Can Biomaterials Help?
| ||Tobias Führmann,Priya N. Anandakumaran,Molly S. Shoichet |
| ||Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2017; : 1601130 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||A Dual Functional Scaffold Tethered with EGFR Antibody Promotes Neural Stem Cell Retention and Neuronal Differentiation for Spinal Cord Injury Repair
| ||Bai Xu,Yannan Zhao,Zhifeng Xiao,Bin Wang,Hui Liang,Xing Li,Yongxiang Fang,Sufang Han,Xiaoran Li,Caixia Fan,Jianwu Dai |
| ||Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2017; : 1601279 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Vision for Functionally Decorated and Molecularly Imprinted Polymers in Regenerative Engineering
| ||John R. Clegg,Marissa E. Wechsler,Nicholas A. Peppas |
| ||Regenerative Engineering and Translational Medicine. 2017; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Li + activated nanohydroxyapatite doped with Eu 3+ ions enhances proliferative activity and viability of human stem progenitor cells of adipose tissue and olfactory ensheathing cells. Further perspective of nHAP:Li + , Eu 3+ application in theranostics
| ||Krzysztof Marycz,Paulina Sobierajska,Agnieszka Smieszek,Monika Maredziak,Katarzyna Wiglusz,Rafal J. Wiglusz |
| ||Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2017; 78: 151 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||An update on application of nanotechnology and stem cells in spinal cord injury regeneration
| ||Kazem Nejati-Koshki,Yousef Mortazavi,Younes Pilehvar-Soltanahmadi,Sumit Sheoran,Nosratollah Zarghami |
| ||Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. 2017; 90: 85 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Combined polymer-curcumin conjugate and ependymal progenitor/stem cell treatment enhances spinal cord injury functional recovery
| ||Raquel Requejo-Aguilar,Ana Alastrue-Agudo,Marta Cases-Villar,Eric Lopez-Mocholi,Richard England,María J. Vicent,Victoria Moreno-Manzano |
| ||Biomaterials. 2017; 113: 18 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Clinical Study of NeuroRegen Scaffold Combined with Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells for the Repair of Chronic Complete Spinal Cord Injury
| ||Yannan Zhao,Fengwu Tang,Zhifeng Xiao,Guang Han,Nuo Wang,Na Yin,Bing Chen,Xianfeng Jiang,Chen Yun,Wanjun Han,Changyu Zhao,Shixiang Cheng,Sai Zhang,Jianwu Dai |
| ||Cell Transplantation. 2017; 26(5): 891 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Cellulose Nanofibril Hydrogel Tubes as Sacrificial Templates for Freestanding Tubular Cell Constructs
| ||Jose Guillermo Torres-Rendon,Marius Köpf,David Gehlen,Andreas Blaeser,Horst Fischer,Laura De Laporte,Andreas Walther |
| ||Biomacromolecules. 2016; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Taking a bite out of spinal cord injury: do dental stem cells have the teeth for it?
| ||John Bianco,Pauline De Berdt,Ronald Deumens,Anne des Rieux |
| ||Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 2016; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Effect of fetal cerebellar tissue transplantation on the restoration of hind limb locomotor function in rats with spinal cord injury
| ||V. I. Tsymbaliuk,V. V. Medvedev,Yu. Yu. Senchyk,N. G. Draguntsova,S. M. Dychko |
| ||Cell and Organ Transplantology. 2016; 4(2) |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||NECL1 coated PLGA as favorable conduits for repair of injured peripheral nerve
| ||Fuben Xu,Kun Zhang,Peizhen Lv,Rongbin Lu,Li Zheng,Jinmin Zhao |
| ||Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2016; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):GlycosAminoGlycan Aqueous Dispersions: Toward Electrically Conductive Bioactive Materials for Neural Interfaces
| ||Daniele Mantione,Isabel del Agua,Wandert Schaafsma,Javier Diez-Garcia,Begona Castro,Haritz Sardon,David Mecerreyes |
| ||Macromolecular Bioscience. 2016; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Therapeutic Effect of Neurotrophin-3 Treatment in an Injectable Collagen Scaffold Following Rat Spinal Cord Hemisection Injury
| ||Bridget A. Breen,Honorata Kraskiewicz,Rachel Ronan,Aniket Kshiragar,Azim Patar,Timothy Sargeant,Abhay Pandit,Siobhan S. McMahon |
| ||ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering. 2016; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Nanotechnology and bio-functionalisation for peripheral nerve regeneration
| ||Tina Sedaghati,AlexanderM Seifalian |
| ||Neural Regeneration Research. 2015; 10(8): 1191 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|