4.7 Article

Salvianolic acid B promotes survival of transplanted mesenchymal stem cells in spinal cord-injured rats

期刊

ACTA PHARMACOLOGICA SINICA
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 169-176

出版社

ACTA PHARMACOLOGICA SINICA
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-7254.2008.00710.x

关键词

mesenchymal stem cell; salvianolic acid B; cell survival; spinal cord injuries

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: Stem cells hold great promise for brain and spinal cord injuries (SCI), but cell survival following transplantation to adult central nervous system has been poor. Salvianolic acid B (Sal B) has been shown to improve functional recovery in brain-injured rats. The present study was designed to determine whether Sal B could improve transplanted mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) survival in SCI rats. Methods: SCI rats were treated with Sal B. The Basso-Beatie-Bresnahan (BBB) scale was used to test the functional recovery. Sal B was used to protect MSC from being damaged by TNF-alpha in vitro. Bromodeoxyuridine-labeled MSC were transplanted into SCI rats with Sal B intraperitoneal injection, simultaneously. MSC were examined, and the functional recovery of the SCI rats was tested. Results: Sal B treatment significantly reduced the lesion area from 0.26 +/- 0.05 mm(2) to 0.15 +/- 0.03 mm(2) (P < 0.01) and remarkably raised the BBB scores on d 28, post-injury, from 7.3 +/- 0.9 to 10.5 +/- 1.3 (P < 0.05), compared with the phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) control group. MSC were protected from the damage of TNF-alpha by Sal B. The number of surviving MSC in the MSC plus Sal B groups were 1143.3 +/- 195.6 and 764.0 +/- 81.3 on d 7 and 28, post-transplantation, more than those in the MSC group, which was 569.3 +/- 72.3 and 237.0 +/- 61.3, respectively (P < 0.05). Rats with MSC transplanted and Sal B injected obtained higher BBB scores than those with MSC transplanted alone (P < 0.05) and PBS (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Sal B provides neuroprotection to SCI and promotes the survival of MSC in vitro and after cell transplantation to the injured spinal cord in vivo.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据