Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesAnimal StudyPubMed

Effects of differentiated versus undifferentiated adipose tissue-derived stromal cell grafts on functional recovery after spinal cord contusion.

Zhang HT., Luo J., Sui LS., Ma X., Yan ZJ., Lin JH.

Animal Study on Back & Spine, published in Cell Mol Neurobiol (2009) — 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
Cell Mol Neurobiol (2009)
Country
Netherlands
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
19533335
PMCID
PMC11505793
DOI
10.1007/s10571-009-9424-0
Citations
21

Abstract (original English)

Controversies exist concerning the need for mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) to be transdifferentiated prior to their transplantation. In the present study, we compared the results of grafting into the rat contused spinal cord undifferentiated, adipose tissue-derived stromal cells (uADSCs) versus ADSCs induced by two different protocols to form differentiated nervous tissue. Using Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scores and grid tests, we found that three cell-treated groups, including uADSCs-treated, dADSCs induced by Protocol 1 (dADSC-P1)-treated, and dADSCs induced by Protocol 2 (dADSC-P2)-treated groups, significantly improved locomotor functional recovery in SCI rats, compared with the saline-treated group. Furthermore, functional recovery was better in the uADSC-treated and dADSC-P2-treated groups than in the dADSC-P1-treated group at week 12 postinjury (P < 0.05 for dADSC-P1 group vs. uADSCs or dADSC-P2 groups). Although both protocols could induce high percentages of cells expressing neural markers in vitro, few BrdU-labeled cells survived at the injury sites in the three cell-treated groups, and only a small percentage of BrdU-positive cells expressed neural markers. On the other hand, the number of NF200-positive axons in the uADSC-treated and dADSC-P2-treated groups was significantly larger than those in the dADSC-P1-treated and saline-treated control groups. Our result

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
Adipose TissueAnimalsAxonsBehavior, AnimalBiomarkersCell DifferentiationCell ShapeCells, CulturedIntermediate Filament ProteinsLocomotion

Browse all related research

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

Related research