Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesAnimal StudyEurope PMC

Achieving stable human stem cell engraftment and survival in the CNS: is the future of regenerative medicine immunodeficient?

Anderson AJ., Haus DL., Hooshmand MJ., Perez H., Sontag CJ., Cummings BJ.

Animal Study, published in Regen Med (2011) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Animal Study
Journal
Regen Med (2011)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
21548741
PMCID
PMC3403688
DOI
10.2217/rme.11.22
Citations
68

Abstract (original English)

There is potential for a variety of stem cell populations to mediate repair in the diseased or injured CNS; in some cases, this theoretical possibility has already transitioned to clinical safety testing. However, careful consideration of preclinical animal models is essential to provide an appropriate assessment of stem cell safety and efficacy, as well as the basic biological mechanisms of stem cell action. This article examines the lessons learned from early tissue, organ and hematopoietic grafting, the early assumptions of the stem cell and CNS fields with regard to immunoprivilege, and the history of success in stem cell transplantation into the CNS. Finally, we discuss strategies in the selection of animal models to maximize the predictive validity of preclinical safety and efficacy studies.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
Central Nervous SystemStem CellsAnimalsHumansNervous System DiseasesDisease Models, AnimalStem Cell TransplantationTransplantation, HeterologousRegenerative MedicineHematopoiesis

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.