Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells

Objective The aim of this study was to address the question of whether bone marrow-originated mononuclear cells (MNC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) induce neural regeneration when implanted intraspinally. Materials and Methods The study design included 4 groups of mice: Group 1, non-traumatized control group; Groups 2, 3 and 4 spinal cord traumatized mice with 1 g force Tator clips, which received intralesionally either no cellular implants (Group 2), luciferase (Luc) (+) MNC (Group 3) or MSC (Group 4) obtained from CMV-Luc or beta-actin Luc donor transgenic mice. Following the surgery until decapitation, periodical radioluminescence imaging (RLI) and Basso Mouse Scale (BMS) evaluations was performed to monitor neural activity. Postmortem immunohistochemical techniques were used to analyze the fate of donor type implanted cells. Results All mice of Groups 3 and 4 showed various degrees of improvement in the BMS scores, whereas there was no change in Groups 1 and 2. The functional improvement was significantly better in Group 4 compared to Group 3 (18 vs 8, p = 0.002). The immunohistochemical staining demonstrated $ GFP^{+} %$ Luc^{+} $ neuronal/glial cells that were also positive with one or more of these markers: nestin, myelin associated glycoprotein, microtubule associated protein or myelin oligodendrocyte specific protein, which is considered as indicator of donor type neuronal regeneration. Frequency of donor type neuronal cells; Luc + signals and median BMS scores were observed 48–64 % and 68–72 %; 44–80 %; 8 and 18 within Groups III and IV respectively. Discussion MSCs were more effective than MNC in obtaining neuronal recovery. Substantial but incomplete functional improvement was associated with donor type in vivo imaging signals more frequently than the number of neuronal cells expressing donor markers in spinal cord sections in vitro. Our results are in favor of functional recovery arising from both donor MSC and MNCs, contributing to direct neuronal regeneration and additional indirect mechanisms. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Ozdemir, Mevci [verfasserIn] Attar, Ayhan [verfasserIn] Kuzu, Isinsu [verfasserIn] Ayten, Murat [verfasserIn] Ozgencil, Enver [verfasserIn] Bozkurt, Melih [verfasserIn] Dalva, Klara [verfasserIn] Uckan, Duygu [verfasserIn] Kılıc, Emine [verfasserIn] Sancak, Tanzer [verfasserIn] Kanpolat, Yucel [verfasserIn] Beksac, Meral [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2012

Schlagwörter:	Mesenchymal stem cell Regeneration Spinal cord Stem cell Trauma

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Stem cell reviews - New York, NY : Springer, 2005, 8(2012), 3 vom: 03. Mai, Seite 953-962
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:8 ; year:2012 ; number:3 ; day:03 ; month:05 ; pages:953-962

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5

Katalog-ID:	SPR023686685

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR023686685
003	DE-627
005	20230519163813.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201006s2012 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR023686685
035			\|a (SPR)s12015-012-9376-5-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 570 \|a 610 \|q ASE
084			\|a 42.15 \|2 bkl
100	1		\|a Ozdemir, Mevci \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells
264		1	\|c 2012
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Objective The aim of this study was to address the question of whether bone marrow-originated mononuclear cells (MNC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) induce neural regeneration when implanted intraspinally. Materials and Methods The study design included 4 groups of mice: Group 1, non-traumatized control group; Groups 2, 3 and 4 spinal cord traumatized mice with 1 g force Tator clips, which received intralesionally either no cellular implants (Group 2), luciferase (Luc) (+) MNC (Group 3) or MSC (Group 4) obtained from CMV-Luc or beta-actin Luc donor transgenic mice. Following the surgery until decapitation, periodical radioluminescence imaging (RLI) and Basso Mouse Scale (BMS) evaluations was performed to monitor neural activity. Postmortem immunohistochemical techniques were used to analyze the fate of donor type implanted cells. Results All mice of Groups 3 and 4 showed various degrees of improvement in the BMS scores, whereas there was no change in Groups 1 and 2. The functional improvement was significantly better in Group 4 compared to Group 3 (18 vs 8, p = 0.002). The immunohistochemical staining demonstrated $ GFP^{+} %$ Luc^{+} $ neuronal/glial cells that were also positive with one or more of these markers: nestin, myelin associated glycoprotein, microtubule associated protein or myelin oligodendrocyte specific protein, which is considered as indicator of donor type neuronal regeneration. Frequency of donor type neuronal cells; Luc + signals and median BMS scores were observed 48–64 % and 68–72 %; 44–80 %; 8 and 18 within Groups III and IV respectively. Discussion MSCs were more effective than MNC in obtaining neuronal recovery. Substantial but incomplete functional improvement was associated with donor type in vivo imaging signals more frequently than the number of neuronal cells expressing donor markers in spinal cord sections in vitro. Our results are in favor of functional recovery arising from both donor MSC and MNCs, contributing to direct neuronal regeneration and additional indirect mechanisms.
650		4	\|a Mesenchymal stem cell \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Regeneration \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Spinal cord \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Stem cell \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Trauma \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Attar, Ayhan \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Kuzu, Isinsu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Ayten, Murat \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Ozgencil, Enver \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Bozkurt, Melih \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Dalva, Klara \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Uckan, Duygu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Kılıc, Emine \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Sancak, Tanzer \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Kanpolat, Yucel \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Beksac, Meral \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Stem cell reviews \|d New York, NY : Springer, 2005 \|g 8(2012), 3 vom: 03. Mai, Seite 953-962 \|w (DE-627)494833777 \|w (DE-600)2197218-7 \|x 1558-6804 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:8 \|g year:2012 \|g number:3 \|g day:03 \|g month:05 \|g pages:953-962
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5 \|z lizenzpflichtig \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_32
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_90
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_100
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_120
912			\|a GBV_ILN_138
912			\|a GBV_ILN_152
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_171
912			\|a GBV_ILN_187
912			\|a GBV_ILN_224
912			\|a GBV_ILN_250
912			\|a GBV_ILN_281
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
936	b	k	\|a 42.15 \|q ASE
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 8 \|j 2012 \|e 3 \|b 03 \|c 05 \|h 953-962

Indexfelder

author_variant	m o mo a a aa i k ik m a ma e o eo m b mb k d kd d u du e k ek t s ts y k yk m b mb
matchkey_str	article:15586804:2012----::tmelhrpisiacrijrivvadototmrcigfoearwoou
hierarchy_sort_str	2012
bklnumber	42.15
publishDate	2012
allfields	10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5 doi (DE-627)SPR023686685 (SPR)s12015-012-9376-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 610 ASE 42.15 bkl Ozdemir, Mevci verfasserin aut Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective The aim of this study was to address the question of whether bone marrow-originated mononuclear cells (MNC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) induce neural regeneration when implanted intraspinally. Materials and Methods The study design included 4 groups of mice: Group 1, non-traumatized control group; Groups 2, 3 and 4 spinal cord traumatized mice with 1 g force Tator clips, which received intralesionally either no cellular implants (Group 2), luciferase (Luc) (+) MNC (Group 3) or MSC (Group 4) obtained from CMV-Luc or beta-actin Luc donor transgenic mice. Following the surgery until decapitation, periodical radioluminescence imaging (RLI) and Basso Mouse Scale (BMS) evaluations was performed to monitor neural activity. Postmortem immunohistochemical techniques were used to analyze the fate of donor type implanted cells. Results All mice of Groups 3 and 4 showed various degrees of improvement in the BMS scores, whereas there was no change in Groups 1 and 2. The functional improvement was significantly better in Group 4 compared to Group 3 (18 vs 8, p = 0.002). The immunohistochemical staining demonstrated $ GFP^{+} %$ Luc^{+} $ neuronal/glial cells that were also positive with one or more of these markers: nestin, myelin associated glycoprotein, microtubule associated protein or myelin oligodendrocyte specific protein, which is considered as indicator of donor type neuronal regeneration. Frequency of donor type neuronal cells; Luc + signals and median BMS scores were observed 48–64 % and 68–72 %; 44–80 %; 8 and 18 within Groups III and IV respectively. Discussion MSCs were more effective than MNC in obtaining neuronal recovery. Substantial but incomplete functional improvement was associated with donor type in vivo imaging signals more frequently than the number of neuronal cells expressing donor markers in spinal cord sections in vitro. Our results are in favor of functional recovery arising from both donor MSC and MNCs, contributing to direct neuronal regeneration and additional indirect mechanisms. Mesenchymal stem cell (dpeaa)DE-He213 Regeneration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spinal cord (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stem cell (dpeaa)DE-He213 Trauma (dpeaa)DE-He213 Attar, Ayhan verfasserin aut Kuzu, Isinsu verfasserin aut Ayten, Murat verfasserin aut Ozgencil, Enver verfasserin aut Bozkurt, Melih verfasserin aut Dalva, Klara verfasserin aut Uckan, Duygu verfasserin aut Kılıc, Emine verfasserin aut Sancak, Tanzer verfasserin aut Kanpolat, Yucel verfasserin aut Beksac, Meral verfasserin aut Enthalten in Stem cell reviews New York, NY : Springer, 2005 8(2012), 3 vom: 03. Mai, Seite 953-962 (DE-627)494833777 (DE-600)2197218-7 1558-6804 nnns volume:8 year:2012 number:3 day:03 month:05 pages:953-962 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2005 42.15 ASE AR 8 2012 3 03 05 953-962
spelling	10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5 doi (DE-627)SPR023686685 (SPR)s12015-012-9376-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 610 ASE 42.15 bkl Ozdemir, Mevci verfasserin aut Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective The aim of this study was to address the question of whether bone marrow-originated mononuclear cells (MNC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) induce neural regeneration when implanted intraspinally. Materials and Methods The study design included 4 groups of mice: Group 1, non-traumatized control group; Groups 2, 3 and 4 spinal cord traumatized mice with 1 g force Tator clips, which received intralesionally either no cellular implants (Group 2), luciferase (Luc) (+) MNC (Group 3) or MSC (Group 4) obtained from CMV-Luc or beta-actin Luc donor transgenic mice. Following the surgery until decapitation, periodical radioluminescence imaging (RLI) and Basso Mouse Scale (BMS) evaluations was performed to monitor neural activity. Postmortem immunohistochemical techniques were used to analyze the fate of donor type implanted cells. Results All mice of Groups 3 and 4 showed various degrees of improvement in the BMS scores, whereas there was no change in Groups 1 and 2. The functional improvement was significantly better in Group 4 compared to Group 3 (18 vs 8, p = 0.002). The immunohistochemical staining demonstrated $ GFP^{+} %$ Luc^{+} $ neuronal/glial cells that were also positive with one or more of these markers: nestin, myelin associated glycoprotein, microtubule associated protein or myelin oligodendrocyte specific protein, which is considered as indicator of donor type neuronal regeneration. Frequency of donor type neuronal cells; Luc + signals and median BMS scores were observed 48–64 % and 68–72 %; 44–80 %; 8 and 18 within Groups III and IV respectively. Discussion MSCs were more effective than MNC in obtaining neuronal recovery. Substantial but incomplete functional improvement was associated with donor type in vivo imaging signals more frequently than the number of neuronal cells expressing donor markers in spinal cord sections in vitro. Our results are in favor of functional recovery arising from both donor MSC and MNCs, contributing to direct neuronal regeneration and additional indirect mechanisms. Mesenchymal stem cell (dpeaa)DE-He213 Regeneration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spinal cord (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stem cell (dpeaa)DE-He213 Trauma (dpeaa)DE-He213 Attar, Ayhan verfasserin aut Kuzu, Isinsu verfasserin aut Ayten, Murat verfasserin aut Ozgencil, Enver verfasserin aut Bozkurt, Melih verfasserin aut Dalva, Klara verfasserin aut Uckan, Duygu verfasserin aut Kılıc, Emine verfasserin aut Sancak, Tanzer verfasserin aut Kanpolat, Yucel verfasserin aut Beksac, Meral verfasserin aut Enthalten in Stem cell reviews New York, NY : Springer, 2005 8(2012), 3 vom: 03. Mai, Seite 953-962 (DE-627)494833777 (DE-600)2197218-7 1558-6804 nnns volume:8 year:2012 number:3 day:03 month:05 pages:953-962 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2005 42.15 ASE AR 8 2012 3 03 05 953-962
allfields_unstemmed	10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5 doi (DE-627)SPR023686685 (SPR)s12015-012-9376-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 610 ASE 42.15 bkl Ozdemir, Mevci verfasserin aut Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective The aim of this study was to address the question of whether bone marrow-originated mononuclear cells (MNC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) induce neural regeneration when implanted intraspinally. Materials and Methods The study design included 4 groups of mice: Group 1, non-traumatized control group; Groups 2, 3 and 4 spinal cord traumatized mice with 1 g force Tator clips, which received intralesionally either no cellular implants (Group 2), luciferase (Luc) (+) MNC (Group 3) or MSC (Group 4) obtained from CMV-Luc or beta-actin Luc donor transgenic mice. Following the surgery until decapitation, periodical radioluminescence imaging (RLI) and Basso Mouse Scale (BMS) evaluations was performed to monitor neural activity. Postmortem immunohistochemical techniques were used to analyze the fate of donor type implanted cells. Results All mice of Groups 3 and 4 showed various degrees of improvement in the BMS scores, whereas there was no change in Groups 1 and 2. The functional improvement was significantly better in Group 4 compared to Group 3 (18 vs 8, p = 0.002). The immunohistochemical staining demonstrated $ GFP^{+} %$ Luc^{+} $ neuronal/glial cells that were also positive with one or more of these markers: nestin, myelin associated glycoprotein, microtubule associated protein or myelin oligodendrocyte specific protein, which is considered as indicator of donor type neuronal regeneration. Frequency of donor type neuronal cells; Luc + signals and median BMS scores were observed 48–64 % and 68–72 %; 44–80 %; 8 and 18 within Groups III and IV respectively. Discussion MSCs were more effective than MNC in obtaining neuronal recovery. Substantial but incomplete functional improvement was associated with donor type in vivo imaging signals more frequently than the number of neuronal cells expressing donor markers in spinal cord sections in vitro. Our results are in favor of functional recovery arising from both donor MSC and MNCs, contributing to direct neuronal regeneration and additional indirect mechanisms. Mesenchymal stem cell (dpeaa)DE-He213 Regeneration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spinal cord (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stem cell (dpeaa)DE-He213 Trauma (dpeaa)DE-He213 Attar, Ayhan verfasserin aut Kuzu, Isinsu verfasserin aut Ayten, Murat verfasserin aut Ozgencil, Enver verfasserin aut Bozkurt, Melih verfasserin aut Dalva, Klara verfasserin aut Uckan, Duygu verfasserin aut Kılıc, Emine verfasserin aut Sancak, Tanzer verfasserin aut Kanpolat, Yucel verfasserin aut Beksac, Meral verfasserin aut Enthalten in Stem cell reviews New York, NY : Springer, 2005 8(2012), 3 vom: 03. Mai, Seite 953-962 (DE-627)494833777 (DE-600)2197218-7 1558-6804 nnns volume:8 year:2012 number:3 day:03 month:05 pages:953-962 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2005 42.15 ASE AR 8 2012 3 03 05 953-962
allfieldsGer	10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5 doi (DE-627)SPR023686685 (SPR)s12015-012-9376-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 610 ASE 42.15 bkl Ozdemir, Mevci verfasserin aut Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective The aim of this study was to address the question of whether bone marrow-originated mononuclear cells (MNC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) induce neural regeneration when implanted intraspinally. Materials and Methods The study design included 4 groups of mice: Group 1, non-traumatized control group; Groups 2, 3 and 4 spinal cord traumatized mice with 1 g force Tator clips, which received intralesionally either no cellular implants (Group 2), luciferase (Luc) (+) MNC (Group 3) or MSC (Group 4) obtained from CMV-Luc or beta-actin Luc donor transgenic mice. Following the surgery until decapitation, periodical radioluminescence imaging (RLI) and Basso Mouse Scale (BMS) evaluations was performed to monitor neural activity. Postmortem immunohistochemical techniques were used to analyze the fate of donor type implanted cells. Results All mice of Groups 3 and 4 showed various degrees of improvement in the BMS scores, whereas there was no change in Groups 1 and 2. The functional improvement was significantly better in Group 4 compared to Group 3 (18 vs 8, p = 0.002). The immunohistochemical staining demonstrated $ GFP^{+} %$ Luc^{+} $ neuronal/glial cells that were also positive with one or more of these markers: nestin, myelin associated glycoprotein, microtubule associated protein or myelin oligodendrocyte specific protein, which is considered as indicator of donor type neuronal regeneration. Frequency of donor type neuronal cells; Luc + signals and median BMS scores were observed 48–64 % and 68–72 %; 44–80 %; 8 and 18 within Groups III and IV respectively. Discussion MSCs were more effective than MNC in obtaining neuronal recovery. Substantial but incomplete functional improvement was associated with donor type in vivo imaging signals more frequently than the number of neuronal cells expressing donor markers in spinal cord sections in vitro. Our results are in favor of functional recovery arising from both donor MSC and MNCs, contributing to direct neuronal regeneration and additional indirect mechanisms. Mesenchymal stem cell (dpeaa)DE-He213 Regeneration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spinal cord (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stem cell (dpeaa)DE-He213 Trauma (dpeaa)DE-He213 Attar, Ayhan verfasserin aut Kuzu, Isinsu verfasserin aut Ayten, Murat verfasserin aut Ozgencil, Enver verfasserin aut Bozkurt, Melih verfasserin aut Dalva, Klara verfasserin aut Uckan, Duygu verfasserin aut Kılıc, Emine verfasserin aut Sancak, Tanzer verfasserin aut Kanpolat, Yucel verfasserin aut Beksac, Meral verfasserin aut Enthalten in Stem cell reviews New York, NY : Springer, 2005 8(2012), 3 vom: 03. Mai, Seite 953-962 (DE-627)494833777 (DE-600)2197218-7 1558-6804 nnns volume:8 year:2012 number:3 day:03 month:05 pages:953-962 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2005 42.15 ASE AR 8 2012 3 03 05 953-962
allfieldsSound	10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5 doi (DE-627)SPR023686685 (SPR)s12015-012-9376-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 610 ASE 42.15 bkl Ozdemir, Mevci verfasserin aut Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective The aim of this study was to address the question of whether bone marrow-originated mononuclear cells (MNC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) induce neural regeneration when implanted intraspinally. Materials and Methods The study design included 4 groups of mice: Group 1, non-traumatized control group; Groups 2, 3 and 4 spinal cord traumatized mice with 1 g force Tator clips, which received intralesionally either no cellular implants (Group 2), luciferase (Luc) (+) MNC (Group 3) or MSC (Group 4) obtained from CMV-Luc or beta-actin Luc donor transgenic mice. Following the surgery until decapitation, periodical radioluminescence imaging (RLI) and Basso Mouse Scale (BMS) evaluations was performed to monitor neural activity. Postmortem immunohistochemical techniques were used to analyze the fate of donor type implanted cells. Results All mice of Groups 3 and 4 showed various degrees of improvement in the BMS scores, whereas there was no change in Groups 1 and 2. The functional improvement was significantly better in Group 4 compared to Group 3 (18 vs 8, p = 0.002). The immunohistochemical staining demonstrated $ GFP^{+} %$ Luc^{+} $ neuronal/glial cells that were also positive with one or more of these markers: nestin, myelin associated glycoprotein, microtubule associated protein or myelin oligodendrocyte specific protein, which is considered as indicator of donor type neuronal regeneration. Frequency of donor type neuronal cells; Luc + signals and median BMS scores were observed 48–64 % and 68–72 %; 44–80 %; 8 and 18 within Groups III and IV respectively. Discussion MSCs were more effective than MNC in obtaining neuronal recovery. Substantial but incomplete functional improvement was associated with donor type in vivo imaging signals more frequently than the number of neuronal cells expressing donor markers in spinal cord sections in vitro. Our results are in favor of functional recovery arising from both donor MSC and MNCs, contributing to direct neuronal regeneration and additional indirect mechanisms. Mesenchymal stem cell (dpeaa)DE-He213 Regeneration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spinal cord (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stem cell (dpeaa)DE-He213 Trauma (dpeaa)DE-He213 Attar, Ayhan verfasserin aut Kuzu, Isinsu verfasserin aut Ayten, Murat verfasserin aut Ozgencil, Enver verfasserin aut Bozkurt, Melih verfasserin aut Dalva, Klara verfasserin aut Uckan, Duygu verfasserin aut Kılıc, Emine verfasserin aut Sancak, Tanzer verfasserin aut Kanpolat, Yucel verfasserin aut Beksac, Meral verfasserin aut Enthalten in Stem cell reviews New York, NY : Springer, 2005 8(2012), 3 vom: 03. Mai, Seite 953-962 (DE-627)494833777 (DE-600)2197218-7 1558-6804 nnns volume:8 year:2012 number:3 day:03 month:05 pages:953-962 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2005 42.15 ASE AR 8 2012 3 03 05 953-962
language	English
source	Enthalten in Stem cell reviews 8(2012), 3 vom: 03. Mai, Seite 953-962 volume:8 year:2012 number:3 day:03 month:05 pages:953-962
sourceStr	Enthalten in Stem cell reviews 8(2012), 3 vom: 03. Mai, Seite 953-962 volume:8 year:2012 number:3 day:03 month:05 pages:953-962
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Mesenchymal stem cell Regeneration Spinal cord Stem cell Trauma
dewey-raw	570
isfreeaccess_bool	false
container_title	Stem cell reviews
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Ozdemir, Mevci @@aut@@ Attar, Ayhan @@aut@@ Kuzu, Isinsu @@aut@@ Ayten, Murat @@aut@@ Ozgencil, Enver @@aut@@ Bozkurt, Melih @@aut@@ Dalva, Klara @@aut@@ Uckan, Duygu @@aut@@ Kılıc, Emine @@aut@@ Sancak, Tanzer @@aut@@ Kanpolat, Yucel @@aut@@ Beksac, Meral @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2012-05-03T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	494833777
dewey-sort	3570
id	SPR023686685
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR023686685</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519163813.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201006s2012 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR023686685</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12015-012-9376-5-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">42.15</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ozdemir, Mevci</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objective The aim of this study was to address the question of whether bone marrow-originated mononuclear cells (MNC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) induce neural regeneration when implanted intraspinally. Materials and Methods The study design included 4 groups of mice: Group 1, non-traumatized control group; Groups 2, 3 and 4 spinal cord traumatized mice with 1 g force Tator clips, which received intralesionally either no cellular implants (Group 2), luciferase (Luc) (+) MNC (Group 3) or MSC (Group 4) obtained from CMV-Luc or beta-actin Luc donor transgenic mice. Following the surgery until decapitation, periodical radioluminescence imaging (RLI) and Basso Mouse Scale (BMS) evaluations was performed to monitor neural activity. Postmortem immunohistochemical techniques were used to analyze the fate of donor type implanted cells. Results All mice of Groups 3 and 4 showed various degrees of improvement in the BMS scores, whereas there was no change in Groups 1 and 2. The functional improvement was significantly better in Group 4 compared to Group 3 (18 vs 8, p = 0.002). The immunohistochemical staining demonstrated $ GFP^{+} %$ Luc^{+} $ neuronal/glial cells that were also positive with one or more of these markers: nestin, myelin associated glycoprotein, microtubule associated protein or myelin oligodendrocyte specific protein, which is considered as indicator of donor type neuronal regeneration. Frequency of donor type neuronal cells; Luc + signals and median BMS scores were observed 48–64 % and 68–72 %; 44–80 %; 8 and 18 within Groups III and IV respectively. Discussion MSCs were more effective than MNC in obtaining neuronal recovery. Substantial but incomplete functional improvement was associated with donor type in vivo imaging signals more frequently than the number of neuronal cells expressing donor markers in spinal cord sections in vitro. Our results are in favor of functional recovery arising from both donor MSC and MNCs, contributing to direct neuronal regeneration and additional indirect mechanisms.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mesenchymal stem cell</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Regeneration</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spinal cord</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stem cell</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Trauma</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Attar, Ayhan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kuzu, Isinsu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ayten, Murat</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ozgencil, Enver</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bozkurt, Melih</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dalva, Klara</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Uckan, Duygu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kılıc, Emine</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sancak, Tanzer</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kanpolat, Yucel</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Beksac, Meral</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Stem cell reviews</subfield><subfield code="d">New York, NY : Springer, 2005</subfield><subfield code="g">8(2012), 3 vom: 03. Mai, Seite 953-962</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)494833777</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2197218-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1558-6804</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:8</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2012</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:03</subfield><subfield code="g">month:05</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:953-962</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">42.15</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">8</subfield><subfield code="j">2012</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">03</subfield><subfield code="c">05</subfield><subfield code="h">953-962</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Ozdemir, Mevci
spellingShingle	Ozdemir, Mevci ddc 570 bkl 42.15 misc Mesenchymal stem cell misc Regeneration misc Spinal cord misc Stem cell misc Trauma Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells
authorStr	Ozdemir, Mevci
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)494833777
format	electronic Article
dewey-ones	570 - Life sciences; biology 610 - Medicine & health
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1558-6804
topic_title	570 610 ASE 42.15 bkl Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells Mesenchymal stem cell (dpeaa)DE-He213 Regeneration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spinal cord (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stem cell (dpeaa)DE-He213 Trauma (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	ddc 570 bkl 42.15 misc Mesenchymal stem cell misc Regeneration misc Spinal cord misc Stem cell misc Trauma
topic_unstemmed	ddc 570 bkl 42.15 misc Mesenchymal stem cell misc Regeneration misc Spinal cord misc Stem cell misc Trauma
topic_browse	ddc 570 bkl 42.15 misc Mesenchymal stem cell misc Regeneration misc Spinal cord misc Stem cell misc Trauma
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Stem cell reviews
hierarchy_parent_id	494833777
dewey-tens	570 - Life sciences; biology 610 - Medicine & health
hierarchy_top_title	Stem cell reviews
isfreeaccess_txt	false
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)494833777 (DE-600)2197218-7
title	Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR023686685 (SPR)s12015-012-9376-5-e
title_full	Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells
author_sort	Ozdemir, Mevci
journal	Stem cell reviews
journalStr	Stem cell reviews
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	false
dewey-hundreds	500 - Science 600 - Technology
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2012
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	953
author_browse	Ozdemir, Mevci Attar, Ayhan Kuzu, Isinsu Ayten, Murat Ozgencil, Enver Bozkurt, Melih Dalva, Klara Uckan, Duygu Kılıc, Emine Sancak, Tanzer Kanpolat, Yucel Beksac, Meral
container_volume	8
class	570 610 ASE 42.15 bkl
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Ozdemir, Mevci
doi_str_mv	10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5
dewey-full	570 610
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	stem cell therapy in spinal cord injury: in vivo and postmortem tracking of bone marrow mononuclear or mesenchymal stem cells
title_auth	Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells
abstract	Objective The aim of this study was to address the question of whether bone marrow-originated mononuclear cells (MNC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) induce neural regeneration when implanted intraspinally. Materials and Methods The study design included 4 groups of mice: Group 1, non-traumatized control group; Groups 2, 3 and 4 spinal cord traumatized mice with 1 g force Tator clips, which received intralesionally either no cellular implants (Group 2), luciferase (Luc) (+) MNC (Group 3) or MSC (Group 4) obtained from CMV-Luc or beta-actin Luc donor transgenic mice. Following the surgery until decapitation, periodical radioluminescence imaging (RLI) and Basso Mouse Scale (BMS) evaluations was performed to monitor neural activity. Postmortem immunohistochemical techniques were used to analyze the fate of donor type implanted cells. Results All mice of Groups 3 and 4 showed various degrees of improvement in the BMS scores, whereas there was no change in Groups 1 and 2. The functional improvement was significantly better in Group 4 compared to Group 3 (18 vs 8, p = 0.002). The immunohistochemical staining demonstrated $ GFP^{+} %$ Luc^{+} $ neuronal/glial cells that were also positive with one or more of these markers: nestin, myelin associated glycoprotein, microtubule associated protein or myelin oligodendrocyte specific protein, which is considered as indicator of donor type neuronal regeneration. Frequency of donor type neuronal cells; Luc + signals and median BMS scores were observed 48–64 % and 68–72 %; 44–80 %; 8 and 18 within Groups III and IV respectively. Discussion MSCs were more effective than MNC in obtaining neuronal recovery. Substantial but incomplete functional improvement was associated with donor type in vivo imaging signals more frequently than the number of neuronal cells expressing donor markers in spinal cord sections in vitro. Our results are in favor of functional recovery arising from both donor MSC and MNCs, contributing to direct neuronal regeneration and additional indirect mechanisms.
abstractGer	Objective The aim of this study was to address the question of whether bone marrow-originated mononuclear cells (MNC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) induce neural regeneration when implanted intraspinally. Materials and Methods The study design included 4 groups of mice: Group 1, non-traumatized control group; Groups 2, 3 and 4 spinal cord traumatized mice with 1 g force Tator clips, which received intralesionally either no cellular implants (Group 2), luciferase (Luc) (+) MNC (Group 3) or MSC (Group 4) obtained from CMV-Luc or beta-actin Luc donor transgenic mice. Following the surgery until decapitation, periodical radioluminescence imaging (RLI) and Basso Mouse Scale (BMS) evaluations was performed to monitor neural activity. Postmortem immunohistochemical techniques were used to analyze the fate of donor type implanted cells. Results All mice of Groups 3 and 4 showed various degrees of improvement in the BMS scores, whereas there was no change in Groups 1 and 2. The functional improvement was significantly better in Group 4 compared to Group 3 (18 vs 8, p = 0.002). The immunohistochemical staining demonstrated $ GFP^{+} %$ Luc^{+} $ neuronal/glial cells that were also positive with one or more of these markers: nestin, myelin associated glycoprotein, microtubule associated protein or myelin oligodendrocyte specific protein, which is considered as indicator of donor type neuronal regeneration. Frequency of donor type neuronal cells; Luc + signals and median BMS scores were observed 48–64 % and 68–72 %; 44–80 %; 8 and 18 within Groups III and IV respectively. Discussion MSCs were more effective than MNC in obtaining neuronal recovery. Substantial but incomplete functional improvement was associated with donor type in vivo imaging signals more frequently than the number of neuronal cells expressing donor markers in spinal cord sections in vitro. Our results are in favor of functional recovery arising from both donor MSC and MNCs, contributing to direct neuronal regeneration and additional indirect mechanisms.
abstract_unstemmed	Objective The aim of this study was to address the question of whether bone marrow-originated mononuclear cells (MNC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) induce neural regeneration when implanted intraspinally. Materials and Methods The study design included 4 groups of mice: Group 1, non-traumatized control group; Groups 2, 3 and 4 spinal cord traumatized mice with 1 g force Tator clips, which received intralesionally either no cellular implants (Group 2), luciferase (Luc) (+) MNC (Group 3) or MSC (Group 4) obtained from CMV-Luc or beta-actin Luc donor transgenic mice. Following the surgery until decapitation, periodical radioluminescence imaging (RLI) and Basso Mouse Scale (BMS) evaluations was performed to monitor neural activity. Postmortem immunohistochemical techniques were used to analyze the fate of donor type implanted cells. Results All mice of Groups 3 and 4 showed various degrees of improvement in the BMS scores, whereas there was no change in Groups 1 and 2. The functional improvement was significantly better in Group 4 compared to Group 3 (18 vs 8, p = 0.002). The immunohistochemical staining demonstrated $ GFP^{+} %$ Luc^{+} $ neuronal/glial cells that were also positive with one or more of these markers: nestin, myelin associated glycoprotein, microtubule associated protein or myelin oligodendrocyte specific protein, which is considered as indicator of donor type neuronal regeneration. Frequency of donor type neuronal cells; Luc + signals and median BMS scores were observed 48–64 % and 68–72 %; 44–80 %; 8 and 18 within Groups III and IV respectively. Discussion MSCs were more effective than MNC in obtaining neuronal recovery. Substantial but incomplete functional improvement was associated with donor type in vivo imaging signals more frequently than the number of neuronal cells expressing donor markers in spinal cord sections in vitro. Our results are in favor of functional recovery arising from both donor MSC and MNCs, contributing to direct neuronal regeneration and additional indirect mechanisms.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2005
container_issue	3
title_short	Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5
remote_bool	true
author2	Attar, Ayhan Kuzu, Isinsu Ayten, Murat Ozgencil, Enver Bozkurt, Melih Dalva, Klara Uckan, Duygu Kılıc, Emine Sancak, Tanzer Kanpolat, Yucel Beksac, Meral
author2Str	Attar, Ayhan Kuzu, Isinsu Ayten, Murat Ozgencil, Enver Bozkurt, Melih Dalva, Klara Uckan, Duygu Kılıc, Emine Sancak, Tanzer Kanpolat, Yucel Beksac, Meral
ppnlink	494833777
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	false
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5
up_date	2024-07-03T20:38:52.468Z
_version_	1803591753368862720
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR023686685</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519163813.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201006s2012 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR023686685</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12015-012-9376-5-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">42.15</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ozdemir, Mevci</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objective The aim of this study was to address the question of whether bone marrow-originated mononuclear cells (MNC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) induce neural regeneration when implanted intraspinally. Materials and Methods The study design included 4 groups of mice: Group 1, non-traumatized control group; Groups 2, 3 and 4 spinal cord traumatized mice with 1 g force Tator clips, which received intralesionally either no cellular implants (Group 2), luciferase (Luc) (+) MNC (Group 3) or MSC (Group 4) obtained from CMV-Luc or beta-actin Luc donor transgenic mice. Following the surgery until decapitation, periodical radioluminescence imaging (RLI) and Basso Mouse Scale (BMS) evaluations was performed to monitor neural activity. Postmortem immunohistochemical techniques were used to analyze the fate of donor type implanted cells. Results All mice of Groups 3 and 4 showed various degrees of improvement in the BMS scores, whereas there was no change in Groups 1 and 2. The functional improvement was significantly better in Group 4 compared to Group 3 (18 vs 8, p = 0.002). The immunohistochemical staining demonstrated $ GFP^{+} %$ Luc^{+} $ neuronal/glial cells that were also positive with one or more of these markers: nestin, myelin associated glycoprotein, microtubule associated protein or myelin oligodendrocyte specific protein, which is considered as indicator of donor type neuronal regeneration. Frequency of donor type neuronal cells; Luc + signals and median BMS scores were observed 48–64 % and 68–72 %; 44–80 %; 8 and 18 within Groups III and IV respectively. Discussion MSCs were more effective than MNC in obtaining neuronal recovery. Substantial but incomplete functional improvement was associated with donor type in vivo imaging signals more frequently than the number of neuronal cells expressing donor markers in spinal cord sections in vitro. Our results are in favor of functional recovery arising from both donor MSC and MNCs, contributing to direct neuronal regeneration and additional indirect mechanisms.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mesenchymal stem cell</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Regeneration</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spinal cord</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stem cell</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Trauma</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Attar, Ayhan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kuzu, Isinsu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ayten, Murat</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ozgencil, Enver</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bozkurt, Melih</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dalva, Klara</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Uckan, Duygu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kılıc, Emine</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sancak, Tanzer</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kanpolat, Yucel</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Beksac, Meral</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Stem cell reviews</subfield><subfield code="d">New York, NY : Springer, 2005</subfield><subfield code="g">8(2012), 3 vom: 03. Mai, Seite 953-962</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)494833777</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2197218-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1558-6804</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:8</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2012</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:03</subfield><subfield code="g">month:05</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:953-962</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12015-012-9376-5</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">42.15</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">8</subfield><subfield code="j">2012</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">03</subfield><subfield code="c">05</subfield><subfield code="h">953-962</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3993254

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Stem Cell Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury: In Vivo and Postmortem Tracking of Bone Marrow Mononuclear or Mesenchymal Stem Cells

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?