Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesAnimal StudyPubMed

MicroRNA-based engineered mesenchymal stem cell extracellular vesicles to treat visual deficits after blast-induced trauma.

Anvarinia Y., Del Mar NA., Awad AM., Hossain S., Seetharaman AT., Ravindran S.

Animal Study on Neuroinflammation, published in Exp Eye Res (2024) — 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
Exp Eye Res (2024)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
39128668
PMCID
PMC11392619
DOI
10.1016/j.exer.2024.110031
Citations
4

Abstract (original English)

Our previous studies have shown the benefit of intravitreal injection of a mesenchymal stem cell (MSC)- derived secretome to treat visual deficits in a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) mouse model. In this study, we have addressed whether MSC-derived extracellular vesicles (EV) overexpressing miR424, which particularly targets neuroinflammation, show similar benefits in the mTBI model. Adult C57BL/6 mice were subjected to a 50-psi air pulse on the left side, overlying the forebrain, resulting in mTBI. Sham-blast mice were controls. Within an hour of blast injury, 3 μl (∼7.5 × 10 8 particles) of miR424-EVs, native-EVs, or saline was delivered intravitreally. One month later, retinal morphology was observed through optical coherence tomography (OCT); visual function was assessed using optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) and electroretinogram (ERG), followed by immunohistological analysis. A separate study in adult mice tested the dose-response of EVs for safety. Blast injury mice with saline showed decreased visual acuity compared with the sham group (0.30 ± 0.03 vs. 0.39 ± 0.01 c/d, p < 0.02), improved with miR424-EVs (0.39 ± 0.02 c/d, p < 0.01) but not native-EVs (0.33 ± 0.04 c/d, p > 0.05). Contrast sensitivity thresholds of blast mice receiving saline increased compared with the sham group (85.3 ± 5.9 vs. 19.9 ± 4.8, %, p < 0.001), rescued by miR424-EVs (23.6 ± 7.3 %, p < 0.001) an

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
AnimalsExtracellular VesiclesMice, Inbred C57BLMiceMicroRNAsBlast InjuriesElectroretinographyDisease Models, AnimalTomography, Optical CoherenceMesenchymal Stem Cells

Browse all related research

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

Related research