Next Article in Journal
The NOTCH3 Downstream Target HEYL Is Required for Efficient Human Airway Basal Cell Differentiation
Next Article in Special Issue
Activation of the Renin–Angiotensin System Disrupts the Cytoskeletal Architecture of Human Urine-Derived Podocytes
Previous Article in Journal
Resveratrol Contrasts LPA-Induced Ovarian Cancer Cell Migration and Platinum Resistance by Rescuing Hedgehog-Mediated Autophagy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Adult Neural Stem Cells from Midbrain Periventricular Regions Show Limited Neurogenic Potential after Transplantation into the Hippocampal Neurogenic Niche
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Stem Cell Secretome for Spinal Cord Repair: Is It More than Just a Random Baseline Set of Factors?

Department of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6724 Szeged, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cells 2021, 10(11), 3214; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10113214
Submission received: 31 July 2021 / Revised: 2 November 2021 / Accepted: 16 November 2021 / Published: 18 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Stem Cells in Tissue Engineering and Regeneration)

Abstract

:
Hundreds of thousands of people suffer spinal cord injuries each year. The experimental application of stem cells following spinal cord injury has opened a new era to promote neuroprotection and neuroregeneration of damaged tissue. Currently, there is great interest in the intravenous administration of the secretome produced by mesenchymal stem cells in acute or subacute spinal cord injuries. However, it is important to highlight that undifferentiated neural stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells are able to adapt to the damaged environment and produce the so-called lesion-induced secretome. This review article focuses on current research related to the secretome and the lesion-induced secretome and their roles in modulating spinal cord injury symptoms and functional recovery, emphasizing different compositions of the lesion-induced secretome in various models of spinal cord injury.

1. Incidence, Types and Consequences of Spinal Cord Injury

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is one of the most complicated and devastating neurological conditions, which leads to motor, sensory and vegetative dysfunctions [1,2]. SCI is recognized as a worldwide health problem due to its huge impact on life quality and serious socioeconomic burden. Moreover, the majority of SCI patients suffer from multiple injuries which contribute to associated complications during acute and long-term care [3]. The average lifetime cost of treating an individual with SCI is estimated to be USD 1.5–3.0 million, depending on the location, extent and severity of the injury, as well as the age of the patient [4].
Approximately 90% of SCIs result from traumatic injuries and only 10% of them are caused by diseases (tumours, spondylolisthesis, etc.) acquired at birth or later in life or surgery-related manoeuvres [5]. On a global level, traffic accidents are the most frequent causes of traumatic SCIs, followed by falls from heights, violence (gunshot and stab wounds) and different sport/recreational activities [6]. Falls primarily affect the older population, and their incidence is expected to increase due to the higher average lifetime, especially in highly developed countries [7]. The annual incidence of SCI is estimated at 30 to 70 cases per million population worldwide, resulting in more than half a million new patients every year. Men sustain SCIs approximately four times more often than women, with a peak in the socially most active younger adults [8].
The amount of disability depends on the severity and the level of the injury. Traumatic SCIs can be classified as cervical, thoracic or lumbar injuries. Various studies have demonstrated that SCI occurs in 50% of the cases at the cervical levels, which causes a high mortality rate due to damage of the respiratory motoneurons and close proximity to the medulla oblongata [9]. SCIs can also be distinguished as complete or incomplete, depending on the availability of motor, sensory and vegetative functions distal to the injury. The severity of the trauma is accurately graded by the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) impairment scale [10].

2. Pathophysiology of Spinal Cord Injury

It is well established that the pathophysiology of SCI can be divided into three overlapping stages: acute, subacute and chronic. During the time course of the SCI, the initial mechanical trauma is followed by a secondary phase which leads to increased dysfunction and cell death over hours to months after the primary insult [11]. It is important to note that the primary phase cannot be prevented, but the outcome of the secondary processes can be managed [12].
In the acute phase of SCI, the direct mechanical force disrupts the structural integrity of the neural tissue, which includes the necrosis of cells, transection of axons and vascular damage [2,13,14]. During this phase haemorrhage, local oedema and neurotransmitter disturbances can also emerge [2,15]. Hypoxia and haemorrhage are both consequences of the disruption of the blood–spinal cord barrier (BSCB), which damage the grey matter due to its high metabolic activity [16].
In the subacute phase, a cascade of secondary events dominates the site of injury, including free radical production, lipid peroxidation and immune-mediated neurotoxicity [2,17]. Glutamate plays a key role in a highly disruptive process known as excitotoxicity, which causes a massive influx of calcium ions into the neurons. This can trigger a series of destructive events, including the production of free radicals, which can attack membranes and other cell components, killing healthy neurons as well as oligodendrocytes [18]. Immune cells invade the injury site and produce proinflammatory cytokines, which are known to lead to apoptosis and affect further spinal segments rostral and caudal to the original damage [19]. The entry of peripheral immune cells is facilitated by increased vascular permeability and disruption of the BSCB.
During the subacute and chronic phases, a centrally located cyst forms in the spinal cord, while hypertrophic astrocytes, along with other cells, secrete inhibitory molecules such as chondroitin sulphate proteoglycans (CSPGs) [15,20]. This process leads to the formation of a glial scar, which represents a physical and a chemical barrier to axonal regeneration [21,22]. Other extracellular matrix proteins such as ephrins are also involved in glial scar formation and inhibit the regeneration of axons [23]. On the other hand, the role of astrogliosis and glial scars can also be beneficial, as they can restore the BSCB, resulting in isolation of the lesion microenvironment [19,24]. Myelin-associated glycoproteins (MAGs), oligodendrocyte-myelin glycoprotein (OMgp) and neurite outgrowth inhibitor-A (NOGO-A) are also upregulated and act on the receptors associated with the Rho-ROCK pathway to stop axonal outgrowth [25]. The onset of the chronic phase can occur months after injury, and this phase continues throughout the patient’s life.

3. Immunomodulatory Processes after SCI

Neutrophil granulocytes, resident microglia cells and monocyte-derived macrophages migrate to the site of injury and play a critical role in the degeneration and regeneration processes following SCI.
The rapid activation of immune cells leads to an increase in proinflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-1 (IL-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha. Other molecules are also present, such as monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1), matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9) and stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1). These soluble factors are involved in further migration of the immune cells into the lesion and in the mediation of glial scar formation [24,26].
Although inflammation has primarily been shown to be neurotoxic, there is plenty of evidence suggesting a neuroprotective role as well. The M1 phenotype of macrophages is considered as the proinflammatory subtype that secretes cytokines and chemokines immediately after the injury, leading to further progression of secondary injury. However, the M2 phenotype is known to be anti-inflammatory and produces the anti-inflammatory cytokine interleukin-10 (IL-10), which leads to regeneration of injured spinal tissues and facilitates wound healing [27,28,29,30,31]. M1 and M2 macrophages coexist at the lesion epicentre during the first week after injury, but only the M1 macrophage can reside up to a month at the lesion site. It is unclear what determines the expression of these macrophage subsets, and their activation appears to be driven by the lesion-related factors present at the time of injury. Myelin debris, as well as considerable TNF-alpha expression, are just some of the factors that reportedly prevent M1-to-M2 conversion [30,31].
Several lines of evidence have suggested that macrophage phenotypes are determined by the microenvironment and can change in response to new stimuli; this adaptivity enables them to contribute to all phases of repair [32].

4. Treatment Opportunities for Spinal Cord Injury

At present, the management of SCIs is limited to supporting respiratory function, blood pressure control and surgical decompression [33,34]. Recent studies have shown that methylprednisolone treatment is not effective after injury and is associated with a higher rate of medical complications such as sepsis, respiratory deficiency, durotomy or meningitis [35,36]. In contrast, riluzole, a currently approved drug for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), has shown effectivity in improving the outcome after SCI [33,36,37].
In general, there are three main strategies for improving the morphological and functional outcomes after SCI: pharmacological intervention, cellular transplantation or forcing the plasticity of the surviving nerve cells. Cell transplantation is one of the most promising possibilities for curing SCI because the stem cells or their derivatives can differentiate into various cell types (neurons, astrocytes, oligodendrocytes), support the survival or regeneration of the host tissue, and can alter the lesion microenvironment via the secretion of bioactive molecules [38,39,40].
In this review, we summarize the effect of factors secreted by grafted mesenchymal, neural and induced pluripotent stem cells that may mediate the immune response, support the preservation of host tissue or induce axonal regeneration.

5. Classification of Stem Cells

The stem cells of embryonic and adult organisms are non-specialized cells which go through several steps of specialization. Totipotent stem cells have the highest differentiation potency, which allows them to form both embryonic and extra-embryonic structures. Pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) such as embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are able to form all germ layers, including the ectoderm. Multipotent stem cells, including mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and neural stem cells (NSCs), have a limited spectrum of differentiation compared with PSCs and they can specialize only into specific cell lineages [41].
Although many other groups of stem cells are known, we focus here on MSCs, and embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cell-derived NSCs.

6. Mesenchymal Stem Cells Used for Spinal Cord Repair

MSCs are multipotent self-renewable cells and are found in various tissues such as bone marrow, adipose tissue, Wharton’s jelly, dental pulp, skin and peripheral blood [42,43,44]. These spindle-shaped cells express various specific surface antigens (CD105+, CD73+, CD90+, CD45-, CD34-, CD14-/CD11b-, CD79α-/CD19-) as established by the Mesenchymal and Tissue Stem Cell Committee of the International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT) [45].
Although MSCs form a heterogeneous cell population, they are a good candidate for autologous and allogeneic cell therapies for regenerative medicine. These cells contribute to haematopoiesis and influence bone growth and remodelling [46,47,48]. Under specific conditions, MSCs are able to differentiate into chondroblasts, osteoblasts and adipocytes [49]. Cultured MSCs synthesize and secrete neurotrophic factors and extracellular matrix components including nerve growth factor (NGF), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF), Collagen I, Collagen IV, fibronectin and laminin [50]. They are able to differentiate into neurons or astrocytes in vitro and in vivo and adopt the Schwann cell phenotype [51,52].
MSCs have been intensively studied for their potential in restorative approaches for spinal cord repair. Human MSCs grafted into adult immune-suppressed rats following mild, moderate or severe spinal cord contusion injury were able to induce improved functional recovery compared with the controls [53]. Others delivered MSCs into the injured spinal cord to study their fate and possible effects on functional outcome. The grafted MSCs were able to survive for 5 weeks after grafting and induced significantly improved functional recovery compared with the control animals [54]. Deng et al. showed that MSCs grafted intraspinally 2 weeks after injury were able to elicit de novo neurogenesis and functional recovery in rhesus monkeys [55]. While a number of studies have demonstrated the positive effects of MSC transplantation in animal models of SCI, other experiments have shown only negligible functional and morphological recovery [54,56,57,58].
Systemic administration of MSCs has the potential to improve white matter sparing and functional improvement after SCI through the local release of trophic factors. Several studies have shown that intravenous administration of MSCs following SCI had an immunomodulatory effect and proved to be neuroprotective through paracrine production of anti-apoptotic molecules and trophic factors, which promoted neuronal plasticity [59,60,61]. In the case of intravenous administration of MSCs, chemoattractant molecules produced primarily by the damaged tissue may play a role in the migration of the MSCs towards to the injured area. The homing properties of transplanted MSCs can be affected by a number of soluble factors produced by the injured area, including TNF-alpha, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), insulin-like growth factor (IGF), SDF-1, and MCP-1 and -3. These processes are based on the interaction between the surface receptors of the implanted cells and their ligands, involving different signalling pathways [62].
It has been proven that most of the neuroregenerative properties of MSCs in the injured spinal cord are due to the release of a wide range of neurotrophins, cytokines and microvesicles (the so-called secretome), rather than the ability to differentiate into neuronal or glial cells. However, it remains unclear whether these cells are able to alter their secretome expression profile after transplantation, and it is not known how the composition of the secretome changes in different injury models.

7. The Secretome Contains Bioactive Molecules

The use of the secretome in regenerative medicine promises a new therapeutic approach. However, one of the pivotal aspects of therapy is its mechanism of action. The different secretory fractions require thorough characterization due to their immunomodulatory and regenerative and/or protective potential. Another important aspect is the possible interaction between the different factors of the secretome and the host tissue, which acts synergistically to enhance the therapeutic effect.
As described above, MSC are able to stimulate, through their secretions, the division and differentiation of different cells and induce immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective/neurotrophic and angiogenic effects on the host microenvironment (in the case of SCI) [63]. MSCs are able to secret a variety of soluble anti-inflammatory molecules, including TNF-β1, interleukin-13 (IL-13), interleukin-18 (IL-18) binding protein, CNTF, neurotrophin-3 (NT-3), IL-10 and interleukin-27 (IL-27). In addition, MSCs may affect the host’s cytokine production and thereby stimulate or inhibit the release of anti-inflammatory cytokines (such as interferon-γ and IL-10) [64,65]. It is very likely that these factors play a significant immunoregulatory role that promotes regenerative processes [66]. Vawda et al. have shown, in an elegant study, that the early intravenous administration of the concentrated cell secretome from human umbilical cord matrix cells (HUCMCs) or bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells (BMSCs) decreased vascular damage but did not improve long-term functional recovery after SCI [63]. Interestingly, the HUCMCs’ concentrated cell secretome was found to be most effective at limiting vascular damage compared with the BMSCs’ secretome.
The secretome often contains the so-called vesicular fractions or extracellular vesicles (EVs), which themselves can produce a therapeutic effect. EVs are involved in cell-to-cell communication and may contain all the signals necessary for successful contact [67]. EVs may contain nucleic acids such as mRNAs, microRNAs and tRNAs that have the potential to target factors involved in immune-related mechanisms [68]. The small size of EVs also offers significant therapeutic benefits, including reduced macrophage phagocytosis and improved extravasation through the injured site. The therapeutic potential of EVs has been investigated in SCI [69,70]. Some studies have provided evidence that intravenous administration of neural progenitor/stem cell-derived EVs significantly reduced neuronal apoptosis, microglia activation and neuroinflammation, thereby promoting functional recovery after SCI in rodents [71,72]. Another report suggested that intrathecal administration of the subventricular zone-derived EVs resulted in remarkable motor recovery by suppressing the formation of the NLRP3 inflammasome complex [73]. Furthermore, EVs were able to modulate the activity of target cells by interacting directly with the cell and to induce angiogenesis, thus decreasing the vascular damage [67,74].
In addition to the facts mentioned above, however, the potential therapeutic mediators of the secretome need to be clarified. The therapeutic targets must be identified and the therapeutic potential of the secretome should be exploited. The therapeutic options offered by the secretome should be examined in the context of trauma or neurodegeneration. The interaction between the molecules and the vesicles, or only among the trophic factors/vesicles, has been demonstrated to be a mediator of the mechanism of action of the secretome.

8. Neural Stem Cell Transplantation to Promote the Functional Outcome of the Injured Spinal Cord

There has long been a dogma that neurons are formed only during embryogenesis. Altman and Das were the first to describe the formation of new neurons in the hippocampus of the adult rat brain [75,76]. Neurogenesis was observed in the subventricular zone of the brain and the periventricular zone of spinal cord, which occurs as an extremely limited process in adult life [77,78].
Transplantation of NSCs into a damaged central nervous system (CNS) appears to be a promising therapeutic approach for traumatic spinal cord injuries. However, this requires an appropriate cell dose and cell source. Three main sources can be mentioned: direct isolation of cells from the CNS, differentiation from pluripotent stem cells and trans-differentiation from somatic cells [79].
Several studies have reported that the use of NSCs in the damaged spinal cord could reduce the inflammatory response, promote the replacement of lost neurons and oligodendrocytes, and remyelinate damaged spinal descending/ascending axons, thereby enabling functional recovery [80,81,82]. Previous studies have shown that neuronal stem cells were able to survive after transplantation and differentiate into neuronal or mainly glia-like cells [38,80,82,83,84]. Lu and colleagues transplanted NSCs suspended in a fibrin matrix containing growth factors into a severely injured spinal cord [85]. Graft-derived neurons were able to extend their axons rostro-caudally from the lesion site over a long distance and form new functional synaptic connection with the host neurons. The repeated reassessment experiments by Sharp et al. have shown that NSC grafts were able to fill the lesion cavity, but most grafts did not create a continuous tissue bridge between the rostral and caudal ends of the lesion [86]. Although this study confirmed that grafted NSCs were able to send their axons into the host tissue, it did not confirm the extensive ingrowth of host axons into the transplant or enhanced recovery of motor function in grafted rats.
Grafted NSCs have the ability to differentiate into neurons and form new functional synaptic connections with the host tissue after spinal cord injury but few studies have focused on their capability to release a wide range of factors after grafting [39,82,87]. These studies provided evidence that grafted NSCs secreted a range of neurotrophic factors or cytokines that may also support neural repair [39,82,83,87]. Furthermore, these results raised the possibility of a paracrine mechanism of action, resulting in the close interaction between grafted neural stem cells and the host tissue.

9. The Lesion-Induced Secretome Produced by Grafted Stem Cells

9.1. The ESC Secretome for Treating SCI

ESCs can produce growth and neurotrophic factors as well as pro- or anti-inflammatory cytokines to support the survival of injured neurons, initiate axonal sparing/regeneration and modulate immune reactions. Because ESCs carry the risk of tumorigenicity, they are usually induced to differentiate into neural progenitor cells (NPCs), which can then be transplanted into the CNS. Brederlau et al. has shown that the rate of teratoma formation depends on the degree of differentiation [88]. Blocking proliferative signalling pathways or sorting the cells before transplantation are the other options for decreasing the risk of tumour formation [89]. The application of ESCs or their differentiated forms into rat, mouse or monkey SCI models significantly improved the morphological and functional outcome of SCI [90,91,92,93,94]. ESCs secrete bioactive molecules such as VEGF, MMP-9 and MCP-1 that enhance the clearance of apoptotic cells and myelin debris, support tissue preservation/regeneration and modulate the immune reaction. They can also produce anti- and proinflammatory molecules which are able to promote the conversion of M1 microglia cells into an M2-like state. This process can effectively modulate the inflammatory responses, leading to a growth-permissive microenvironment after SCI [95,96,97]. The first clinical trial of hESC-derived oligodendrocyte progenitor transplantation approved by the FDA began in 2009. However, Geron Corporation terminated the trial due to financial reasons [97]. Fortunately, renewed funding has allowed the study of these cells in patients with subacute cervical spinal cord injury to restart [98]. While the clinical application of ESCs is promising, their use in SCI is limited due to technical considerations, immune rejection problems and serious ethical issues which have to be solved [96].

9.2. Application of NE-GFP-4C Stem Cells

Recently, we initiated a series of studies to explore the hypothesis that grafted NSCs have the ability to adapt the fate of injury. In our experiments, the NE-4C neuroectodermal cell line was used to study its effect on the injured spinal cord [82,87]. NE-GFP-4C cells (ATCC: CRL-2926) are NSCs first described by Madarász et al.; they were isolated from 9-day-old p53-deficient mouse embryo cortexes [99]. NE-GFP-4C cells implanted in 13-day-old embryonic mouse brains were able to integrate and develop into morphologically differentiated neurons [100]. These data suggest that neuroectodermal stem cells may be a promising candidate to be transplanted into the injured spinal cord.
In our series of experiments, NE-GFP-4C stem cells were grafted into different spinal cord injury models and the fate of the stem cells and their interaction with the host tissue were analysed [82,87]. One of the experimental approaches was the lumbar 4 (L4) ventral root avulsion and reimplantation model. This type of injury results in clear-cut motoneuron damage, where only the motoneurons in the affected segment are damaged. Ventral root avulsion initiates the activation of astrocytes and microglial cells, and the extracellular space becomes loaded with excessive amounts of excitotoxic glutamate, which leads to the death of vast majority of motoneurons [101]. Grafting the undifferentiated NE-GFP-4C cells into the affected spinal segment immediately after the avulsion injury produced modulatory anti- and proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1-alpha, IL-6, IL-10, TNF-alpha and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 (MIP-1) alpha at least for 10 days [87], which rescued the injured motoneurons and enabled them to reinnervate the peripheral targets [102]. The host astrocytes and neurons in the treated animals secreted IL-6 and MIP-1 alpha, indicating strong communication between the grafted cells and the host tissue. Based on these results, NE-GFP-4C cells were applied in a spinal cord contusion injury model. Stem cells were grafted 1 week after the contusion injury, and the grafts produced the neurotrophic factor GDNF, the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 and the proinflammatory cytokines IL-6 and MIP-1 alpha in a paracrine fashion for at least 1 week and induced significant morphological and functional recovery compared with injured untreated animals [82]. Application of osmotic pumps filled with neutralizing antibodies against these four factors nearly completely abolished the effect of the graft [82]. It is important to note that NE-GFP-4C cells did not produce any of these factors in vitro. In the first week after grafting in both injury models, only minor differentiation and migration of grafted cells were observed, and this time period proved to be critical for neuroprotection. Interestingly, after the critical period, the majority of the surviving grafted cells differentiated into neurons or astrocytes and lost the eGFP signal. It can be stated that grafted undifferentiated NE-GFP-4C cells have the capacity to adapt to the specific lesion microenvironment, such as segmental motoneuron injury and spinal cord contusion injury, leading to the functional multipotency of stem cells shown by Teng et al. [103,104].

9.3. Delivery of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

The recent development of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) can serve as an alternative stem cell source [105,106]. The iPSCs can be isolated from highly accessible somatic cells such as dermal fibroblasts or blood cells by transient overexpression of defined transcription factors, notably Oct3/4, Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc [105,106]. Other efficacious factor combinations have also been discovered because some of the factors (c-Myc) were associated with oncogenes. iPSCs display similar properties to ESCs, such as their morphology, proliferation capacity, surface antigens expression and gene expression characteristics [107]. The advantage of iPSCs over ESCs is that iPSCs avoid ethical concerns and the transplantation of iPSCs does not generate a significant host immune response [108]. Studies have also shown that iPSCs preserve the epigenetic memory of the cell type of origin, which results in the accumulation of DNA damage [109]. Miura et al. demonstrated great differences in the tumorigenicity and differentiation capacity of iPSCs derived from various origins [110]. Therefore, much care must be taken to minimize that risk using different approaches, including the use of non-viral techniques or more differentiated cells, such as NSCs [108,111,112].
Various iPSC-derived NSCs were grafted into the injured spinal cord, and considerable information has been gained about their survival, proliferation and differentiation capacity, as well as their migration properties [108,113,114,115,116,117]. Tsuji et al. established various mouse iPSC lines by different methods and detailed an evaluation of the cells, including their differentiation potential and tumorigenic activities. “Safe” iPS-derived neurospheres differentiated into all three neural lineages without forming teratomas after SCI. They proved to remyelinate naked axons and supported the regrowth of host serotonergic fibres, thus promoting functional recovery [118]. In another study, Romanyuk et al. showed that the expression of human neurotrophins significantly changed 8 weeks after cell grafting into the injured spinal cord. After human iPSCs-derived NSC grafting, upregulation of the NGF, FGF8 and GDNF genes and downregulation of the VEGFA and NT3 genes were reported [119]. In some cases, iPSC-derived NSCs induced great differences in motor function recovery due to the age of the somatic cell donor [120]. Please modify to Moreover, adult tissue-derived iPSCs were not as safe as embryonic-derived clones and could form a teratoma after implantation into the injured cord [121]. Interestingly, some studies showed very low or no significant effects after iPSC-derived cell transplantation [120,122,123].
As we described above, grafted NE-GFP-4C stem cells were able to adapt to the damaged environment and produce the specific lesion-induced secretome. Consequently, the question arose as to whether grafted undifferentiated iPSCs have the same capacity as undifferentiated NSCs.
Our lab has demonstrated that grafted undifferentiated mouse iPSCs produced neurotrophic factors (NT-4, GDNF) and cytokines (IL-10, MIP-1 alpha) in the first 7 days after grafting in a ventral root avulsion model [124]. Moreover, the injured host tissue expressed various cytokines and neurotrophic factors, including GDNF, IL-10 and MIP-1 alpha, indicating a strong signalling and modulatory process [124]. Accordingly, grafted animals showed significantly better morphological and functional recovery than injured and untreated controls. Human undifferentiated iPSCs grafted into the lesion cavity following spinal cord contusion injury produced various factors, such as the neurotrophic factor GDNF, the anti-inflammatory protein IL-10 and the proinflammatory protein MIP-1 alpha for at least 1 week. hiPSCs induced tissue sparing, the preservation of axons of propriospinal and supraspinal neurons and limited the deposition of CSPGs, which led to better functional improvement [125]. Furthermore, our in vitro results have provided evidence for the secretion of GDNF, TNF-alpha and VEGF by undifferentiated hiPSCs [125].
In case of grafted iPSCs, only minor phenotypic changes were observed within the first week after grafting. Transplanted hiPSCs survived for up to 2 weeks in the injured cord and underwent a relatively fast differentiation process, accompanied by an intense and increasing microglial/macrophage response by the host immune system [125]. These results are in agreement with the microglia/macrophage reaction against grafted mouse iPSCs in the motoneuron injury model. Based on these results, it can be stated that grafted undifferentiated iPSCs also have the ability to interact with the host tissue and induce morphological and functional recovery via a paracrine mechanism.
It is worth noting that NE-GFP-4C stem cells and iPSCs showed different secretome patterns with a partial overlap (IL-10 and MIP-1 alpha) (Figure 1). Nevertheless, in each case, they were able to achieve significant morphological and functional recovery. The soluble factors mentioned above have reverse functions in the pathophysiology of spinal cord injury, but they can act together and mediate the host immune response, induce tissue sparing and support axonal sparing/regeneration.

9.4. Effects of Lesion-Induced Secretome Components

IL-10 is an effective anti-inflammatory cytokine and induces a number of signalling cascades which activate the antiapoptotic pathway in neurons [126]. IL-10 administration after SCI promoted the survival of the injured neurons and improved motor recovery [127,128]. The role of the proinflammatory cytokine MIP-1 alpha is controversial, but it can control cytokine expression in the injured CNS and modulate the immune response after SCI [82,87,124,125,129,130].
IL-1 alpha, IL-6 and TNF-alpha are prominent proinflammatory cytokines produced rapidly after spinal cord injury and have overlapping functions in the CNS. They can modulate synaptic plasticity and glutamatergic transmission, and contribute to the survival of injured neurons [131,132]. They can activate various cell signalling pathways, resulting in protection against excitotoxicity-induced cell death and stabilization of calcium homeostasis with increased expression of the calcium-binding protein calbindin. In vitro administration of IL-6 enhanced neurite outgrowth through increased expression of growth-associated genes [133,134]. Trans-neuronal delivery of hyper-interleukin-6 supported the regeneration of the corticospinal and raphespinal tracts, which led to functional recovery after severe spinal cord injury [135].
GDNF has a potent survival effect on injured neurons after spinal cord injury, with a reduction in secondary damage and an improvement in motor function [136,137]. GDNF reportedly promotes axonal growth following spinal cord injury, as proven by several studies [138]. Spinal neurons can also be rescued by GDNF treatment during the acute phase of the injury [139]. GDNF can also increase the survival and neural differentiation of grafted cells, as well as reducing tissue loss [140]. Pre-treatment with neurotrophins caused anti-apoptotic effects in cultured cortical neurons, but increased necrosis [141]. NT-4/5 is able to activate numerous intracellular pathways which have an influence on damaged adult spinal motoneurons [142,143], but the exact role of NT4/5 in the injured spinal cord is not fully understood.

9.5. The Fate of Grafted Cells

Based on our results, we can identify three overlapping phases after intraspinal grafting of undifferentiated stem cells (Figure 2). First, a secretory phase can be observed, where the grafted undifferentiated stem cells adapt to the injured microenvironment with strong communication with the host tissue. The grafted cells start to express factors, the so-called lesion-induced secretome. Factors produced by grafted cells were coincident with the expression of stage-specific embryonic antigen (SSEA)-1 or -4 markers [82,87,124,125]. This suggests the presence of a narrow time window when grafted cells can produce the lesion-induced secretome. Second, a differentiation phase can be detected, with a time course that is different for each stem cell line. Interestingly, grafted mouse and human iPSCs showed a faster differentiation process than transplanted NE-GFP-4C cells. However, it can be stated for each cell line that the grafted cells started to differentiate mostly at the graft–host interface. At the same time, a very strong immune response begins against the graft. Initially, reactive microglia cells and macrophages merely encircle the graft; a few days later, they invade the grafted area. The third phase is characterized by elimination of the graft due to the strong immunoreaction against the grafted cells. This is an extended phase where slow clearance of the grafted cells is observed. Only a few graft-derived neurons and astrocytes remained in the wall of the cavity in the case of NE-GFP-4C neuroectodermal stem cell transplantation, whereas the undifferentiated iPSCs were fully eliminated by the host’s microglia/macrophage cells [124,125]. Other studies have confirmed that without the use of immunosuppressants or interruption of immunosuppressive treatment, the transplanted undifferentiated stem cells died after a few weeks of survival [144]. The question remains how it could be possible to mimic the beneficial effects of undifferentiated stem cells in an injured cord.

10. Possible Applications of the Stem Cell Secretome and the Lesion-Induced Secretome to Spinal Cord Injury

Undifferentiated neural stem cells transplanted into a damaged CNS were able to produce a different lesion-induced secretome composition. The question arises whether the application of these secretome compositions in the injured spinal cord is able to initiate neuroprotective and regenerative processes and thus lead to morphological and functional recovery. To test this hypothesis, we need experimental approaches that allow application of the (lesion-induced) secretome following spinal cord injury (Figure 3).
Intravenous administration of concentrated cell secretome shows storage stability and decreases vascular damage following spinal cord injury [63]. Systemic administration of EVs is also a promising strategy for inducing neuroprotection and neuroregeneration, and decreasing secondary damage after the injury (Figure 3).
In case of intraspinal application of the lesion-induced secretome, a traditional strategy could be to use osmotic pumps that deliver the desired factors to the damaged environment. However, this approach is considered quite invasive because the osmotic pumps can clog and require surgery for removal. Another solution is to use virus-derived vectors that allow the intraspinal application of cytokines and neurotrophic factors. Adeno-associated virus (AVV) vectors have been successfully translated to the clinic for conditions such as inherited retinal disorders or haemophilia B [145]. The AVV vector is a very effective gene transfer system for delivering therapeutic gene products to the injured spinal cord [146]. In other studies, lentiviruses have been used as polycistronic vectors to deliver the genes of multiple therapeutic proteins [147], thus enhancing axonal growth and increasing functional recovery after spinal cord injury. Non-viral strategies, such as plasmids, minicircles, nanoparticles, piggyBac or Sleeping Beauty transposons have the ability to deliver DNA or RNA to a variety of cells through transduction [148]. These vectors allow ex vivo gene delivery into a selected cell population. Carrier cells transfected with Sleeping Beauty transposons or piggyBac may be able to express the proteins transiently, thereby providing a permanent effect. Intraspinal application of these systems would lead to successful delivery of a set of biomolecules into the injured spinal cord and may be able to mimic the beneficial effects of the lesion-induced secretome produced by grafted cells.

11. Conclusions

Intravenously administered sectretome-based therapy is a minimally invasive method to target various organs and several pathologies after traumatic SCI. It is important to note that while MSCs are likely to produce secretomes in vitro that are used therapeutically, undifferentiated transplanted NSCs or iPSCs are able to adapt to the injured environment and produce the composition of a given lesion-induced secretome. However, further studies are necessary to prove the positive effects of the identified factors used intraspinally.
Based on our earlier studies it can be stated that the grafted undifferentiated cells first enter a secretory phase and produce a set of factors; then, 5–10 days later, they enter a differentiation phase, losing their secretory function. A few days later, the immune response begins against the differentiated graft-derived stem cells (phase of elimination). In the secretory phase, the secretome composition produced by the grafted cells often contains inflammatory cytokines that have a negative effect on the peripheral immune system. Nevertheless, these inflammatory cytokines, supplemented with neurotrophic factors, form a complex mixture that can significantly promote functional and morphological recovery. The common points of the lesion-induced secretomes identified in each experiment are IL-10 and MIP-1 alpha. In addition to these factors, proinflammatory or neurotrophic factors were produced by the grafted cells, and significant morphological and functional improvements were observed in all cases.
Although the clinical application of undifferentiated stem cell transplantation is not feasible, under experimental conditions, it is possible to graft these cells into the damaged CNS. Due to the factors produced by grafted cells during adaptation to the damaged environment, significant morphological and functional improvement can be induced. The identification and local application of these unique factors may open new avenues for treatment strategies of the injured CNS, and the acute or subacute administration of the secretome or the lesion-induced secretome could conceivably be combined with a later administration of pharmaceuticals to decrease secondary injury.

Author Contributions

K.P., T.B. and A.N. wrote the manuscript. All authors discussed and helped prepare the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We thank for the generous financial support of the OTKA/NKFIH (National Scientific Foundation, Hungary, Grant No.: KLINO-117031).

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dénes Török for his professional help with preparing the figures.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

References

  1. Ramer, L.M.; Ramer, M.S.; Bradbury, E.J. Restoring function after spinal cord injury: Towards clinical translation of experimental strategies. Lancet Neurol. 2014, 13, 1241–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Silva, N.A.; Sousa, N.; Reis, R.L.; Salgado, A.J. From basics to clinical: A comprehensive review on spinal cord injury. Prog. Neurobiol. 2014, 114, 25–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Harvey, L.A.; Batty, J.; Crosbie, J.; Poulter, S.; Herbert, R.D. A randomized trial assessing the effects of 4 weeks of daily stretching on ankle mobility in patients with spinal cord injuries. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2000, 81, 1340–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Krueger, H.; Noonan, V.K.; Trenaman, L.M.; Joshi, P.; Rivers, C.S. The economic burden of traumatic spinal cord injury in Canada. Chronic Dis. Inj. Can. 2013, 33, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bradbury, E.J.; Burnside, E.R. Moving beyond the glial scar for spinal cord repair. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 3879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jackson, A.B.; Dijkers, M.; Devivo, M.J.; Poczatek, R.B. A demographic profile of new traumatic spinal cord injuries: Change and stability over 30 years. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2004, 85, 1740–1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Martin, N.D.; Marks, J.A.; Donohue, J.; Giordano, C.; Cohen, M.J.; Weinstein, M.S. The mortality inflection point for age and acute cervical spinal cord injury. J. Trauma 2011, 71, 380–385; discussion 385–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Kumar, R.; Lim, J.; Mekary, R.A.; Rattani, A.; Dewan, M.C.; Sharif, S.Y.; Osorio-Fonseca, E.; Park, K.B. Traumatic Spinal Injury: Global Epidemiology and Worldwide Volume. World Neurosurg. 2018, 113, e345–e363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Selvarajah, S.; Hammond, E.R.; Haider, A.H.; Abularrage, C.J.; Becker, D.; Dhiman, N.; Hyder, O.; Gupta, D.; Black, J.H., 3rd; Schneider, E.B. The burden of acute traumatic spinal cord injury among adults in the united states: An update. J. Neurotrauma 2014, 31, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Schuld, C.; Franz, S.; Bruggemann, K.; Heutehaus, L.; Weidner, N.; Kirshblum, S.C.; Rupp, R.; EMSCI study group. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury: Impact of the revised worksheet (revision 02/13) on classification performance. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2016, 39, 504–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Anderson, D.K.; Means, E.D.; Waters, T.R.; Green, E.S. Microvascular perfusion and metabolism in injured spinal cord after methylprednisolone treatment. J. Neurosurg. 1982, 56, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Oyinbo, C.A. Secondary injury mechanisms in traumatic spinal cord injury: A nugget of this multiply cascade. Acta Neurobiol. Exp. 2011, 71, 281–299. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kakulas, B.A. Neuropathology: The foundation for new treatments in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2004, 42, 549–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Choo, A.M.; Liu, J.; Lam, C.K.; Dvorak, M.; Tetzlaff, W.; Oxland, T.R. Contusion, dislocation, and distraction: Primary hemorrhage and membrane permeability in distinct mechanisms of spinal cord injury. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2007, 6, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Rowland, J.W.; Hawryluk, G.W.; Kwon, B.; Fehlings, M.G. Current status of acute spinal cord injury pathophysiology and emerging therapies: Promise on the horizon. Neurosurg. Focus 2008, 25, E2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Yezierski, R.P. Pain following spinal cord injury: Pathophysiology and central mechanisms. Prog. Brain Res. 2000, 129, 429–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Donnelly, D.J.; Popovich, P.G. Inflammation and its role in neuroprotection, axonal regeneration and functional recovery after spinal cord injury. Exp. Neurol. 2008, 209, 378–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. McDonald, J.W.; Althomsons, S.P.; Hyrc, K.L.; Choi, D.W.; Goldberg, M.P. Oligodendrocytes from forebrain are highly vulnerable to AMPA/kainate receptor-mediated excitotoxicity. Nat. Med. 1998, 4, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Beattie, M.S.; Farooqui, A.A.; Bresnahan, J.C. Review of current evidence for apoptosis after spinal cord injury. J. Neurotrauma 2000, 17, 915–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pires, A.O.; Mendes-Pinheiro, B.; Teixeira, F.G.; Anjo, S.I.; Ribeiro-Samy, S.; Gomes, E.D.; Serra, S.C.; Silva, N.A.; Manadas, B.; Sousa, N.; et al. Unveiling the Differences of Secretome of Human Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells, Adipose Tissue-Derived Stem Cells, and Human Umbilical Cord Perivascular Cells: A Proteomic Analysis. Stem Cells Dev. 2016, 25, 1073–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Sofroniew, M.V.; Vinters, H.V. Astrocytes: Biology and pathology. Acta Neuropathol. 2010, 119, 7–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Liu, Y.; Ye, H.; Satkunendrarajah, K.; Yao, G.S.; Bayon, Y.; Fehlings, M.G. A self-assembling peptide reduces glial scarring, attenuates post-traumatic inflammation and promotes neurological recovery following spinal cord injury. Acta Biomater. 2013, 9, 8075–8088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Tran, A.P.; Warren, P.M.; Silver, J. The Biology of Regeneration Failure and Success After Spinal Cord Injury. Physiol. Rev. 2018, 98, 881–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Herrmann, J.E.; Imura, T.; Song, B.; Qi, J.; Ao, Y.; Nguyen, T.K.; Korsak, R.A.; Takeda, K.; Akira, S.; Sofroniew, M.V. STAT3 is a critical regulator of astrogliosis and scar formation after spinal cord injury. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 2008, 28, 7231–7243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ohtake, Y.; Li, S. Molecular mechanisms of scar-sourced axon growth inhibitors. Brain Res. 2015, 1619, 22–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Zhang, H.; Trivedi, A.; Lee, J.U.; Lohela, M.; Lee, S.M.; Fandel, T.M.; Werb, Z.; Noble-Haeusslein, L.J. Matrix metalloproteinase-9 and stromal cell-derived factor-1 act synergistically to support migration of blood-borne monocytes into the injured spinal cord. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 2011, 31, 15894–15903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shechter, R.; London, A.; Varol, C.; Raposo, C.; Cusimano, M.; Yovel, G.; Rolls, A.; Mack, M.; Pluchino, S.; Martino, G.; et al. Infiltrating blood-derived macrophages are vital cells playing an anti-inflammatory role in recovery from spinal cord injury in mice. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Novak, M.L.; Koh, T.J. Macrophage phenotypes during tissue repair. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2013, 93, 875–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Borgens, R.B.; Liu-Snyder, P. Understanding secondary injury. Q. Rev. Biol. 2012, 87, 89–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bastien, D.; Lacroix, S. Cytokine pathways regulating glial and leukocyte function after spinal cord and peripheral nerve injury. Exp. Neurol. 2014, 258, 62–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhou, X.; He, X.; Ren, Y. Function of microglia and macrophages in secondary damage after spinal cord injury. Neural Regen. Res. 2014, 9, 1787–1795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Gensel, J.C.; Zhang, B. Macrophage activation and its role in repair and pathology after spinal cord injury. Brain Res. 2015, 1619, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Nagoshi, N.; Nakashima, H.; Fehlings, M.G. Riluzole as a neuroprotective drug for spinal cord injury: From bench to bedside. Molecules 2015, 20, 7775–7789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Fehlings, M.G.; Badhiwala, J.H.; Ahn, H.; Farhadi, H.F.; Shaffrey, C.I.; Nassr, A.; Mummaneni, P.; Arnold, P.M.; Jacobs, W.B.; Riew, K.D.; et al. Safety and efficacy of riluzole in patients undergoing decompressive surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy (CSM-Protect): A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021, 20, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hurlbert, R.J.; Hadley, M.N.; Walters, B.C.; Aarabi, B.; Dhall, S.S.; Gelb, D.E.; Rozzelle, C.J.; Ryken, T.C.; Theodore, N. Pharmacological therapy for acute spinal cord injury. Neurosurgery 2015, 76 (Suppl. S1), S71–S83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Martirosyan, N.L. Pharmacologic and Cell-Based Therapies for Acute Spinal Cord Injury. Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 2021, 32, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ahuja, C.S.; Fehlings, M. Concise Review: Bridging the Gap: Novel Neuroregenerative and Neuroprotective Strategies in Spinal Cord Injury. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2016, 5, 914–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Cummings, B.J.; Uchida, N.; Tamaki, S.J.; Salazar, D.L.; Hooshmand, M.; Summers, R.; Gage, F.H.; Anderson, A.J. Human neural stem cells differentiate and promote locomotor recovery in spinal cord-injured mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 14069–14074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Sharp, K.G.; Flanagan, L.A.; Yee, K.M.; Steward, O. A re-assessment of a combinatorial treatment involving Schwann cell transplants and elevation of cyclic AMP on recovery of motor function following thoracic spinal cord injury in rats. Exp. Neurol. 2012, 233, 625–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Salewski, R.P.; Mitchell, R.A.; Li, L.; Shen, C.; Milekovskaia, M.; Nagy, A.; Fehlings, M.G. Transplantation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Neural Stem Cells Mediate Functional Recovery Following Thoracic Spinal Cord Injury Through Remyelination of Axons. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2015, 4, 743–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zakrzewski, W.; Dobrzynski, M.; Szymonowicz, M.; Rybak, Z. Stem cells: Past, present, and future. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2019, 10, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jo, Y.Y.; Lee, H.J.; Kook, S.Y.; Choung, H.W.; Park, J.Y.; Chung, J.H.; Choung, Y.H.; Kim, E.S.; Yang, H.C.; Choung, P.H. Isolation and characterization of postnatal stem cells from human dental tissues. Tissue Eng. 2007, 13, 767–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Orciani, M.; Di Primio, R. Skin-derived mesenchymal stem cells: Isolation, culture, and characterization. Methods Mol. Biol. 2013, 989, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lai, R.C.; Yeo, R.W.; Lim, S.K. Mesenchymal stem cell exosomes. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2015, 40, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dominici, M.; Le Blanc, K.; Mueller, I.; Slaper-Cortenbach, I.; Marini, F.; Krause, D.; Deans, R.; Keating, A.; Prockop, D.; Horwitz, E. Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy 2006, 8, 315–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Karsenty, G.; Ferron, M. The contribution of bone to whole-organism physiology. Nature 2012, 481, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, Q.; Liu, K.; Robinson, A.R.; Clauson, C.L.; Blair, H.C.; Robbins, P.D.; Niedernhofer, L.J.; Ouyang, H. DNA damage drives accelerated bone aging via an NF-kappaB-dependent mechanism. J. Bone Miner. Res. Off. J. Am. Soc. Bone Miner. Res. 2013, 28, 1214–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Frenette, P.S.; Pinho, S.; Lucas, D.; Scheiermann, C. Mesenchymal stem cell: Keystone of the hematopoietic stem cell niche and a stepping-stone for regenerative medicine. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2013, 31, 285–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Abdallah, B.M.; Kassem, M. Human mesenchymal stem cells: From basic biology to clinical applications. Gene Ther. 2008, 15, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Chen, C.J.; Ou, Y.C.; Liao, S.L.; Chen, W.Y.; Chen, S.Y.; Wu, C.W.; Wang, C.C.; Wang, W.Y.; Huang, Y.S.; Hsu, S.H. Transplantation of bone marrow stromal cells for peripheral nerve repair. Exp. Neurol. 2007, 204, 443–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Woodbury, D.; Schwarz, E.J.; Prockop, D.J.; Black, I.B. Adult rat and human bone marrow stromal cells differentiate into neurons. J. Neurosci. Res. 2000, 61, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Deng, W.; Obrocka, M.; Fischer, I.; Prockop, D.J. In vitro differentiation of human marrow stromal cells into early progenitors of neural cells by conditions that increase intracellular cyclic AMP. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2001, 282, 148–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Himes, B.T.; Neuhuber, B.; Coleman, C.; Kushner, R.; Swanger, S.A.; Kopen, G.C.; Wagner, J.; Shumsky, J.S.; Fischer, I. Recovery of function following grafting of human bone marrow-derived stromal cells into the injured spinal cord. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2006, 20, 278–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Hofstetter, C.P.; Schwarz, E.J.; Hess, D.; Widenfalk, J.; El Manira, A.; Prockop, D.J.; Olson, L. Marrow stromal cells form guiding strands in the injured spinal cord and promote recovery. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 2199–2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Deng, Y.B.; Liu, X.G.; Liu, Z.G.; Liu, X.L.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, G.Q. Implantation of BM mesenchymal stem cells into injured spinal cord elicits de novo neurogenesis and functional recovery: Evidence from a study in rhesus monkeys. Cytotherapy 2006, 8, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Furuya, T.; Hashimoto, M.; Koda, M.; Okawa, A.; Murata, A.; Takahashi, K.; Yamashita, T.; Yamazaki, M. Treatment of rat spinal cord injury with a Rho-kinase inhibitor and bone marrow stromal cell transplantation. Brain Res. 2009, 1295, 192–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Park, W.B.; Kim, S.Y.; Lee, S.H.; Kim, H.W.; Park, J.S.; Hyun, J.K. The effect of mesenchymal stem cell transplantation on the recovery of bladder and hindlimb function after spinal cord contusion in rats. BMC Neurosci. 2010, 11, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Sandner, B.; Ciatipis, M.; Motsch, M.; Soljanik, I.; Weidner, N.; Blesch, A. Limited Functional Effects of Subacute Syngeneic Bone Marrow Stromal Cell Transplantation After Rat Spinal Cord Contusion Injury. Cell Transplant. 2016, 25, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Tetzlaff, W.; Okon, E.B.; Karimi-Abdolrezaee, S.; Hill, C.E.; Sparling, J.S.; Plemel, J.R.; Plunet, W.T.; Tsai, E.C.; Baptiste, D.; Smithson, L.J.; et al. A systematic review of cellular transplantation therapies for spinal cord injury. J. Neurotrauma 2011, 28, 1611–1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dooley, D.; Lemmens, E.; Vangansewinkel, T.; Le Blon, D.; Hoornaert, C.; Ponsaerts, P.; Hendrix, S. Cell-Based Delivery of Interleukin-13 Directs Alternative Activation of Macrophages Resulting in Improved Functional Outcome after Spinal Cord Injury. Stem Cell Rep. 2016, 7, 1099–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chen, X.; Wang, S.; Cao, W. Mesenchymal stem cell-mediated immunomodulation in cell therapy of neurodegenerative diseases. Cell. Immunol. 2018, 326, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Li, L.; Yang, M.; Wang, C.; Zhao, Q.; Liu, J.; Zhan, C.; Liu, Z.; Li, X.; Wang, W.; Yang, X. Effects of cytokines and chemokines on migration of mesenchymal stem cells following spinal cord injury. Neural Regen. Res. 2012, 7, 1106–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Vawda, R.; Badner, A.; Hong, J.; Mikhail, M.; Lakhani, A.; Dragas, R.; Xhima, K.; Barretto, T.; Librach, C.L.; Fehlings, M.G. Early Intravenous Infusion of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Exerts a Tissue Source Age-Dependent Beneficial Effect on Neurovascular Integrity and Neurobehavioral Recovery After Traumatic Cervical Spinal Cord Injury. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2019, 8, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Boido, M.; Piras, A.; Valsecchi, V.; Spigolon, G.; Mareschi, K.; Ferrero, I.; Vizzini, A.; Temi, S.; Mazzini, L.; Fagioli, F.; et al. Human mesenchymal stromal cell transplantation modulates neuroinflammatory milieu in a mouse model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Cytotherapy 2014, 16, 1059–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vizoso, F.J.; Eiro, N.; Cid, S.; Schneider, J.; Perez-Fernandez, R. Mesenchymal Stem Cell Secretome: Toward Cell-Free Therapeutic Strategies in Regenerative Medicine. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Lennon, D.; Solchaga, L.A.; Somoza, R.A.; Schluchter, M.D.; Margevicius, S.; Caplan, A.I. Human and Rat Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Differ in Their Response to Fibroblast Growth Factor and Platelet-Derived Growth Factor. Tissue Eng. Part A 2018, 24, 1831–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yanez-Mo, M.; Siljander, P.R.; Andreu, Z.; Zavec, A.B.; Borras, F.E.; Buzas, E.I.; Buzas, K.; Casal, E.; Cappello, F.; Carvalho, J.; et al. Biological properties of extracellular vesicles and their physiological functions. J. Extracell. Vesicles 2015, 4, 27066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Lankford, K.L.; Arroyo, E.J.; Nazimek, K.; Bryniarski, K.; Askenase, P.W.; Kocsis, J.D. Intravenously delivered mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes target M2-type macrophages in the injured spinal cord. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0190358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Kim, H.Y.; Kumar, H.; Jo, M.J.; Kim, J.; Yoon, J.K.; Lee, J.R.; Kang, M.; Choo, Y.W.; Song, S.Y.; Kwon, S.P.; et al. Therapeutic Efficacy-Potentiated and Diseased Organ-Targeting Nanovesicles Derived from Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Spinal Cord Injury Treatment. Nano Lett. 2018, 18, 4965–4975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Sun, G.; Li, G.; Li, D.; Huang, W.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, H.; Duan, Y.; Wang, B. hucMSC derived exosomes promote functional recovery in spinal cord injury mice via attenuating inflammation. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2018, 89, 194–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Jiang, D.; Gong, F.; Ge, X.; Lv, C.; Huang, C.; Feng, S.; Zhou, Z.; Rong, Y.; Wang, J.; Ji, C.; et al. Neuron-derived exosomes-transmitted miR-124-3p protect traumatically injured spinal cord by suppressing the activation of neurotoxic microglia and astrocytes. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2020, 18, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhong, D.; Cao, Y.; Li, C.J.; Li, M.; Rong, Z.J.; Jiang, L.; Guo, Z.; Lu, H.B.; Hu, J.Z. Neural stem cell-derived exosomes facilitate spinal cord functional recovery after injury by promoting angiogenesis. Exp. Biol. Med. 2020, 245, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Mohammed, I.; Ijaz, S.; Mokhtari, T.; Gholaminejhad, M.; Mahdavipour, M.; Jameie, B.; Akbari, M.; Hassanzadeh, G. Subventricular zone-derived extracellular vesicles promote functional recovery in rat model of spinal cord injury by inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome complex formation. Metab. Brain Dis. 2020, 35, 809–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Liang, X.; Zhang, L.; Wang, S.; Han, Q.; Zhao, R.C. Exosomes secreted by mesenchymal stem cells promote endothelial cell angiogenesis by transferring miR-125a. J. Cell Sci. 2016, 129, 2182–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Altman, J.; Das, G.D. Autoradiographic and histological evidence of postnatal hippocampal neurogenesis in rats. J. Comp. Neurol. 1965, 124, 319–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Song, J.; Olsen, R.H.; Sun, J.; Ming, G.L.; Song, H. Neuronal Circuitry Mechanisms Regulating Adult Mammalian Neurogenesis. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2016, 8, a018937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Weiss, S.; Dunne, C.; Hewson, J.; Wohl, C.; Wheatley, M.; Peterson, A.C.; Reynolds, B.A. Multipotent CNS stem cells are present in the adult mammalian spinal cord and ventricular neuroaxis. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 1996, 16, 7599–7609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Toda, T.; Parylak, S.L.; Linker, S.B.; Gage, F.H. The role of adult hippocampal neurogenesis in brain health and disease. Mol. Psychiatry 2019, 24, 67–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Pereira, I.M.; Marote, A.; Salgado, A.J.; Silva, N.A. Filling the Gap: Neural Stem Cells as A Promising Therapy for Spinal Cord Injury. Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Lu, P.; Ceto, S.; Wang, Y.; Graham, L.; Wu, D.; Kumamaru, H.; Staufenberg, E.; Tuszynski, M.H. Prolonged human neural stem cell maturation supports recovery in injured rodent CNS. J. Clin. Investig. 2017, 127, 3287–3299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Rosenzweig, E.S.; Brock, J.H.; Lu, P.; Kumamaru, H.; Salegio, E.A.; Kadoya, K.; Weber, J.L.; Liang, J.J.; Moseanko, R.; Hawbecker, S.; et al. Restorative effects of human neural stem cell grafts on the primate spinal cord. Nat. Med. 2018, 24, 484–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Pajer, K.; Bellak, T.; Redl, H.; Nogradi, A. Neuroectodermal Stem Cells Grafted into the Injured Spinal Cord Induce Both Axonal Regeneration and Morphological Restoration via Multiple Mechanisms. J. Neurotrauma 2019, 36, 2977–2990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Lu, P.; Jones, L.L.; Snyder, E.Y.; Tuszynski, M.H. Neural stem cells constitutively secrete neurotrophic factors and promote extensive host axonal growth after spinal cord injury. Exp. Neurol. 2003, 181, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Iwanami, A.; Kaneko, S.; Nakamura, M.; Kanemura, Y.; Mori, H.; Kobayashi, S.; Yamasaki, M.; Momoshima, S.; Ishii, H.; Ando, K.; et al. Transplantation of human neural stem cells for spinal cord injury in primates. J. Neurosci. Res. 2005, 80, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Gu, Y.L.; Yin, L.W.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, J.; Liu, S.J.; Zhang, L.F.; Wang, T.H. Neurotrophin expressions in neural stem cells grafted acutely to transected spinal cord of adult rats linked to functional improvement. Cell. Mol. Neurobiol. 2012, 32, 1089–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lu, P.; Wang, Y.; Graham, L.; McHale, K.; Gao, M.; Wu, D.; Brock, J.; Blesch, A.; Rosenzweig, E.S.; Havton, L.A.; et al. Long-distance growth and connectivity of neural stem cells after severe spinal cord injury. Cell 2012, 150, 1264–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Pajer, K.; Feichtinger, G.A.; Marton, G.; Sabitzer, S.; Klein, D.; Redl, H.; Nogradi, A. Cytokine signaling by grafted neuroectodermal stem cells rescues motoneurons destined to die. Exp. Neurol. 2014, 261, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Brederlau, A.; Correia, A.S.; Anisimov, S.V.; Elmi, M.; Paul, G.; Roybon, L.; Morizane, A.; Bergquist, F.; Riebe, I.; Nannmark, U.; et al. Transplantation of human embryonic stem cell-derived cells to a rat model of Parkinson’s disease: Effect of in vitro differentiation on graft survival and teratoma formation. Stem Cells 2006, 24, 1433–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Badner, A.; Siddiqui, A.M.; Fehlings, M.G. Spinal cord injuries: How could cell therapy help? Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2017, 17, 529–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Yang, J.R.; Liao, C.H.; Pang, C.Y.; Huang, L.L.; Chen, Y.L.; Shiue, Y.L.; Chen, L.R. Transplantation of porcine embryonic stem cells and their derived neuronal progenitors in a spinal cord injury rat model. Cytotherapy 2013, 15, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Iwai, H.; Nori, S.; Nishimura, S.; Yasuda, A.; Takano, M.; Tsuji, O.; Fujiyoshi, K.; Toyama, Y.; Okano, H.; Nakamura, M. Transplantation of neural stem/progenitor cells at different locations in mice with spinal cord injury. Cell Transplant. 2014, 23, 1451–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Riemann, L.; Younsi, A.; Scherer, M.; Zheng, G.; Skutella, T.; Unterberg, A.W.; Zweckberger, K. Transplantation of Neural Precursor Cells Attenuates Chronic Immune Environment in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury. Front. Neurol. 2018, 9, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Levi, A.D.; Okonkwo, D.O.; Park, P.; Jenkins, A.L., 3rd; Kurpad, S.N.; Parr, A.M.; Ganju, A.; Aarabi, B.; Kim, D.; Casha, S.; et al. Emerging Safety of Intramedullary Transplantation of Human Neural Stem Cells in Chronic Cervical and Thoracic Spinal Cord Injury. Neurosurgery 2018, 82, 562–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Levi, A.D.; Anderson, K.D.; Okonkwo, D.O.; Park, P.; Bryce, T.N.; Kurpad, S.N.; Aarabi, B.; Hsieh, J.; Gant, K. Clinical Outcomes from a Multi-Center Study of Human Neural Stem Cell Transplantation in Chronic Cervical Spinal Cord Injury. J. Neurotrauma 2019, 36, 891–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Chen, T.; Wang, X.; Guo, L.; Wu, M.; Duan, Z.; Lv, J.; Tai, W.; Renganathan, H.; Didier, R.; Li, J.; et al. Embryonic Stem Cells Promoting Macrophage Survival and Function are Crucial for Teratoma Development. Front. Immunol. 2014, 5, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Guo, L.; Rolfe, A.J.; Wang, X.; Tai, W.; Cheng, Z.; Cao, K.; Chen, X.; Xu, Y.; Sun, D.; Li, J.; et al. Rescuing macrophage normal function in spinal cord injury with embryonic stem cell conditioned media. Mol. Brain 2016, 9, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Shroff, G.; Dhanda Titus, J.; Shroff, R. A review of the emerging potential therapy for neurological disorders: Human embryonic stem cell therapy. Am. J. Stem Cells 2017, 6, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  98. Ahuja, C.S.; Wilson, J.R.; Nori, S.; Kotter, M.R.N.; Druschel, C.; Curt, A.; Fehlings, M.G. Traumatic spinal cord injury. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2017, 3, 17018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Schlett, K.; Madarasz, E. Retinoic acid induced neural differentiation in a neuroectodermal cell line immortalized by p53 deficiency. J. Neurosci. Res. 1997, 47, 405–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Demeter, K.; Herberth, B.; Duda, E.; Domonkos, A.; Jaffredo, T.; Herman, J.P.; Madarasz, E. Fate of cloned embryonic neuroectodermal cells implanted into the adult, newborn and embryonic forebrain. Exp. Neurol. 2004, 188, 254–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Nogradi, A.; Vrbova, G. The effect of riluzole treatment in rats on the survival of injured adult and grafted embryonic motoneurons. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2001, 13, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Pajenda, G.; Pajer, K.; Marton, G.; Hegyi, P.; Redl, H.; Nogradi, A. Rescue of injured motoneurones by grafted neuroectodermal stem cells: Effect of the location of graft. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 2013, 31, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Teng, Y.D. Functional Multipotency of Stem Cells and Recovery Neurobiology of Injured Spinal Cords. Cell Transplant. 2019, 28, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Teng, Y.D. Functional multipotency of stem cells: Biological traits gleaned from neural progeny studies. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019, 95, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Takahashi, K.; Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 2006, 126, 663–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Takahashi, K.; Tanabe, K.; Ohnuki, M.; Narita, M.; Ichisaka, T.; Tomoda, K.; Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 2007, 131, 861–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Itakura, G.; Ozaki, M.; Nagoshi, N.; Kawabata, S.; Nishiyama, Y.; Sugai, K.; Iida, T.; Kashiwagi, R.; Ookubo, T.; Yastake, K.; et al. Low immunogenicity of mouse induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neural stem/progenitor cells. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 12996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Kobayashi, Y.; Okada, Y.; Itakura, G.; Iwai, H.; Nishimura, S.; Yasuda, A.; Nori, S.; Hikishima, K.; Konomi, T.; Fujiyoshi, K.; et al. Pre-evaluated safe human iPSC-derived neural stem cells promote functional recovery after spinal cord injury in common marmoset without tumorigenicity. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e52787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Kim, K.; Doi, A.; Wen, B.; Ng, K.; Zhao, R.; Cahan, P.; Kim, J.; Aryee, M.J.; Ji, H.; Ehrlich, L.I.; et al. Epigenetic memory in induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2010, 467, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  110. Miura, K.; Okada, Y.; Aoi, T.; Okada, A.; Takahashi, K.; Okita, K.; Nakagawa, M.; Koyanagi, M.; Tanabe, K.; Ohnuki, M.; et al. Variation in the safety of induced pluripotent stem cell lines. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 743–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  111. Okano, H.; Nakamura, M.; Yoshida, K.; Okada, Y.; Tsuji, O.; Nori, S.; Ikeda, E.; Yamanaka, S.; Miura, K. Steps toward safe cell therapy using induced pluripotent stem cells. Circ. Res. 2013, 112, 523–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Tanimoto, Y.; Yamasaki, T.; Nagoshi, N.; Nishiyama, Y.; Nori, S.; Nishimura, S.; Iida, T.; Ozaki, M.; Tsuji, O.; Ji, B.; et al. In vivo monitoring of remnant undifferentiated neural cells following human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neural stem/progenitor cells transplantation. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2020, 9, 465–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Nori, S.; Okada, Y.; Yasuda, A.; Tsuji, O.; Takahashi, Y.; Kobayashi, Y.; Fujiyoshi, K.; Koike, M.; Uchiyama, Y.; Ikeda, E.; et al. Grafted human-induced pluripotent stem-cell-derived neurospheres promote motor functional recovery after spinal cord injury in mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 16825–16830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Nori, S.; Khazaei, M.; Ahuja, C.S.; Yokota, K.; Ahlfors, J.E.; Liu, Y.; Wang, J.; Shibata, S.; Chio, J.; Hettiaratchi, M.H.; et al. Human Oligodendrogenic Neural Progenitor Cells Delivered with Chondroitinase ABC Facilitate Functional Repair of Chronic Spinal Cord Injury. Stem Cell Rep. 2018, 11, 1433–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  115. Kawabata, S.; Takano, M.; Numasawa-Kuroiwa, Y.; Itakura, G.; Kobayashi, Y.; Nishiyama, Y.; Sugai, K.; Nishimura, S.; Iwai, H.; Isoda, M.; et al. Grafted Human iPS Cell-Derived Oligodendrocyte Precursor Cells Contribute to Robust Remyelination of Demyelinated Axons after Spinal Cord Injury. Stem Cell Rep. 2016, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Kong, D.; Feng, B.; Amponsah, A.E.; He, J.; Guo, R.; Liu, B.; Du, X.; Liu, X.; Zhang, S.; Lv, F.; et al. hiPSC-derived NSCs effectively promote the functional recovery of acute spinal cord injury in mice. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2021, 12, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Patil, N.; Walsh, P.; Carrabre, K.; Holmberg, E.G.; Lavoie, N.; Dutton, J.R.; Parr, A.M. Regionally Specific Human Pre-Oligodendrocyte Progenitor Cells Produce Both Oligodendrocytes and Neurons after Transplantation in a Chronically Injured Spinal Cord Rat Model after Glial Scar Ablation. J. Neurotrauma 2021, 38, 777–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Tsuji, O.; Miura, K.; Okada, Y.; Fujiyoshi, K.; Mukaino, M.; Nagoshi, N.; Kitamura, K.; Kumagai, G.; Nishino, M.; Tomisato, S.; et al. Therapeutic potential of appropriately evaluated safe-induced pluripotent stem cells for spinal cord injury. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 12704–12709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Romanyuk, N.; Amemori, T.; Turnovcova, K.; Prochazka, P.; Onteniente, B.; Sykova, E.; Jendelova, P. Beneficial Effect of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Neural Precursors in Spinal Cord Injury Repair. Cell Transplant. 2015, 24, 1781–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  120. Yousefifard, M.; Rahimi-Movaghar, V.; Nasirinezhad, F.; Baikpour, M.; Safari, S.; Saadat, S.; Moghadas Jafari, A.; Asady, H.; Razavi Tousi, S.M.; Hosseini, M. Neural stem/progenitor cell transplantation for spinal cord injury treatment; A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience 2016, 322, 377–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Tsuji, O.; Miura, K.; Fujiyoshi, K.; Momoshima, S.; Nakamura, M.; Okano, H. Cell therapy for spinal cord injury by neural stem/progenitor cells derived from iPS/ES cells. Neurother. J. Am. Soc. Exp. NeuroTherapeutics 2011, 8, 668–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Nutt, S.E.; Chang, E.A.; Suhr, S.T.; Schlosser, L.O.; Mondello, S.E.; Moritz, C.T.; Cibelli, J.B.; Horner, P.J. Caudalized human iPSC-derived neural progenitor cells produce neurons and glia but fail to restore function in an early chronic spinal cord injury model. Exp. Neurol. 2013, 248, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  123. Pomeshchik, Y.; Puttonen, K.A.; Kidin, I.; Ruponen, M.; Lehtonen, S.; Malm, T.; Akesson, E.; Hovatta, O.; Koistinaho, J. Transplanted Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Neural Progenitor Cells Do Not Promote Functional Recovery of Pharmacologically Immunosuppressed Mice with Contusion Spinal Cord Injury. Cell Transplant. 2015, 24, 1799–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Pajer, K.; Nemes, C.; Berzsenyi, S.; Kovacs, K.A.; Pirity, M.K.; Pajenda, G.; Nogradi, A.; Dinnyes, A. Grafted murine induced pluripotent stem cells prevent death of injured rat motoneurons otherwise destined to die. Exp. Neurol. 2015, 269, 188–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Bellak, T.; Fekecs, Z.; Torok, D.; Tancos, Z.; Nemes, C.; Tezsla, Z.; Gal, L.; Polgari, S.; Kobolak, J.; Dinnyes, A.; et al. Grafted human induced pluripotent stem cells improve the outcome of spinal cord injury: Modulation of the lesion microenvironment. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 22414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Fiorentino, D.F.; Zlotnik, A.; Mosmann, T.R.; Howard, M.; O’Garra, A. IL-10 inhibits cytokine production by activated macrophages. J. Immunol. 1991, 147, 3815–3822. [Google Scholar]
  127. Zhou, Z.; Peng, X.; Insolera, R.; Fink, D.J.; Mata, M. IL-10 promotes neuronal survival following spinal cord injury. Exp. Neurol. 2009, 220, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Hellenbrand, D.J.; Reichl, K.A.; Travis, B.J.; Filipp, M.E.; Khalil, A.S.; Pulito, D.J.; Gavigan, A.V.; Maginot, E.R.; Arnold, M.T.; Adler, A.G.; et al. Sustained interleukin-10 delivery reduces inflammation and improves motor function after spinal cord injury. J. Neuroinflamm. 2019, 16, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Mennicken, F.; Maki, R.; de Souza, E.B.; Quirion, R. Chemokines and chemokine receptors in the CNS: A possible role in neuroinflammation and patterning. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 1999, 20, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Rossi, D.; Zlotnik, A. The biology of chemokines and their receptors. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2000, 18, 217–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Coogan, A.; O’Connor, J.J. Inhibition of NMDA receptor-mediated synaptic transmission in the rat dentate gyrus in vitro by IL-1 beta. Neuroreport 1997, 8, 2107–2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Carlson, N.G.; Wieggel, W.A.; Chen, J.; Bacchi, A.; Rogers, S.W.; Gahring, L.C. Inflammatory cytokines IL-1 alpha, IL-1 beta, IL-6, and TNF-alpha impart neuroprotection to an excitotoxin through distinct pathways. J. Immunol. 1999, 163, 3963–3968. [Google Scholar]
  133. Yang, P.; Wen, H.; Ou, S.; Cui, J.; Fan, D. IL-6 promotes regeneration and functional recovery after cortical spinal tract injury by reactivating intrinsic growth program of neurons and enhancing synapse formation. Exp. Neurol. 2012, 236, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Leibinger, M.; Muller, A.; Gobrecht, P.; Diekmann, H.; Andreadaki, A.; Fischer, D. Interleukin-6 contributes to CNS axon regeneration upon inflammatory stimulation. Cell Death Dis. 2013, 4, e609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  135. Leibinger, M.; Zeitler, C.; Gobrecht, P.; Andreadaki, A.; Gisselmann, G.; Fischer, D. Transneuronal delivery of hyper-interleukin-6 enables functional recovery after severe spinal cord injury in mice. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Rosich, K.; Hanna, B.F.; Ibrahim, R.K.; Hellenbrand, D.J.; Hanna, A. The Effects of Glial Cell Line-Derived Neurotrophic Factor after Spinal Cord Injury. J. Neurotrauma 2017, 34, 3311–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Walker, M.J.; Xu, X.M. History of Glial Cell Line-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (GDNF) and Its Use for Spinal Cord Injury Repair. Brain Sci. 2018, 8, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Sivak, W.N.; White, J.D.; Bliley, J.M.; Tien, L.W.; Liao, H.T.; Kaplan, D.L.; Marra, K.G. Delivery of chondroitinase ABC and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor from silk fibroin conduits enhances peripheral nerve regeneration. J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2017, 11, 733–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Oppenheim, R.W.; Houenou, L.J.; Johnson, J.E.; Lin, L.F.; Li, L.; Lo, A.C.; Newsome, A.L.; Prevette, D.M.; Wang, S. Developing motor neurons rescued from programmed and axotomy-induced cell death by GDNF. Nature 1995, 373, 344–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Khazaei, M.; Ahuja, C.S.; Nakashima, H.; Nagoshi, N.; Li, L.; Wang, J.; Chio, J.; Badner, A.; Seligman, D.; Ichise, A.; et al. GDNF rescues the fate of neural progenitor grafts by attenuating Notch signals in the injured spinal cord in rodents. Sci. Transl. Med. 2020, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Kohn, J.; Aloyz, R.S.; Toma, J.G.; Haak-Frendscho, M.; Miller, F.D. Functionally antagonistic interactions between the TrkA and p75 neurotrophin receptors regulate sympathetic neuron growth and target innervation. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 1999, 19, 5393–5408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Friedman, B.; Kleinfeld, D.; Ip, N.Y.; Verge, V.M.; Moulton, R.; Boland, P.; Zlotchenko, E.; Lindsay, R.M.; Liu, L. BDNF and NT-4/5 exert neurotrophic influences on injured adult spinal motor neurons. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 1995, 15, 1044–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Awad, B.I.; Carmody, M.A.; Steinmetz, M.P. Potential role of growth factors in the management of spinal cord injury. World Neurosurg. 2015, 83, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Itakura, G.; Kobayashi, Y.; Nishimura, S.; Iwai, H.; Takano, M.; Iwanami, A.; Toyama, Y.; Okano, H.; Nakamura, M. Control of the Survival and Growth of Human Glioblastoma Grafted into the Spinal Cord of Mice by Taking Advantage of Immunorejection. Cell Transplant. 2015, 24, 1299–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Mingozzi, F.; High, K.A. Therapeutic in vivo gene transfer for genetic disease using AAV: Progress and challenges. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 12, 341–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Hoshino, Y.; Nishide, K.; Nagoshi, N.; Shibata, S.; Moritoki, N.; Kojima, K.; Tsuji, O.; Matsumoto, M.; Kohyama, J.; Nakamura, M.; et al. The adeno-associated virus rh10 vector is an effective gene transfer system for chronic spinal cord injury. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 9844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  147. Park, J.; Decker, J.T.; Smith, D.R.; Cummings, B.J.; Anderson, A.J.; Shea, L.D. Reducing inflammation through delivery of lentivirus encoding for anti-inflammatory cytokines attenuates neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. J. Control. Release Off. J. Control. Release Soc. 2018, 290, 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Kebriaei, P.; Izsvak, Z.; Narayanavari, S.A.; Singh, H.; Ivics, Z. Gene Therapy with the Sleeping Beauty Transposon System. Trends Genet. TIG 2017, 33, 852–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Various of lesion-induced secretome compositions in different spinal cord injury models. Partial overlap (IL-10 and MIP-1a) is observed between the two sets of bioactive molecules. (A) Following ventral root avulsion and reimplantation, the grafted cells produced various factors that induced significant functional motor reinnervation of the denervated muscles. (B) In a contusion injury model, the grafted cells expressed a set of proteins that significantly contributed to neuroprotection and improved the functional outcome of spinal cord injury.
Figure 1. Various of lesion-induced secretome compositions in different spinal cord injury models. Partial overlap (IL-10 and MIP-1a) is observed between the two sets of bioactive molecules. (A) Following ventral root avulsion and reimplantation, the grafted cells produced various factors that induced significant functional motor reinnervation of the denervated muscles. (B) In a contusion injury model, the grafted cells expressed a set of proteins that significantly contributed to neuroprotection and improved the functional outcome of spinal cord injury.
Cells 10 03214 g001
Figure 2. Fate of undifferentiated grafted stem cells in the injured spinal cord. Phase of secretion: Grafted undifferentiated stem cells produce the lesion-induced secretome at least 10 days after grafting. Phase of differentiation: The transplanted stem cells differentiate into neurons and astrocytes, but the microglia/macrophage reaction can be observed against the graft. Phase of elimination: Due to the microglia/macrophage reaction, only a few graft-derived neurons and astrocytes can be detected long-term in the wall of the cavity. Green, undifferentiated transplanted cells; red, graft-derived differentiated cells; blue, microglia/macrophages.
Figure 2. Fate of undifferentiated grafted stem cells in the injured spinal cord. Phase of secretion: Grafted undifferentiated stem cells produce the lesion-induced secretome at least 10 days after grafting. Phase of differentiation: The transplanted stem cells differentiate into neurons and astrocytes, but the microglia/macrophage reaction can be observed against the graft. Phase of elimination: Due to the microglia/macrophage reaction, only a few graft-derived neurons and astrocytes can be detected long-term in the wall of the cavity. Green, undifferentiated transplanted cells; red, graft-derived differentiated cells; blue, microglia/macrophages.
Cells 10 03214 g002
Figure 3. Application of the secretome and lesion-induced secretome via different administration routes. Intravenous administration of the secretome (concentrated cell secretome, extracellular vesicular treatment) produced by MSCs is able to promote neuroregeneration and neuroprotection (left). Intraspinal delivery of the lesion-induced secretome to the lesion site by various administration routes such as osmotic pumps and different vectors may be able to induce axonal regeneration and neuroprotection (right).
Figure 3. Application of the secretome and lesion-induced secretome via different administration routes. Intravenous administration of the secretome (concentrated cell secretome, extracellular vesicular treatment) produced by MSCs is able to promote neuroregeneration and neuroprotection (left). Intraspinal delivery of the lesion-induced secretome to the lesion site by various administration routes such as osmotic pumps and different vectors may be able to induce axonal regeneration and neuroprotection (right).
Cells 10 03214 g003
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pajer, K.; Bellák, T.; Nógrádi, A. Stem Cell Secretome for Spinal Cord Repair: Is It More than Just a Random Baseline Set of Factors? Cells 2021, 10, 3214. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10113214

AMA Style

Pajer K, Bellák T, Nógrádi A. Stem Cell Secretome for Spinal Cord Repair: Is It More than Just a Random Baseline Set of Factors? Cells. 2021; 10(11):3214. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10113214

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pajer, Krisztián, Tamás Bellák, and Antal Nógrádi. 2021. "Stem Cell Secretome for Spinal Cord Repair: Is It More than Just a Random Baseline Set of Factors?" Cells 10, no. 11: 3214. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10113214

APA Style

Pajer, K., Bellák, T., & Nógrádi, A. (2021). Stem Cell Secretome for Spinal Cord Repair: Is It More than Just a Random Baseline Set of Factors? Cells, 10(11), 3214. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10113214

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop