Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsProspective StudyPubMedOpen access

Comparison between xenogeneic and allogeneic adipose mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of acute cerebral infarct: proof of concept in rats.

Gutiérrez-Fernández M., Rodríguez-Frutos B., Ramos-Cejudo J., Otero-Ortega L., Fuentes B., Vallejo-Cremades MT.

Prospective Study on Stroke Research, Scar, published in J Transl Med (2015) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • 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
Prospective Study
Journal
J Transl Med (2015)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
25637958
PMCID
PMC4322805
DOI
10.1186/s12967-015-0406-3
Citations
58

Abstract (original English)

Background Rat adipose tissue-derived-mesenchymal stem cells (rAD-MSCs) have proven to be safe in experimental animal models of stroke. However, in order to use human AD-MSCs (hAD-MSCs) as a treatment for stroke patients, a proof of concept is needed. We analyzed whether the xenogeneic hAD-MSCs were as safe and effective as allogeneic rAD-MSCs in permanent Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion (pMCAO) in rats. Methods Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into three groups, which were intravenously injected with xenogeneic hAD-MSCs (2 × 10(6)), allogeneic rAD-MSCs (2 × 10(6)) or saline (control) at 30 min after pMCAO. Behavior, cell implantation, lesion size and cell death were evaluated. Brain markers such as GFAP (glial fibrillary acid protein), VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) and SYP (synaptophysin) and tumor formation were analyzed. Results Compared to controls, recovery was significantly better at 24 h and continued to be so at 14 d after IV administration of either hAD-MSCs or rAD-MSCs. No reduction in lesion size or migration/implantation of cells in the damaged brain were observed in the treatment groups. Nevertheless, cell death was significantly reduced with respect to the control group in both treatment groups. VEGF and SYP levels were significantly higher, while those of GFAP were lower in the treated groups. At three months, there was no tumor formation. C

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
Acute DiseaseAdipose TissueAnimalsBiomarkersCell DeathCerebral InfarctionHumansInfarction, Middle Cerebral ArteryMaleMesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation

Browse all related research

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

Related research