Muscle-derived stem cells: important players in peripheral nerve repair.
Musavi L., Brandacher G., Hoke A., Darrach H., Lee WPA., Kumar A.
Narrative Review, published in Expert Opin Ther Targets (2018) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Expert Opin Ther Targets (2018)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 30347175
- DOI
- 10.1080/14728222.2018.1539706
Abstract (original English)
Stem cell therapy for peripheral nerve repair is a rapidly evolving field in regenerative medicine. Although most studies to date have investigated stem cells originating from bone marrow or adipose, skeletal muscle has recently been recognized as an abundant and easily accessible source of stem cells. Muscle-derived stem cells (MDSCs) are a diverse population of multipotent cells with pronounced antioxidant and regenerative capacity. Areas covered: The current literature on the various roles MDSCs serve within the micro- and macro-environment of nerve injury. Furthermore, the exciting new research that is establishing MDSC-cellular therapy as an important therapeutic modality to improve peripheral nerve regeneration. Expert opinion: MDSCs are a promising therapeutic agent for the repair of peripheral nerves; MDSCs not only undergo gliogenesis and angiogenesis, but they also orchestrate larger pro-regenerative host responses. However, the isolation, transformation, and in-vivo behavior of MDSCs require further evaluation prior to clinical application.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.