Comprehensive ReviewOpen Access

The Rise of Cell Therapy Trials for Stroke: Review of Published and Registered Studies

    Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1089/scd.2013.0089

    Abstract

    Stroke is the second leading cause of death and the third leading cause of disability worldwide. Approximately 16 million first-ever strokes occur each year, leading to nearly 6 million deaths. Nevertheless, currently, very few therapeutic options are available. Cell therapies have been applied successfully in different hematological diseases, and are currently being investigated for treating ischemic heart disease, with promising results. Recent preclinical studies have indicated that cell therapies may provide structural and functional benefits after stroke. However, the effects of these treatments are not yet fully understood and are the subject of continuing investigation. Meanwhile, different clinical trials for stroke, the majority of them small, nonrandomized, and uncontrolled, have been reported, and their results indicate that cell therapy seems safe and feasible in these conditions. In the last 2 years, the number of published and registered trials has dramatically increased. Here, we review the main findings available in the field, with emphasis on the clinical results. Moreover, we address some of the questions that have been raised to date, to improve future studies.

    Introduction

    Stroke is responsible for ∼11.1% of all deaths, and is the second leading cause of death worldwide after ischemic heart disease [1]. After a stroke, roughly a quarter of patients die within a month, and half within 1 year [2]. There were an estimated 16 million first-ever strokes and 5.7 million deaths in 2005 [3]. These numbers are expected to increase to 23 million first-ever strokes and 7.8 million deaths in 2030 [3]. Stroke was responsible for 102 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2010, an increase to the third leading cause of DALYS from the fifth leading cause in 1990 [4]. Approximately 80% of all strokes are ischemic, and currently, tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) is the only pharmacological agent approved for treatment of acute ischemic stroke. However, tPA therapy has important limitations, notably the narrow therapeutic window of 4.5 h, which limits its use to a small minority (2% to 4%) of patients [5]. Moreover, tPA prevents disability in only six patients per 1000 ischemic strokes, and does not reduce the mortality rate [6]. The administration of aspirin within 48 h of onset of ischemic stroke decreases the mortality rate or the incidence of disability in about nine patients per 1000 treated, probably due to early secondary prevention [2]. The injury produced by stroke is largely complete after 24–48 h, and neuroprotective therapies that must be administered within a time window such as 3–6 h are difficult to apply in clinical practice [7]. On the other hand, neurorestorative therapies, including cell therapies, seek to enhance regenerative mechanisms such as angiogenesis, neurogenesis, and synaptogenesis, and have been investigated extensively in the preclinical models of ischemia [7,8]. Neurorestorative cell therapies can be grossly divided into endogenous or exogenous. Endogenous therapies are those that aim to stimulate, for example, bone marrow-cell migration to the blood stream, with pharmacological agents such as granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). The exogenous approach involves the injection of a variety of cells to produce structural or functional benefits, and will be the focus of this article. Although excellent reviews have been recently made on different aspects of cell therapies for stroke [9–13], there has been a dramatic increase in the number of published and registered trials in the past years that has not been comprehensively assessed. In the following sections, we will review the main preclinical and clinical results to date and comment on some of the questions that have been raised.

    Main Cell Types Used in Neurorestorative Cell Therapies for Stroke

    Neural stem/progenitor cells

    Neural stem/progenitor cells (NSPC) are cells with a self-renewing capacity and the potential to generate neurons and glial cells. NSPC can be isolated from the fetal brain or from one of the two neurogenic niches that persist in the adult brain: the subventricular zone of the lateral ventricles and the hippocampal subgranular zone [14–16]. Despite the evidence that transplanted fetal NSPC can functionally integrate into the brain of patients with Parkinson's disease [17], there are several obstacles to the use of NSPC from these two sources in clinical trials in stroke. For instance, the need for multiple fetal donors to treat a single patient could raise ethics concerns and may not be feasible in large-scale trials. Moreover, the isolation of adult NSPC for autologous transplantation would require brain biopsies and many days in culture for expansion, and may have some limitations, given that adult NSPC are regionally specified to generate a limited number of neuronal subtypes, even after cerebral ischemia [18].

    NSPC can also be generated from pluripotent stem cells, including embryonic stem cells (ES, derived from the inner cell mass of blastocysts) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS, obtained after epigenetic reprogramming of adult cells by a combination of transcription factors). In each case, NSPC can be expanded in vitro, forming floating cell clusters called neurospheres, composed of a heterogeneous population of proliferating cells, which can be induced to differentiate into diverse phenotypes of the neuronal or glial lineage. However, the clinical use of ES-derived NSPC is still associated with the risks of neural overgrowth or teratoma formation, if undifferentiated ES persist in the transplant pool [19]. In addition, transplantation of allogeneic NSPC grafts requires immunosuppression, which is also associated with several side effects.

    iPS-derived NSPC can be obtained after reprogramming of somatic cells from the patient himself, allowing an autologous transplantation. Although a recent study has cautioned that mouse iPS-derived teratomas can trigger immunogenicity in matched mice through a T-cell immune response [20], immunogenicity may not occur when ES- or iPS-derived terminally differentitated cells are transplanted [21]. Nevertheless, the creation of public banks of human leukocyte antigen-typed ES- or iPS-derived cell lines (and their differentiated cells) could be a more practical form of generating these cells using good manufacturing practices, at the appropriate time for transplantation, while reducing the immunogenicity of NSPC [22]. Other potential sources of neural cells for transplantation include induced neuronal cells and induced NSPC generated directly from fibroblasts or other somatic cells by a combination of transcription factors [23–25]. Human teratocarcinoma-derived neurons have also been used in clinical trials in stroke, as discussed below [26–30].

    Non-NSPC

    Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) and hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HSPC) are the two non-neural cell types that are most frequently used in preclinical and clinical neurorestorative studies in stroke.

    HSPC can be isolated from bone marrow or from umbilical-cord blood (UCB), or can be mobilized into the blood by the administration of pharmacological agents such as G-CSF and plerixafor. Most of the studies in animal models of stroke have transplanted the whole mononuclear cell (MNC) fraction from one of these sources, which also contains other cell types, including monocytes and lymphocytes, in addition to HSPC, MSC, and endothelial progenitor cells [31]. Alternatively, a smaller group of studies have transplanted human CD34+ MNCs, a subpopulation enriched in HSPC and endothelial progenitor cells.

    MSC are multipotent cells with the capacity to give rise to cells of the osteogenic, chondrogenic, and adipogenic lineages. MSC can be isolated, and the culture expanded from several tissues, including bone marrow, adipose tissue, and UCB. Although a set of minimal criteria defined by the International Society for Cellular Therapy can be used to identify MSC, there are some functional and phenotypic differences among MSC derived from different sources [32,33].

    Potential Mechanisms of Action of Cell-Based Therapies in Stroke

    Neural stem/progenitor cells

    Intracerebrally administered human NSPC migrate toward the sites of injury in the ischemic brain [34], where they survive for up to 2 months and differentiate into functional neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes [35]. However, the need to generate several neuronal subtypes that must extend long axons and form the appropriate synaptic connections is still one of the main challenges in regenerative medicine, and has been extensively reviewed elsewhere [13,36].

    In addition to the potential of NSPC to replace the lost neurons, recent preclinical studies have observed that part of the therapeutic effects of NSPC in the ischemic brain could be attributed to a paracrine mechanism, since NSPC constitutively express mRNA and secrete several neurotrophic and growth factors in vitro [37–39]. For example, it has been shown that human NSPC transplantation increases neovascularization and enhances the integrity of the blood–brain barrier after stroke, through a human vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-dependent mechanism [40]. VEGF is also one of the main factors involved in the modulatory role of an NSPC-derived conditioned medium in microglia function [41]. Accordingly, NSPC remain in close contact with microglial cells, even when injected into the brain of control animals [34], suggesting that a similar mechanism may occur in vivo [41].

    Interestingly, NSPC transplantation contributes to the functional recovery in animal models of stroke, independent of the route of injection [42–44]. NSPC migrate to the sites of injury, even when intra-arterially delivered, and this recruitment is dependent on the chemokine receptor CCR2 [43,45]. In contrast, intravenous (IV) transplantation of NSPC results only in marginal migration of cells to the damaged brain, and in an animal model of intracerebral hemorrhage, the injected NSPC migrated mainly to the spleen. Nevertheless, the treatment resulted in the reduction of inflammation, edema formation, and apoptosis in the brain. Since these effects were not observed in splenectomized animals, the authors suggested that NSPC could provide neuroprotection by modulating the inflammatory response in the spleen [46].

    Similarly, despite the low levels of engraftment and neuronal differentiation in the ischemic brain, intravenously transplanted adult NSPC showed neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects in a rodent model of stroke [42].

    Taken together, these studies provide evidence that besides neuronal replacement, NSPC could contribute to functional recovery after a stroke by a combination of mechanisms, including neuroprotection and immunomodulation. NSPC could also stimulate endogenous mechanisms of brain plasticity and regeneration, enhancing hippocampal neurogenesis [47], stimulating the repair of the neurovascular unit [40], rescuing axonal transport, and inducing dendritic plasticity and axonal sprouting [38].

    Non-NSPC

    Although it has been proposed that HSPC and MSC could differentiate into neural cells in vitro, HSPC- or MSC-derived neuronal-like cells do not fire action potentials [48,49], and this phenomenon has not been reproduced in vivo [50,51]. An interesting study has estimated that only a small fraction (around 0.02%) of intravenously injected bone marrow-derived HSPC migrate to the ischemic brain, where most of the transplanted cells adopt a macrophage/microglial phenotype. In spite of this, HSPC transplantation decreases the infarct size and reduces inflammation in the brain and the spleen of the treated animals [51]. Moreover, it has been observed that MSC only transiently engraft the ischemic brain after an intra-arterial infusion [52], and that systemically delivered UCB-MNCs promote the behavioral recovery in an animal model of stroke, despite the low engraftment level in the host brain [53]. In summary, MSCs, bone marrow MNCs (BM-MNCs), and UCB-MNCs can improve neurological function in several models of stroke, through a combination of effects, such as neuroprotection, immunomodulation, and stimulation of neural plasticity [54–64], but these effects are not necessarily due to the presence of the cells at the injury site. In addition, MSC and HSPC transplantation can also induce angiogenesis and neurogenesis in the ischemic brain [65,66], two processes that are tightly linked by several regulatory mechanisms [67]. These mechanisms of action seem to rely on the secretion of neurotrophic factors and immunomodulatory molecules by the transplanted cells [68,69], an effect that can be further modulated by the host microenvironment. A recent study has raised the possibility that MSC could also exert their therapeutic actions by a mechanism of exosome-mediated transfer of microRNAs to neurons and astrocytes. Interestingly, the microRNA 133b levels in MSC exosomes increased when these cells were exposed to the ischemic brain extracts [70]. Thus, the transient engraftment of the transplanted cells and the dynamic changes that occur in the ischemic brain during the repair process may suggest that multiple injections may be required to optimize the release of the appropriate factors by the injected cells [71]. In addition, stroke-induced systemic inflammation can also modulate the phenotype of the BM-MNC populations, improving their potential to induce recovery after cerebral ischemia, if the cells are harvested and transplanted on the first day after the insult [72]. Hence, it is still necessary to evaluate the best timing for bone marrow harvest after stroke, in the case of autologous transplantation.

    Finally, endothelial progenitor cells can be isolated and the culture expanded from the peripheral blood or from the UCB. These cells home to the ischemic brain through a stromal-derived factor 1-dependent mechanism, reducing the infarct size and improving the neurological outcome in mice [73]. The coadministration of culture-expanded UCB-derived endothelial and smooth-muscle progenitor cells has also been shown to increase angiogenesis and neurogenesis in an animal model of stroke [74]. Therefore, preclinical studies comparing the efficacy of endothelial progenitor cells, MSC, and HSPC from different sources are needed. In this regard, it has been shown that an intravenous administration of bone marrow-derived MSC promotes a similar degree of functional recovery to bone marrow-derived mononuclear cell transplantation in a rodent model of stroke, as long as the dose is optimized for each cell type [59]. Another study showed that there was no difference in the therapeutic effects of bone marrow-derived and umbilical cord tissue-derived MSCs (UC-MSCs) in a model of focal ischemia [75].

    Published Clinical Trials

    We found 31 articles in the English language involving 20 different trials of cell therapies for stroke, with a total of 243 treated patients. Sixteen of these articles and 12 of the trials were published in the last 2 years. Twelve trials were for ischemic, two for hemorrhagic, and six for ischemic or hemorrhagic strokes (Table 1 and Fig. 1). Six trials performed intravenous transplants; five injected the cells in the parenchyma; five used the intra-arterial route; three carried out intrathecal administrations; and one trial compared intra-arterial and intravenous routes (Table 1 and Fig. 1).

    FIG. 1. 

    FIG. 1. Schematic illustrating the different cells and routes of administration used in published trials. The schematic also illustrates other types of cells used in registered trials (in dotted rectangles). NT2N, human teratocarcinoma-derived neurons; UC-MSCs, umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells; UCB-MNCs, umbilical cord blood-mononuclear cells; BM-MNCs, bone marrow-mononuclear cells; BM-MSCs, bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells; PB-HSPC, peripheral blood-hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell; NSPCs, neural stem/progenitor cells; OECs, olfactory-ensheathing cells; MSCs, mesenchymal stem cells; EPCs, endothelial progenitor cells. Color images available online at www.liebertpub.com/scd

    Table 1. Trials with Published Clinical Results

    Study reference/CountryStudy designRouteCell typeType of strokeAge range (mean)Time range from stroke onset to transplantationNo. of treated patients (No. of controls)No. of cells injectedInfusion volume, rate and durationFollow-up
    Kondziolka et al., 2000/United StatesPhase I, nonrandomized, single-blindICNT2N cellsIschemic stroke in basal ganglia (8 cases) or cortex and basal ganglia (4 cases)44–757 to 55 months (mean 27 months)12 (no controls)2×106 (8 patients); 6×106 (4 patients)Not specified52–60 months
    Rabinovich et al., 2005/RussiaCase series, nonrandomized, open labelITHuman Fetal CellsHemorrhagic (3 cases) in MCA and ischemic (7 cases) in MCA or MCA+ACA35–564 to 24 months (mean 12.1 months)10 (10 historical controls)1 (5 patients) or 2 (5 patients) infusions of 2×108Not specified6 months
    Kondziolka et al., 2005/United StatesPhase II, randomized, single-blindICNT2N cellsIschemic (9 cases) or hemorrhagic (9 cases) involving basal ganglia40–701 to 5 years (mean 3.5 years)14 (4 controls without injection)5×106 (7 patients); 1×107 (7 patients)Not specified18 to 29 months
    Savitz et al., 2005/United StatesPhase I, nonrandomized, open labelICFetal Porcine cellsIschemic involving the striatum25–52 (mean 39.8)4 to 10 years (mean 4.9 years)5 (no controls)Up to 5 injections of 10710 μL/min, 106 cells/μL4 years
    Man et al., 2006/ChinaCase series, nonrandomized, open labelIVAllogeneic UC-MNCsIschemic (6 cases) or hemorrhagic (4 cases)35–75 (mean 56)3 months to 7 years (mean 23.5 months)10 (no controls)6 infusions of≥1×108, 1 to 7 days apartNot specified3 months
    Mendonca et al., 2006; Correa et al., 2007/BrazilCase reports on phase I, nonrandomized, open labelIAAutologous BM-MNCsMCA ischemic stroke54 and 375 (1 patient) and 9 days (1 patient)2 (no controls)1×108 (1 patient) and 3×107 (1 patient)3 mL in 10 min (first patient)2–4 months
    Suarez-Monteagudo et al., 2009/CubaCase series, nonrandomized, open labelICAutologous BM-MNCsIschemic or hemorrhagic in thalamus, basal ganglia or cortex41–64 (mean 51.4)3 to 8 years (mean 5 years)5 (no controls)1.4×107to 5.5×107 (mean 3.4×107)8 seeds of 2.5 μL1 (4 cases) and 5 years (1 case)
    Lee et al., 2010 (cont. of Bang et al., 2005)/South KoreaPhase I/II, randomized, single-blindIVAutologous BM-MSCsMCA ischemic strokeMean 64Injections 19 to 37 days (median 32.5 days) and 2 weeks later16 (36 controls without injection)5×107 (2 doses 2 weeks apart)Not specified5 years
    Battistella et al., 2011; Rosado-de-Castro et al., 2013/BrazilPhase I, nonrandomized, open labelIA or IVAutologous BM-MNCsMCA ischemic stroke24–68 (mean 58.5)19 to 89 days (mean 64.5)12 (no controls)1×108 to 5×108 (mean 3.1×108)10 mL in 10 min (1 mL/min)6 months
    Honmou et al., 2011/JapanPhase I, nonrandomized, open labelIVAutologous BM-MSCsIschemic gray matter, white matter and mixed lesions41–73 (mean 59.2)36 to 133 days (mean 68 days)12 (no controls)0.6×108 to 1.6×108 (mean 1.1×108)In 30 min; volume not specified12 months
    Savitz et al., 2011/United StatesPhase I, nonrandomized, open labelIVAutologous BM-MNCsMCA ischemic strokeMean 5524 to 72 h10 (79 historical controls)7×108/kg to 1×109/kg (mean 9.6×108/kg)In 30 min; volume not specified6 months
    Han et al., 2011/South KoreaNot specifiedITAllogeneic UC-MSCsIschemic in pons, midbrain and right superior cerebellum1735 days1 (no controls)3.6×107Not specified2 months
    Bhasin et al., 2011, 2012a, 2012b/IndiaPhase I, nonrandomized, single-blind (fMRI)IVAutologous BM-MSCs or BM-MNCsMCA ischemic or hemorrhagic strokeMean 45mean 9.6 months20 (14 BM-MNC group; 6 BM-MSC group; 20 controls without injection)5×107 to 6×107250 mL in 3 h (1.4 mL/min)6 months
    Friedrich et al., 2012/BrazilPhase I/II, nonrandomized, single-blind (CT)IAAutologous BM-MNCsMCA ischemic stroke30–78 (mean 63)3 to 10 days (mean 6 days)20 (no controls)5.1×107 to 6×108 (mean 2.2×108)15 mL in 30 min (0.5 mL/min)6 months
    England et al., 2012, United KingdomSubgroup of phase IIb, randomized, controlled trial withIVAutologous CD34+ PB-HPSCsIschemic strokeNot specified for sub-group3 to 30 days8 (6 G-CSF group; 2 placebo group; no controls)2×107 to 4.3×108Not specified3 months
    Sharma et al., 2012/IndiaNot specifiedITAutologous BM-MNCsLeft thalamic hemorrhagic stroke691 year1 (no controls)5×107Not specifiedNot specified
    Moniche et al., 2012/SpainPhase I/II, nonrandomized, single-blindIAAutologous BM-MNCsMCA ischemic strokeMean 66.95 to 9 days (mean 6.4 days)10 (10 controls without injection)mean 1.6×1080.5 to 1 mL/min; duration not specified6 months
    Prasad et al., 2012/IndiaPhase I, nonrandomized, open labelIVAutologous BM-MNCsMCA or MCA+ACA ischemic stroke30–70 (mean 51.5)8 to 29 days (mean 17 days)11 (no controls)1.9×108 to 1.9×109 (mean 8×107)In 5 min; volume not specified12 months
    Li et al., 2012/ChinaPhase I, nonrandomized, single-blindICAutologous BM-MNCsBasal ganglia hemorrhagic stroke39–74 (mean 56.3)5 to 7 days (mean 5.9 days)60 (40 controls with saline)2.5×108 to 2.3×109 (median 1.3×109)3.5 mL; duration not specified6 months
    Jiang et al., 2012/ChinaPhase I, non-randomized, open labelIAAllogeneic UC-MSCsMCA ischemic (3 cases) or hemorrhagic (1 case) stroke40–59 (mean 49)11 to 50 days (mean 25.5)4 (no controls)2×10720 mL in 20 min (1 mL/min)6 months

    IC, intracerebral; IA, intra-arterial; IV, intravenous; IT, intrathecal; BM-MNCs, bone marrow mononuclear cells; BM-MSCs, bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells; UCB-MNCs, umbilical cord blood mononuclear cells; UC-MSCs, umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells; MCA, middle cerebral artery; ACA, anterior cerebral artery; NT2N, human teratocarcinoma-derived neurons; PB-HSPCs, peripheral blood hematopoietic progenitor/stem cells.

    Trials with Intracerebral Administration

    Human teratocarcinoma-derived neurons

    Kondziolka et al. [26] conducted the first clinical trial of cell therapy for stroke. It involved the transplantation of LBS-Neurons (Layton BioScience, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA), derived from a human teratocarcinoma cell line (NT2N) that was induced to differentiate into neurons by the addition of retinoic acid. This phase I, nonrandomized, observer-blind study included 12 patients with basal ganglia stroke and fixed motor deficits that occurred 6 months to 6 years before the transplantation. Eight of these patients received a total of 2 million cells, divided into three injections, into the area of the infarction, and the other four patients received 6 million cells divided into nine implants. Immunosuppression was accomplished with cyclosporine A started 1 week before surgery and continued for 8 weeks. One patient had a single generalized seizure 6 months after surgery, and another patient had a new brainstem stroke distant from the area of neuronal cell transplantation. However, these complications were thought not to be connected to the procedure, and no cell-related adverse effects were observed in the 5-year follow-up. Seven of 11 positron-emission tomography (PET) scans carried out at 6 months indicated an increase in fluorodeoxyglucose uptake at the implant site, while at 12 months, this number decreased to three [30]. The authors suggested that this could be related to cell viability in the area of the stroke, or alternatively to increased metabolic activity due to an inflammatory process, although no modifications indicative of inflammation were seen on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The procedure was evaluated as safe and feasible, and autopsy on one patient who died of myocardial infarction 27 months after cell transplantation showed that NT2N cells survived in the brain [28].

    This trial was followed by a phase II, randomized, single-blind trial that included nine patients with ischemic and nine with hemorrhagic strokes from 1 to 6 years previously and with a fixed motor deficit that was stable for at least 2 months [29]. Seven patients received 5 million cells and seven patients 10 million cells, distributed in 25 sites, while 4 patients served as a nonsurgical control group; all subjects participated in a stroke rehabilitation program. One patient suffered a single seizure the day after the surgery, and another presented a burr-hole drainage of an asymptomatic chronic subdural hematoma 1 month after surgery. There was no significant improvement in the primary endpoint outcome, that is, European Stroke Scale motor score or the Fugl-Meyer (FM) Stroke Assessment, but there was improvement in the Action Research Arm Test gross hand-movement scores compared with the control and baseline values.

    Fetal porcine cells

    Savitz et al. [76] carried out stereotactic implantation of fetal porcine cells in five patients with basal ganglia infarcts, after pretreatment of the cells with an anti-MHC1 antibody. No immunosuppressants were administered. One patient presented transitory deterioration of motor deficits 3 weeks after cell implantation, and another patient had seizures 1 week after therapy. The study was initially designed to enroll 12 patients, but the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) ended it due to safety concerns.

    Autologous BM-MNCs

    Suarez-Monteagudo et al. [77] performed a trial with intracerebral transplantation of BM-MNCs, which included three patients with ischemic strokes in the thalamus, striatum, or cortex, and two patients with hemorrhagic strokes in the thalamus or striatum, from 3 to 8 years after the lesion. A total of 1.4×107 to 5.5×107 BM-MNCs were stereotactically implanted along several tracts around the lesion. There were no important adverse effects during the 1-year follow-up. The authors also reported significant neurological improvements at 12 months in comparison to baseline, with a reduction in motor defect evaluated by the Medical Research Council Scale and Ashworth's Scale for Spasticity; increased functional capacity evaluated by the Barthel index (BI); improved neurological condition evaluated by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and the Scandinavian Stroke Scale; and better equilibrium and locomotion, evaluated by the Tinneti scale. The same group [78] later reported the 5-year neuropsychological follow-up of one of the patients of the previous study and reported that positive cognitive changes in verbal and executive functions were maintained and seemed to be related to increased blood flow to the prefrontal areas. However, the unblind evaluation, the lack of a control group, and the small sample size did not allow definitive conclusions regarding efficacy.

    In the largest clinical trial up to now, Li et al. [79] described a phase I, nonrandomized, single-blind study in which 60 patients received intraparenchymal BM-MNC transplantation 5 to 7 days after basal ganglion hemorrhagic stroke, and 40 patients formed the control group. Administered doses ranged from 2.5×108 to 2.3×109 cells. At 6 months after transplantation, the NIHSS score in the treated patients was significantly lower than in the control group, while the BI scores were higher. Moreover, there was significant neurological and functional improvement in BM-MNC-treated patients (86.7% versus 42.5% in the control group, P=0.001).

    Trials with Intrathecal Administration

    Human fetal cells

    Rabinovich et al. [80] reported on a case-series, nonrandomized, open-label study that included three patients with hemorrhagic strokes in the middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory and seven patients with ischemic strokes in the MCA territory, with or without additional involvement of the anterior cerebral artery (ACA) territory. Subarachnoidal injections of 2×108 human fetal cells were made between 4 and 24 months after the disease onset. The cells were obtained from human fetuses after spontaneous or prostaglandin-induced abortions, and were described as a 10:1 ratio of nerve cells to hemopoetic hepatic cells. The authors reported that some patients had fever and meningism during 48 h after transplantation. Although a retrospective control group of 11 patients was described, the measures of outcome were not adequately explained, thus not permitting comparisons between the two groups. Moreover, the study lacks a detailed characterization of the phenotype of the transplanted cells.

    Autologous BM-MNCs

    Sharma and collaborators [81] described a case report in which 5×107 BM-MNCs were injected intrathecally in a patient 1 year after an hemorrhagic stroke. Even though there was no control group and only one patient was included, the authors attributed improvements in cognition, motor function, and activities of daily living to the cell transplantation. The follow-up period was not specified.

    Allogeneic umbilical cord-MSCs

    Han et al. [82] intrathecally injected 3.6×107 UC-MSCs in a patient 35 days after a basilar artery dissection that caused an infarction in the pons, midbrain, and right superior cerebellum. Two other injections were performed 15 and 41 days after the first treatment. Although the neurological and imaging were followed-up for only 2 months and in only one patient, the authors concluded that the improvement of clinical symptoms and a recanalization of the basilar artery were helped by the cell transplantation.

    Trials with Intra-Arterial Administration

    Autologous BM-MNCs

    The first reports of studies using BM-MNC therapy for stroke were published from 2005 to 2007 [83–85] and were part of a nonrandomized, open-label phase I study. In the first case report [83,84], a 54-year-old patient was treated with intra-arterial injection of 3×107 BM-MNCs 5 days after an MCA ischemic stroke. A PET carried out 7 days after BM-MNC transplantation demonstrated augmented metabolism in the left parietal cortex, which could occur in the presence of transplanted cells or due to local inflammatory processes. In the second case report [85], a 37-year-old patient received 3×107 BM-MNCs 9 days after an MCA ischemic stroke. Approximately 1% of the cells were labeled with Technetium-99m (99mTc) by incubation with hexamethylpropylene amine oxime (HMPAO) and delivered together with the rest of the cells. Whole-body images demonstrated high uptake in the left hemisphere, liver, and spleen. Single-photon-emission computed tomography (SPECT) images 8 h after cell transplantation showed that the homing of 99mTc HMPAO-labeled cells occurred mainly in the territory of the anterior division of the MCA, while the stroke was in the territory of the posterior branch of the left MCA, probably because of the occlusion of the posterior branch. It is important to note that these patients were transplanted in the first 10 days after stroke.

    Barbosa da Fonseca et al. [86,87] and Battistella et al. [88], respectively, reported the imaging and clinical results of a trial that included six patients 59 to 82 days after an MCA ischemic stroke. Afterward, another case where cells were injected 19 days after the stroke was also reported [89]. The cell dose ranged from 1×108 to 5×108 BM-MNCs, and ∼2×107 of the cells were labeled with 99mTc and delivered intra-arterially together with the unlabeled cells to the MCA. There were no cell-related adverse effects, and the cell uptake was greatest in the liver and lungs. Although cell homing was greater in the ischemic hemisphere, total uptake in the brain was low, <2% of the total activity for five of seven patients. Two patients had generalized seizures ∼200 days after cell injection, which were controlled pharmacologically, but due to the small sample, it was not possible to determine if the seizures occurred by chance or due to the cell transplantation.

    In a study by Friedrich et al. [90], 20 patients with a moderate-to-severe MCA ischemic stroke received BM-MNCs infused intra-arterially between 3 and 7 days after stroke. The injected dose ranged from 5×107 to 6×108 cells. There were no procedure-related adverse events, and eight patients (40%) exhibited good clinical outcome, defined as a modified Rankin score (mRS) ≤2 at 90 days. Although the mortality level was below the expected level for similar populations, there was no control group, and the authors could not exclude the possibility that the good results could be explained by chance.

    Moniche et al. [91] performed a nonrandomized single-blind phase I/II trial in which 10 patients received an intra-arterial injection of BM-MNCs 5 to 9 days after an MCA ischemic stroke, with an untreated control group of 10 patients. The mean infused dose was 1.6×108 cells. Two subjects who received BM-MNCs had an isolated partial seizure 3 months after the transplantation, which was considered a serious adverse event. In both patients, an antiepileptic medication was initiated, with no recurrent seizures. No other serious adverse events occurred during the 6-month follow-up. There was no significant improvement in neurological evaluation in comparison with the control patients. Even though there was no association involving the neurological condition and the number of injected BM-MNCs, the authors reported a trend toward a better outcome when a larger amount of CD34+ cells was injected, mainly in the BI at 1 month after cell therapy. Also, higher concentrations of ß-nerve growth factor were observed in the serum of BM-MNC-treated patients 8 days after cell transplantation.

    Allogeneic umbilical cord-MSCs

    Jiang et al. [92] included three patients with ischemic and one with hemorrhagic MCA strokes. One dose of 2×107 allogeneic umbilical cord-MSCs was transplanted into the MCA 11 to 50 days after the disease onset. No immunosuppression was used, and the neurological follow-up was not clearly defined; the mRS score was the only neurological scale analyzed. No adverse events such as fever, stroke, or death were observed during the 6-month follow-up. The authors reported that two of the ischemic patients demonstrated improved mRS scores, while no improvement was seen in the other two patients, which the authors interpreted as an indication that stem cells improved the neurological function after an ischemic, but not after hemorrhagic, stroke. However, the small number of patients and the absence of a control group do not permit such a conclusion regarding the efficacy of the approach.

    Trials with Intravenous Administration

    Allogeneic UCB-MNCs

    Man et al. [93] included six patients with ischemic and four with hemorrhagic strokes that occurred 3 to 7 years before transplantation, in a trial for intravenous transplantation of allogeneic human UCB-MNCs. Each patient received six infusions of ≥1×108 cells, 1 to 7 days apart. Immunosuppressive drugs were not used, and there were no cell-related adverse events during the 3-month follow-up. Patients had a significant improvement in the neurological function deficiency, FM assessment, and BI, but there was no control group for comparison.

    Autologous bone marrow-MSCs

    Bang et al. [94] described the first trial with autologous bone marrow-MSCs (BM-MSCs) for stroke. In the first report of this phase I/II randomized controlled trial, 30 patients were prospectively and randomly allocated at the seventh day of admission after stroke. Five patients received two intravenous injections of 5×107 cells after culture expansion in fetal calf serum at 4 to 5 and 7 to 9 weeks after an MCA ischemic stroke, 25 patients served as controls, and all patients underwent rehabilitation therapy. At 1-year follow-up, there were no adverse cell-related, serological, or imaging-defined effects, and there was a nonsignificant trend toward improved BI and mRS. Afterward, the same group [95] included a larger number of patients in the same treatment protocol, and received a 5-year follow-up. Sixteen patients were treated, and 36 patients served as controls. No significant side effects were seen during the follow-up, and comorbidities such as seizures and recurrent strokes were similar between the groups. In comparison to the control group, there was a decrease in the mRS score of cell-treated patients. Interestingly, neurological recovery in the BM-MSC patients was related to the extent of involvement of the subventricular zone of the lateral ventricle and to the plasmatic levels of stromal cell-derived factor-1.

    In another trial, Honmou et al. [96] included 12 patients with ischemic gray-matter, white-matter, and mixed lesions in a nonrandomized, open-label trial to analyze the effects of autologous BM-MSCs expanded in human serum, without a control group. They found that cell expansion was faster than in fetal bovine serum, which reduced cell preparation time. Also, they stressed that the use of human serum reduced the hazard of transmitting diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalomyelitis. BM-MSCs were infused intravenously 36 to 133 days after the cerebral infarct. There were no cell-related side effects. The authors found that the mean lesion volume as evaluated by MRI decreased by 20% or more at 1 week after cell therapy. Moreover, the median daily rate of change in the NIHSS increased in the first week after cell transplantation, and tended to be correlated with the decrease in the lesion volume.

    Similarly, Bhasin et al. [97] conducted a phase I, nonrandomized, single-blind (for functional imaging interpretation) trial where six patients were included with ischemic or hemorrhagic MCA strokes ranging from 7 to 12 months previously, while 6 patients served as controls. After cell culture for 3 weeks in an animal serum-free medium (Stem Pro SFM), an intravenous injection of autologous BM-MSCs was administered. There were no cell-related adverse events during the 6-month follow-up. Although there was an improvement in the FM and modified BI at the 2- and 6-month evaluations, there was no statistical difference between the control and BM-MSC-treated groups. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in the functional MRI (fMRI) analysis between the BM-MSC and control groups.

    Autologous BM-MNCs

    Savitz et al. [98] reported the results of a trial in which 10 patients received an intravenous infusion of 7×106/kg to 1×107/kg BM-MNCs 24 to 72 h after MCA ischemic strokes. Two patients had to undergo hemicraniectomy after cell transplantation, due to infarct expansion between enrollment and bone marrow harvest. One patient died from a pulmonary embolism at 40 days after cell therapy, which was judged to be unrelated to the procedure. There were no study-related severe adverse events.

    Prasad et al. [99] carried out a phase I, nonrandomized, open-label trial where 11 patients received an intravenous infusion of BM-MNCs between 8 and 29 days after MCA with or without ACA stroke, with no control group. The injected dose ranged from 1.9×108 to 1.9×109 cells. No serious adverse event was observed during the study. Seven patients had a favorable clinical outcome, defined as mRS ≤2 or a BI score of 75 to 100 at 6 months after cell transplantation.

    After the first study reporting on the transplantation of BM-MSC for six patients with ischemic or hemorrhagic MCA strokes [97], Bhasin et al. reported on the intravenous transplantation of BM-MNCs for 12 patients, between 3 and 14 months after an MCA ischemic stroke [100]. Twelve patients served as controls. Statistically significant improvement was seen in the modified BI at 6 months and in the Laterality index in ipsilateral Broadmann areas 4 and 6 in fMRI at 2 months, but not at 6 months. The same group also published a comparison of the results of the six treated patients and six controls of the BM-MSC group with 14 treated patients and 14 controls of the BM-MNC group [101]. In this study, they also found statistical improvement in modified BI when comparing BM-MNC-treated patients with controls at 6 months, but no longer found improvement in fMRI. No statistical difference was found between the BM-MNC and BM-MSC groups. No adverse reactions were observed in the study in any of the groups during the follow-up.

    Our group recently reported a continuation of the first trial, with intra-arterial administration of BM-MNCs in patients with a subacute stroke. In this study, five patients received an intravenous injection of BM-MNCs labeled with 99mTc. Analysis of the distribution of cells showed that intravenous administration led to higher uptake in the lungs and lower uptake in the liver and spleen at 2 and 24 h, in comparison with the intra-arterial route. Although SPECT images at 2 h indicated that intravenous injection led to a lower relative uptake in the lesioned hemisphere in comparison with the intra-arterial route, the total uptake in the brain in comparison to the whole body was low, but similar, between the two groups. All of the intravenous patients suffered seizures during the follow-up period, which were controlled pharmacologically. Although it was not possible to rule out that these seizures occurred by chance and/or because of greater stroke severity than the intra-arterial group, the incidence of seizures warrants caution, and these patients are under extended follow-up. It is possible that the infused cells could modify the excitability in the perilesional regions, generating seizures, and this possibility must be examined further in the forthcoming trials.

    Autologous CD34+ HSPCs

    England et al. [102] published a trial where 40 patients were included 3 to 30 days after an ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, to receive subcutaneous injections of G-CSF once per day for 5 days, and 20 patients were treated with a placebo. Eight patients (6 from the G-CSF group and 2 from the placebo group) with ischemic strokes agreed to participate in a substudy, and on day 6 underwent peripheral blood collection with subsequent immunomagnetic separation of CD34+ cells with antibodies containing a dextran-coated iron oxide nanobead. These peripheral blood HSPCs (PB-HSPCs) were injected intravenously and could be followed by MRI due to the iron oxide labeling. Patients in the G-CSF group received 5.0×105 to 4.3×106 PB-HSPCs, while the placebo group received 2 to 7×104 cells. A hypodensity consistent with iron deposition within the stroke was seen in one G-CSF-treated patient after 10 and 90 days.

    Registered Trials

    A search in the National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry (www.clinicaltrials.gov) indicated 25 completed (but unpublished) or ongoing registered studies, which are projected to enroll 1046 patients (Table 2). Of these, an exclusive intravenous, intracerebral, or intra-arterial administration was chosen by 13, 7, and 3 studies, respectively, while one study opted for intravenous and intrathecal, and another for intravenous or intra-arterial routes. The majority of the trials are being conducted in the United States and China, and a total of 16 studies were started in 2011 and 2012 (Fig. 2).

    FIG. 2. 

    FIG. 2. Graph illustrating the increase in published articles by year, published trials by year, and starting the year for trials registered in www.clinicaltrials.gov from 2000 to 2012. Color images available online at www.liebertpub.com/scd

    Table 2. Completed (But Unreported) or Ongoing Trials Registered in Clinicaltrials.gov

    Trial identifier/CountryRouteStudy designCell typeType of strokeAgeTime from onset to transplantationNo. of treated (controls)No. of injected cellsStartedStatus
    NCT00950521/TaiwanICPhase II, randomized, open-labelAutologous CD34+ PBSCMCA ischemic35–706–60 months15 (15 controls)2×106 to 8×10606/2009Completed
    NCT01151124/United KingdomICPhase I, non-randomized, open-labelAllogeneic NSPCs (CTX0E03)Ischemic (subcortical white matter or basal ganglia)60–856 months–5 years12 (no controls)4 groups: 2, 5, 10 or 20×10606/2010Recruiting
    NCT01287936/United StatesICPhase I/IIA, non-randomized, open-labelAllogeneic SB623 (modified BM-MSCs)MCA or lenticulostriate ischemic stroke18–756–36 months18 (no controls)3 groups: 2.5, 5 or 10×10601/2011Recruiting
    NCT01327768/TaiwanICPhase I, randomized, single-blind (subject)Autologous OECsMCA ischemic stroke35–706–60 months6 (no controls)2×106 to 8×10601/2011Recruiting
    NCT01438593/ChinaICPhase I, nonrandomized, open-labelAllogeneic CD34+ UCB-MNCsMCA ischemic stroke35–756–60 months6 (no controls)5×10601/2013Not yet recruiting
    NCT01673932/ChinaICPhase I, randomized, open-labelAllogeneic UCB-MNCsMCA ischemic stroke35–656–60 months12 (controls not specified)1×10 to 4×10710/2012Not yet recruiting
    NCT01714167/ChinaICPhase I, non-randomized, open-labelAutologous BM-MSCsIschemic or hemorrhagic stroke40–703–60 months30 (controls not specified)2×106 to 4×10606/2012Recruiting
    NCT00535197/United KingdomIAPhase I/II, nonrandomized, open-labelAutologous CD34+ BM-MNCsMCA ischemic stroke30–807 days10 (no controls)Not specified09/2007Recruiting
    NCT01273337/United StatesIAPhase II, randomized, double-blindALD-401 (sorted from autologous BM)MCA ischemic stroke30–8313–19 days60 (40 controls)Not specified03/2011Recruiting
    NCT01518231/ChinaIAPhase I, randomized, open-labelAutologous CD34+ peripheral blood HPSCsIschemic stroke40–70< 1 year20 (20 controls)4×10601/2012Recruiting
    NCT00859014/United StatesIVPhase I/IIa, nonrandomized, open-labelAutologous BM-MNCsIschemic stroke18–8324–72 h30 (controls not specified)Not specified01/2009Ongoing, not recruiting
    NCT00875654/FranceIVPhase I/IIa, randomized, open-labelAutologous BM-MSCsIschemic stroke18–65<6 weeks30 (controls not specified)Not specified08/2010Recruiting
    NCT00908856/United StatesIVPhase I, randomized, double-blindAutologous BM-MNCs or BM-MSCsSupratentorial ischemic stroke18–854 days (BM-MNC) 23 days (MSCs)33 (controls not specified)Not specified01/2014Not yet recruiting
    NCT01028794/JapanIVPhase I/II, nonrandomized, open-labelAutologous BM-MNCsIschemic stroke20–757–10 days12 (controls not specified)Not specified05/2008Recruiting
    NCT01091701/MalaysiaIVPhase I/II, randomized, double-blindAllogeneic MSCsIschemic stroke20–80<10 days78 (controls not specified)4×106/kg12/2011Not yet recruiting
    NCT01297413/United StatesIVPhase I/II, non-randomized, open-labelAllogeneic BM-MSCsIschemic stroke>18>6 months35 (controls not specified)0.5×106/kg to 1.5×106/kg02/2011Recruiting
    NCT01310114/United StatesIVPhase IIa, randomized, double-blindPDA001 (human placenta-derived)MCA or PCA ischemic stroke18–80Acute (not specified)34 (10 controls)2×108 to 8×108; 1–2 injections03/2011Ongoing, not recruiting
    NCT01389453/ChinaIV and ITPhase II/nonrandomized, open-labelAllogeneic UC-MSCsIschemic or hemorrhagic stroke40–65IV, 7–21 days; IT, 1 week after IV100 (20 controls)Not specified04/2011Recruiting
    NCT01436487/United StatesIVPhase II, randomized, double-blindMultiStem® (Not specified)Cortical ischemic stroke18–7924–48 h140 (controls not specified)Not specified10/2011Recruiting
    NCT01453829/MexicoIV or IAPhase I/II, nonrandomized, open-labelAutologous adipose-derived MSCsIschemic or hemorrhagic stroke18–80Not specified10 (no controls)Not specified05/2011Recruiting
    NCT01461720/MalaysiaIVPhase II, randomized, open-labelAutologous BM-MSCsIschemic stroke30–701–8 weeks50 (controls not specified)Not specified03/2011Recruiting
    NCT01468064/ChinaIVPhase I/II, randomized, double-blindAutologous BM-MSCs, EPCsMCA ischemic stroke18–805 weeks90 (controls not specified)2.5×106/kg11/2011Recruiting
    NCT01501773/IndiaIVPhase II, randomized, open-labelAutologous BM-MSCsMCA or ACA ischemic stroke18–70Not specified60 (60 controls)3×107 to 5×10810/2008Completed
    NCT01678534/BoliviaIVPhase IIa, randomized, double-blindAllogeneic adipose-derived MSCsMCA ischemic stroke60–80< 14 days20 (controls not specified)1×106/kg10/2012Recruiting
    NCT01716481/South KoreaIVPhase III, randomized, open-labelAutologous BM-MSCsMCA ischemic stroke30–75< 90 days60 (controls not specified)Not specified11/2012Recruiting

    OECs, olfactory ensheathing cells; EPCs, endothelial progenitor cells.

    The results available as of yet from the different above-mentioned studies suggest that cell therapies with different cell types in stroke seem to be safe and feasible, independently of the route of administration, dose, or time window after the onset of the disease. However, the many differences among them preclude further comparisons.

    Discussion

    Several preclinical studies have indicated that there is a structural and/or functional recovery after intracerebral, intra-arterial, and intravenous therapy with different cell types [8,103]. In clinical studies, most of the available data come from bone marrow cell therapies for malignant and nonmalignant diseases [104,105]. A meta-analysis of 50 clinical trials using cell therapies for acute and chronic ischemic heart disease with a total of 2625 patients has found that bone marrow cell treatment improves left ventricle (LV) ejection fraction, infarct size, LV end-diastolic volume, and LV end-systolic volume [106]. A recent trial investigating the transendocardial injection of autologous or allogeneic BM-MSCs in 30 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy improved ventricular remodeling, functional capacity, and quality of life, with a 13-month follow-up [107]. For peripheral artery disease, a meta-analysis of 37 trials involving injection of bone marrow cells, peripheral blood cells, or G-CSF indicated that cell therapies, but not G-CSF, significantly improved the indices of ischemia such as the ankle–brachial index, transcutaneous oxygen tension, pain-free walking distance, and also hard endpoints such as ulcer healing and amputation [108].

    Although clinical results with other ischemic diseases and preclinical studies for stroke are encouraging, there are still many questions regarding the possible mechanisms of action of the cells and the optimal treatment protocol. One of the main questions to be answered is related to the best cell type to be used in these patients. A recent meta-analysis of 117 preclinical stroke studies indicated that for structural effects, autologous stem cells were more effective than allogeneic cells, while for functional effects, allogeneic cells were more effective [109]. Interestingly, the authors found no difference between the embryonic and adult allogeneic cells for either structural or functional outcomes. This would support the use of adult cells rather than embryonic or fetal-derived cells; the former are preferred because of the ethics concerns associated with the latter. Moreover, bone marrow cells can be harvested from the patient for autologous therapy, avoiding the necessity for immunosuppressants [7,103].

    To optimize future cell therapies for stroke, it is also necessary to elucidate the molecular mechanisms controlling the interaction of the grafted cells with the ischemic brain. Cerebral ischemia is immediately followed by microvascular dysfunction, oxidative stress, blood–brain barrier disruption, and excitotoxicity. These events are accompanied by the release of endogenous danger signals to the extracellular environment, the activation of the innate immune system, and the infiltration of blood leukocytes into the brain [110]. In this scenario, the interaction of transplanted cells with the ischemic tissue is mediated by a wide range of receptors, such as Toll-like receptors (TLRs), adenosine receptors, and chemokine receptors, which are activated upon the exposure to danger-associated molecular patterns and other inflammatory mediators released during the acute/subacute phases of stroke. It has been demonstrated that several chemokine receptors are involved in the recruitment of BM-MSCs and NSPC to the ischemic brain [45,111,112], and that TLR-2 mediates VEGF production and the recovery of myocardial function by transplanted BM-MSCs [113]. Thus, the postischemic environment can affect the function of transplanted stem/progenitor cells, which in turn can modulate the inflammatory response and the local microenvironment, as discussed above. Although it has been shown that human NSPC and iPS-derived long-term expandable neuroepithelial-like stem cells can give rise to functional neurons, when transplanted 48 h after stroke in T-cell-deficient rats [114,115], it is still poorly understood how the postischemic environment affects the survival, the proliferation, and the differentiation of transplanted NSPC. In one interesting study, for example, IL-6 preconditioning increased the survival of murine NSPC transplanted in the ischemic penumbra 6 h after the injury [116], suggesting that pharmacological or genetic manipulations could be used to improve the effectiveness of cell therapies for stroke.

    Regarding the timing of transplantation, preclinical studies have shown that cell therapy increases functional recovery after acute, subacute, and chronic stroke [103], but few studies have compared different time windows, with differing results according to the model and cell type studied. In an animal model of focal ischemia, de Vasconcelos dos Santos et al. [59] found significant improvement in the cylinder test after intravenous injection of BM-MNCs at 1 and 7 days or BM-MSCs at 1 day after ischemia, but not in animals treated 30 days after the lesion. In a model of MCA occlusion (MCAO), Yang et al. [117] described improvement in the cylinder and corner tests if BM-MNC injection was performed at 1 or 3 days, but not at 28 days after the lesion. Also in a model of MCAO, Komatsu and colleagues [118] found a reduction of the ischemic lesion volume if BM-MSC therapy was performed at 7 days, but not at 14 or 28 days, while improvement in angiogenesis and the treadmill stess test occurred if cell transplantation was carried out up to 28 days after MCAO. In their meta-analysis of different preclinical studies, Lees and collaborators [109] found an absolute reduction in the efficacy of 1.5% for each day of delay of treatment for structural outcome, while improvement of functional outcome occurred in both early and late time windows [109].

    The appropriate dose to use in clinical trials also remains unclear. The Stem Cell Therapies as an Emerging Paradigm in Stroke (STEPS) guidelines recommended a weight-based translation of cell dose from animal studies. In clinical studies of acute myocardial infarction, a metaregression indicated a dose–response correlation between the amount of CD34+ cells injected and the improvement in LVEF. A dose–response has also been reported by different preclinical studies for stroke [109,117,119], but has not been reported in the small clinical trials.

    Cell tracking and imaging is also an important aspect to consider, since these techniques may improve understanding of several components of the therapy such as, cell homing, biodistribution, survival, and cell fate. One of the most often used approaches is labeling with radiopharmaceuticals for PET or SPECT imaging or exogenous contrasts such as iron oxide for MRI.

    A small number of preclinical studies have compared different routes of injection, with discordant results depending on the experimental model and the moment of transplantation. Even though intracerebral transplantation may allow greater cell homing than intravascular injection, it is an invasive method and leads to poor cell distribution in the lesion [120,121]. IA administration can lead to a significant decrease in the cerebral blood flow, as assessed by laser Doppler flow, and increase in the mortality rate [120,121]. Kamiya and collaborators [122] found that IA injection of BM-MNCs resulted in greater brain cell retention and better functional outcomes compared to IV injection in a model of transient ischemia. Vasconcelos-dos-Santos et al. [123] reported that IV and IA infusions of these cells led to an equivalent functional recovery with low brain homing, in a model of permanent ischemia. Zhang et al. [124] found that IA, IV, IC, intra-cisterna magna, and lumbar intrathecal injection of human umbilical tissue-derived cells in a model of stroke led to similar structural improvements. The only meta-analysis of preclinical trials for stroke found no important impact of the delivery route on the efficacy of cell therapy [109]. In clinical trials, significant stenosis or occlusion of intracranial circulation is often an exclusion criterion, but it is possible that collateral supply may allow cells to reach the lesioned region [125].

    Another aspect that must be clarified is the appropriate injection rate of the cells, and the potential effects of heparin or iodine contrast. A preclinical study by El-Khoury et al. [126] found that the IA flow rates of 5 mL/min reduced BM-MNC viability by 19%, while the rates of 2 mL/min did not affect viability or cytokine production. Although iodine and low-dose heparin exposure did not reduce cell viability, high doses of heparin were cytotoxic. With respect to IC and IV administration, information is lacking on the effects of injection rate from preclinical studies. In clinical trials published to date, the majority of studies did not report either the volume or the duration of injection (Table 1).

    In addition to the different aspects previously mentioned, it is extremely important to strictly assess the safety of cell therapies. Although the currently published clinical studies indicate that cell therapies for stroke seem to be safe and feasible, there is a lack of robust scientific data, and many questions remain unanswered. For instance, the risk of teratoma formation with pluripotent stem cells must be addressed. In a recent report, Ben-David and collaborators carried out a high-throughput screen of 52,000 small molecules in cultures of different human ploripotent stem cells and identified 15 pluripotent cell-specific inhibitors, one of which prevented teratoma formation [127]. It is also important to evaluate the influence of clinical variables such as the presence of comorbidities. A preclinical study by Chen et al. indicated that BM-MSC injection 24 h after MCAO did not improve the functional outcome in Type 1 diabetic rats and increased arteriosclerosis, cerebral artery neointimal formation, and blood–brain barrier leakage [128], but this remains to be evaluated in a clinical study. Another facet that deserves attention is the influence of administering factors such as G-CSF. Clinical studies with the injection of G-CSF in patients with stroke indicate that the procedure seems to be safe [102,129–134], but only the study by England and collaborators [102] evaluated the effects of CD34+ cell transplantation after G-CSF injection. Other safety attributes such as the genetic stability and immunogenicity of cells must also be observed and have been thoroughly reviewed in an excellent article by Goldring et al. [135]. Observing such aspects will not mean a delay for the field and at the same time will allow a responsible and adequate development of cell therapies for stroke.

    Conclusion

    The results from preclinical studies have indicated that cell therapies can lead to the structural and functional benefits after a stroke. However, there is still a need to examine the ideal subset of stem cells to be used. Further, aspects such as the mechanisms for such improvements and the optimal treament protocol are not yet fully understood and require further evaluation. Nevertheless, different clinical studies, the majority of them small, nonrandomized and uncontrolled, have now been reported and indicate that cell therapy seems safe, feasible, and potentially efficacious. The increasing number of ongoing studies, including large randomized double-blind studies, have the potential to determine the efficacy of cell therapy for stroke and to translate the preclinical findings into clinical practice.

    Acknowledgments

    Dr. Rosalia Mendez-Otero was supported by a grant (PP SUS-2009 110.776/2010) from the Ministry of Health and the Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ). Paulo Henrique Rosado-de-Castro received a PhD Scholarship from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES).

    The authors wish to thank Janet W. Reid for revising and editing the language in the text and Fernando Brandi for the drawings in Figure 1.

    Author Disclosure Statement

    No competing financial interests exist.

    References

    • 1 Lozano RMNaghavi KForeman SLim KShibuya VAboyans JAbraham TAdair RAggarwal et al.2013Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010Lancet38020952128.1. Lozano R, M Naghavi, K Foreman, S Lim, K Shibuya, V Aboyans, J Abraham, T Adair, R Aggarwal, et al. (2013). Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380:2095–2128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 2 Donnan GAMFisher MMacleod SMDavis 2008StrokeLancet37116121623.2. Donnan GA, M Fisher, M Macleod and SM Davis. (2008). Stroke. Lancet 371:1612–1623. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 3 Strong KCMathers RBonita 2007Preventing stroke: saving lives around the worldLancet Neurol6182187.3. Strong K, C Mathers and R Bonita. (2007). Preventing stroke: saving lives around the world. Lancet Neurol 6:182–187. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 4 Murray CJTVos RLozano MNaghavi ADFlaxman CMichaud MEzzati KShibuya JASalomon et al.2013Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010Lancet38021972223.4. Murray CJ, T Vos, R Lozano, M Naghavi, AD Flaxman, C Michaud, M Ezzati, K Shibuya, JA Salomon, et al. (2013). Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380:2197–2223. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 5 Molina CA2011Reperfusion therapies for acute ischemic stroke: current pharmacological and mechanical approachesStroke42S16S19.5. Molina CA. (2011). Reperfusion therapies for acute ischemic stroke: current pharmacological and mechanical approaches. Stroke 42:S16–S19. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6 Hacke WGDonnan CFieschi MKaste Rvon Kummer JPBroderick TBrott MFrankel JCGrotta et al.2004Association of outcome with early stroke treatment: pooled analysis of ATLANTIS, ECASS, and NINDS rt-PA stroke trialsLancet363768774.6. Hacke W, G Donnan, C Fieschi, M Kaste, R von Kummer, JP Broderick, T Brott, M Frankel, JC Grotta, et al. (2004). Association of outcome with early stroke treatment: pooled analysis of ATLANTIS, ECASS, and NINDS rt-PA stroke trials. Lancet 363:768–774. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 7 Hess DCWDHill 2011Cell therapy for ischaemic strokeCell Prolif44Suppl 118.7. Hess DC and WD Hill. (2011). Cell therapy for ischaemic stroke. Cell Prolif 44 Suppl 1:1–8. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 8 Mendez-Otero RGRde Freitas CAndre MLde Mendonca MFriedrich JOliveira-Filho 2007Potential roles of bone marrow stem cells in stroke therapyRegen Med2417423.8. Mendez-Otero R, GR de Freitas, C Andre, ML de Mendonca, M Friedrich and J Oliveira-Filho. (2007). Potential roles of bone marrow stem cells in stroke therapy. Regen Med 2:417–423. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 9 Misra VALal REl Khoury PRChen SISavitz 2012Intra-arterial delivery of cell therapies for strokeStem Cells Dev2110071015.9. Misra V, A Lal, R El Khoury, PR Chen and SI Savitz. (2012). Intra-arterial delivery of cell therapies for stroke. Stem Cells Dev 21:1007–1015. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 10 Vahidy FSSAlderman SISavitz 2013Challenges enrolling patients with acute ischemic stroke into cell therapy trialsStem Cells Dev222730.10. Vahidy FS, S Alderman and SI Savitz. (2013). Challenges enrolling patients with acute ischemic stroke into cell therapy trials. Stem Cells Dev 22:27–30. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 11 Thwaites JWVReebye PMintz NLevicar NHabib 2012Cellular replacement and regenerative medicine therapies in ischemic strokeRegen Med7387395.11. Thwaites JW, V Reebye, P Mintz, N Levicar and N Habib. (2012). Cellular replacement and regenerative medicine therapies in ischemic stroke. Regen Med 7:387–395. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 12 Glover LENTajiri NLWeinbren HIshikawa KShinozuka YKaneko DMWatterson CVBorlongan 2012A step-up approach for cell therapy in stroke: translational hurdles of bone marrow-derived stem cellsTransl Stroke Res39098.12. Glover LE, N Tajiri, NL Weinbren, H Ishikawa, K Shinozuka, Y Kaneko, DM Watterson and CV Borlongan. (2012). A step-up approach for cell therapy in stroke: translational hurdles of bone marrow-derived stem cells. Transl Stroke Res 3:90–98. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 13 Lindvall OZKokaia 2011Stem cell research in stroke: how far from the clinic?Stroke4223692375.13. Lindvall O and Z Kokaia. (2011). Stem cell research in stroke: how far from the clinic? Stroke 42:2369–2375. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 14 Kukekov VGEDLaywell OSuslov KDavies BScheffler LBThomas TFO'Brien MKusakabe DASteindler 1999Multipotent stem/progenitor cells with similar properties arise from two neurogenic regions of adult human brainExp Neurol156333344.14. Kukekov VG, ED Laywell, O Suslov, K Davies, B Scheffler, LB Thomas, TF O'Brien, M Kusakabe and DA Steindler. (1999). Multipotent stem/progenitor cells with similar properties arise from two neurogenic regions of adult human brain. Exp Neurol 156:333–344. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 15 Sanai NADTramontin AQuinones-Hinojosa NMBarbaro NGupta SKunwar MTLawton MWMcDermott ATParsa et al.2004Unique astrocyte ribbon in adult human brain contains neural stem cells but lacks chain migrationNature427740744.15. Sanai N, AD Tramontin, A Quinones-Hinojosa, NM Barbaro, N Gupta, S Kunwar, MT Lawton, MW McDermott, AT Parsa, et al. (2004). Unique astrocyte ribbon in adult human brain contains neural stem cells but lacks chain migration. Nature 427:740–744. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 16 Azevedo-Pereira RLEMedei RMendez-Otero JPSouza SVAlves-Leon 2010Isolation of neurosphere-like bodies from an adult patient with refractory temporal lobe epilepsyArq Neuropsiquiatr68956958.16. Azevedo-Pereira RL, E Medei, R Mendez-Otero, JP Souza and SV Alves-Leon. (2010). Isolation of neurosphere-like bodies from an adult patient with refractory temporal lobe epilepsy. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 68:956–958. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 17 Lindvall OZKokaia 2009Prospects of stem cell therapy for replacing dopamine neurons in Parkinson's diseaseTrends Pharmacol Sci30260267.17. Lindvall O and Z Kokaia. (2009). Prospects of stem cell therapy for replacing dopamine neurons in Parkinson's disease. Trends Pharmacol Sci 30:260–267. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 18 Liu FYYou XLi TMa YNie BWei TLi HLin ZYang 2009Brain injury does not alter the intrinsic differentiation potential of adult neuroblastsJ Neurosci2950755087.18. Liu F, Y You, X Li, T Ma, Y Nie, B Wei, T Li, H Lin and Z Yang. (2009). Brain injury does not alter the intrinsic differentiation potential of adult neuroblasts. J Neurosci 29:5075–5087. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 19 Seminatore CJPolentes DEllman NKozubenko VItier STine LTritschler MBrenot EGuidou et al.2010The postischemic environment differentially impacts teratoma or tumor formation after transplantation of human embryonic stem cell-derived neural progenitorsStroke41153159.19. Seminatore C, J Polentes, D Ellman, N Kozubenko, V Itier, S Tine, L Tritschler, M Brenot, E Guidou, et al. (2010). The postischemic environment differentially impacts teratoma or tumor formation after transplantation of human embryonic stem cell-derived neural progenitors. Stroke 41:153–159. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 20 Zhao TZNZhang ZRong YXu 2011Immunogenicity of induced pluripotent stem cellsNature474212215.20. Zhao T, ZN Zhang, Z Rong and Y Xu. (2011). Immunogenicity of induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 474:212–215. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 21 Araki RMUda YHoki MSunayama MNakamura SAndo MSugiura HIdeno AShimada ANifuji MAbe 2013Negligible immunogenicity of terminally differentiated cells derived from induced pluripotent or embryonic stem cellsNature494100104.21. Araki R, M Uda, Y Hoki, M Sunayama, M Nakamura, S Ando, M Sugiura, H Ideno, A Shimada, A Nifuji and M Abe. (2013). Negligible immunogenicity of terminally differentiated cells derived from induced pluripotent or embryonic stem cells. Nature 494:100–104. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 22 Fairchild PJ2010The challenge of immunogenicity in the quest for induced pluripotencyNat Rev Immunol10868875.22. Fairchild PJ. (2010). The challenge of immunogenicity in the quest for induced pluripotency. Nat Rev Immunol 10:868–875. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 23 Vierbuchen TAOstermeier ZPPang YKokubu TCSudhof MWernig 2010Direct conversion of fibroblasts to functional neurons by defined factorsNature46310351041.23. Vierbuchen T, A Ostermeier, ZP Pang, Y Kokubu, TC Sudhof and M Wernig. (2010). Direct conversion of fibroblasts to functional neurons by defined factors. Nature 463:1035–1041. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 24 Han DWNTapia AHermann KHemmer SHoing MJArauzo-Bravo HZaehres GWu SFrank et al.2012Direct reprogramming of fibroblasts into neural stem cells by defined factorsCell Stem Cell10465472.24. Han DW, N Tapia, A Hermann, K Hemmer, S Hoing, MJ Arauzo-Bravo, H Zaehres, G Wu, S Frank, et al. (2012). Direct reprogramming of fibroblasts into neural stem cells by defined factors. Cell Stem Cell 10:465–472. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 25 Lujan ESChanda HAhlenius TCSudhof MWernig 2012Direct conversion of mouse fibroblasts to self-renewing, tripotent neural precursor cellsProc Natl Acad Sci (USA)10925272532.25. Lujan E, S Chanda, H Ahlenius, TC Sudhof and M Wernig. (2012). Direct conversion of mouse fibroblasts to self-renewing, tripotent neural precursor cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA) 109:2527–2532. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 26 Kondziolka DLWechsler SGoldstein CMeltzer KRThulborn JGebel PJannetta SDeCesare EMElder et al.2000Transplantation of cultured human neuronal cells for patients with strokeNeurology55565569.26. Kondziolka D, L Wechsler, S Goldstein, C Meltzer, KR Thulborn, J Gebel, P Jannetta, S DeCesare, EM Elder, et al. (2000). Transplantation of cultured human neuronal cells for patients with stroke. Neurology 55:565–569. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 27 Newman MBIMisiuta AEWilling TZigova RCKarl CVBorlongan PRSanberg 2005Tumorigenicity issues of embryonic carcinoma-derived stem cells: relevance to surgical trials using NT2 and hNT neural cellsStem Cells Dev142943.27. Newman MB, I Misiuta, AE Willing, T Zigova, RC Karl, CV Borlongan and PR Sanberg. (2005). Tumorigenicity issues of embryonic carcinoma-derived stem cells: relevance to surgical trials using NT2 and hNT neural cells. Stem Cells Dev 14:29–43. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 28 Nelson PTDKondziolka LWechsler SGoldstein JGebel SDeCesare EMElder PJZhang AJacobs et al.2002Clonal human (hNT) neuron grafts for stroke therapy: neuropathology in a patient 27 months after implantationAm J Pathol16012011206.28. Nelson PT, D Kondziolka, L Wechsler, S Goldstein, J Gebel, S DeCesare, EM Elder, PJ Zhang, A Jacobs, et al. (2002). Clonal human (hNT) neuron grafts for stroke therapy: neuropathology in a patient 27 months after implantation. Am J Pathol 160:1201–1206. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 29 Kondziolka DGKSteinberg LWechsler CCMeltzer EElder JGebel SDecesare TJovin RZafonte et al.2005Neurotransplantation for patients with subcortical motor stroke: a phase 2 randomized trialJ Neurosurg1033845.29. Kondziolka D, GK Steinberg, L Wechsler, CC Meltzer, E Elder, J Gebel, S Decesare, T Jovin, R Zafonte, et al. (2005). Neurotransplantation for patients with subcortical motor stroke: a phase 2 randomized trial. J Neurosurg 103:38–45. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 30 Meltzer CCDKondziolka VLVillemagne LWechsler SGoldstein KRThulborn JGebel EMElder SDeCesare AJacobs 2001Serial [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography after human neuronal implantation for strokeNeurosurgery49586591; discussion 591–582.30. Meltzer CC, D Kondziolka, VL Villemagne, L Wechsler, S Goldstein, KR Thulborn, J Gebel, EM Elder, S DeCesare and A Jacobs. (2001). Serial [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography after human neuronal implantation for stroke. Neurosurgery 49:586–591; discussion 591–582. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 31 Pimentel-Coelho PMPHRosado-de-Castro LMda Fonseca RMendez-Otero 2012Umbilical cord blood mononuclear cell transplantation for neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathyPediatr Res71464473.31. Pimentel-Coelho PM, PH Rosado-de-Castro, LM da Fonseca and R Mendez-Otero. (2012). Umbilical cord blood mononuclear cell transplantation for neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. Pediatr Res 71:464–473. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 32 Dominici MKLe Blanc IMueller ISlaper-Cortenbach FMarini DKrause RDeans AKeating DProckop EHorwitz 2006Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statementCytotherapy8315317.32. Dominici M, K Le Blanc, I Mueller, I Slaper-Cortenbach, F Marini, D Krause, R Deans, A Keating, D Prockop and E Horwitz. (2006). Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy 8:315–317. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 33 Zhang XMHirai SCantero RCiubotariu LDobrila AHirsh KIgura HSatoh IYokomi et al.2011Isolation and characterization of mesenchymal stem cells from human umbilical cord blood: reevaluation of critical factors for successful isolation and high ability to proliferate and differentiate to chondrocytes as compared to mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow and adipose tissueJ Cell Biochem11212061218.33. Zhang X, M Hirai, S Cantero, R Ciubotariu, L Dobrila, A Hirsh, K Igura, H Satoh, I Yokomi, et al. (2011). Isolation and characterization of mesenchymal stem cells from human umbilical cord blood: reevaluation of critical factors for successful isolation and high ability to proliferate and differentiate to chondrocytes as compared to mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow and adipose tissue. J Cell Biochem 112:1206–1218. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 34 Guzman RNUchida TMBliss DHe KKChristopherson DStellwagen ACapela JGreve RCMalenka et al.2007Long-term monitoring of transplanted human neural stem cells in developmental and pathological contexts with MRIProc Natl Acad Sci (USA)1041021110216.34. Guzman R, N Uchida, TM Bliss, D He, KK Christopherson, D Stellwagen, A Capela, J Greve, RC Malenka, et al. (2007). Long-term monitoring of transplanted human neural stem cells in developmental and pathological contexts with MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA) 104:10211–10216. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 35 Daadi MMZLi AArac BAGrueter MSofilos RCMalenka JCWu GKSteinberg 2009Molecular and magnetic resonance imaging of human embryonic stem cell-derived neural stem cell grafts in ischemic rat brainMol Ther1712821291.35. Daadi MM, Z Li, A Arac, BA Grueter, M Sofilos, RC Malenka, JC Wu and GK Steinberg. (2009). Molecular and magnetic resonance imaging of human embryonic stem cell-derived neural stem cell grafts in ischemic rat brain. Mol Ther 17:1282–1291. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 36 Lopez-Bendito GPArlotta 2012Cell replacement therapies for nervous system regenerationDev Neurobiol72145152.36. Lopez-Bendito G and P Arlotta. (2012). Cell replacement therapies for nervous system regeneration. Dev Neurobiol 72:145–152. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 37 Lu PLLJones EYSnyder MHTuszynski 2003Neural stem cells constitutively secrete neurotrophic factors and promote extensive host axonal growth after spinal cord injuryExp Neurol181115129.37. Lu P, LL Jones, EY Snyder and MH Tuszynski. (2003). Neural stem cells constitutively secrete neurotrophic factors and promote extensive host axonal growth after spinal cord injury. Exp Neurol 181:115–129. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 38 Andres RHNHorie WSlikker HKeren-Gill KZhan GSun NCManley MPPereira LASheikh et al.2011Human neural stem cells enhance structural plasticity and axonal transport in the ischaemic brainBrain13417771789.38. Andres RH, N Horie, W Slikker, H Keren-Gill, K Zhan, G Sun, NC Manley, MP Pereira, LA Sheikh, et al. (2011). Human neural stem cells enhance structural plasticity and axonal transport in the ischaemic brain. Brain 134:1777–1789. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 39 Hawryluk GWAJMothe MChamankhah JWang CTator MGFehlings 2012In vitro characterization of trophic factor expression in neural precursor cellsStem Cells Dev21432447.39. Hawryluk GW, AJ Mothe, M Chamankhah, J Wang, C Tator and MG Fehlings. (2012). In vitro characterization of trophic factor expression in neural precursor cells. Stem Cells Dev 21:432–447. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 40 Horie NMPPereira KNiizuma GSun HKeren-Gill AEncarnacion MShamloo SAHamilton KJiang et al.2011Transplanted stem cell-secreted VEGF effects post-stroke recovery, inflammation, and vascular repairStem Cells29274285.40. Horie N, MP Pereira, K Niizuma, G Sun, H Keren-Gill, A Encarnacion, M Shamloo, SA Hamilton, K Jiang, et al. (2011). Transplanted stem cell-secreted VEGF effects post-stroke recovery, inflammation, and vascular repair. Stem Cells 29:274–285. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 41 Mosher KIRHAndres TFukuhara GBieri MHasegawa-Moriyama YHe RGuzman TWyss-Coray 2012Neural progenitor cells regulate microglia functions and activityNat Neurosci1514851487.41. Mosher KI, RH Andres, T Fukuhara, G Bieri, M Hasegawa-Moriyama, Y He, R Guzman and T Wyss-Coray. (2012). Neural progenitor cells regulate microglia functions and activity. Nat Neurosci 15:1485–1487. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 42 Bacigaluppi MSPluchino LPeruzzotti-Jametti EKilic UKilic GSalani EBrambilla MJWest GComi GMartino DMHermann 2009Delayed post-ischaemic neuroprotection following systemic neural stem cell transplantation involves multiple mechanismsBrain13222392251.42. Bacigaluppi M, S Pluchino, L Peruzzotti-Jametti, E Kilic, U Kilic, G Salani, E Brambilla, MJ West, G Comi, G Martino and DM Hermann. (2009). Delayed post-ischaemic neuroprotection following systemic neural stem cell transplantation involves multiple mechanisms. Brain 132:2239–2251. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 43 Guzman RADe Los Angeles SCheshier RChoi SHoang JLiauw BSchaar GSteinberg 2008Intracarotid injection of fluorescence activated cell-sorted CD49d-positive neural stem cells improves targeted cell delivery and behavior after stroke in a mouse stroke modelStroke3913001306.43. Guzman R, A De Los Angeles, S Cheshier, R Choi, S Hoang, J Liauw, B Schaar and G Steinberg. (2008). Intracarotid injection of fluorescence activated cell-sorted CD49d-positive neural stem cells improves targeted cell delivery and behavior after stroke in a mouse stroke model. Stroke 39:1300–1306. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 44 Smith EJRPStroemer NGorenkova MNakajima WRCrum ETang LStevanato JDSinden MModo 2012Implantation site and lesion topology determine efficacy of a human neural stem cell line in a rat model of chronic strokeStem Cells30785796.44. Smith EJ, RP Stroemer, N Gorenkova, M Nakajima, WR Crum, E Tang, L Stevanato, JD Sinden and M Modo. (2012). Implantation site and lesion topology determine efficacy of a human neural stem cell line in a rat model of chronic stroke. Stem Cells 30:785–796. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 45 Andres RHRChoi AVPendharkar XGaeta NWang JKNathan JYChua SWLee TDPalmer GKSteinberg RGuzman 2011The CCR2/CCL2 interaction mediates the transendothelial recruitment of intravascularly delivered neural stem cells to the ischemic brainStroke4229232931.45. Andres RH, R Choi, AV Pendharkar, X Gaeta, N Wang, JK Nathan, JY Chua, SW Lee, TD Palmer, GK Steinberg and R Guzman. (2011). The CCR2/CCL2 interaction mediates the transendothelial recruitment of intravascularly delivered neural stem cells to the ischemic brain. Stroke 42:2923–2931. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 46 Lee STKChu KHJung SJKim DHKim KMKang NHHong JHKim JJBan et al.2008Anti-inflammatory mechanism of intravascular neural stem cell transplantation in haemorrhagic strokeBrain131616629.46. Lee ST, K Chu, KH Jung, SJ Kim, DH Kim, KM Kang, NH Hong, JH Kim, JJ Ban, et al. (2008). Anti-inflammatory mechanism of intravascular neural stem cell transplantation in haemorrhagic stroke. Brain 131:616–629. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 47 Park DHDJEve PRSanberg JMusso 3rdADBachstetter AWolfson ASchlunk MOBaradez JDSinden CGemma 2010Increased neuronal proliferation in the dentate gyrus of aged rats following neural stem cell implantationStem Cells Dev19175180.47. Park DH, DJ Eve, PR Sanberg, J Musso, 3rd, AD Bachstetter, A Wolfson, A Schlunk, MO Baradez, JD Sinden and C Gemma. (2010). Increased neuronal proliferation in the dentate gyrus of aged rats following neural stem cell implantation. Stem Cells Dev 19:175–180. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 48 Roybon LZMa FAsztely AFosum SEJacobsen PBrundin JYLi 2006Failure of transdifferentiation of adult hematopoietic stem cells into neuronsStem Cells2415941604.48. Roybon L, Z Ma, F Asztely, A Fosum, SE Jacobsen, P Brundin and JY Li. (2006). Failure of transdifferentiation of adult hematopoietic stem cells into neurons. Stem Cells 24:1594–1604. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 49 Barnabe GFTTSchwindt MECalcagnotto FLMotta GMartinez Jr.ACde Oliveira LMKeim VD'Almeida RMendez-Otero LEMello 2009Chemically-induced RAT mesenchymal stem cells adopt molecular properties of neuronal-like cells but do not have basic neuronal functional propertiesPLoS One4e5222.49. Barnabe GF, TT Schwindt, ME Calcagnotto, FL Motta, G Martinez, Jr., AC de Oliveira, LM Keim, V D'Almeida, R Mendez-Otero and LE Mello. (2009). Chemically-induced RAT mesenchymal stem cells adopt molecular properties of neuronal-like cells but do not have basic neuronal functional properties. PLoS One 4:e5222. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 50 Vallieres LPESawchenko 2003Bone marrow-derived cells that populate the adult mouse brain preserve their hematopoietic identityJ Neurosci2351975207.50. Vallieres L and PE Sawchenko. (2003). Bone marrow-derived cells that populate the adult mouse brain preserve their hematopoietic identity. J Neurosci 23:5197–5207. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 51 Schwarting SSLitwak WHao MBahr JWeise HNeumann 2008Hematopoietic stem cells reduce postischemic inflammation and ameliorate ischemic brain injuryStroke3928672875.51. Schwarting S, S Litwak, W Hao, M Bahr, J Weise and H Neumann. (2008). Hematopoietic stem cells reduce postischemic inflammation and ameliorate ischemic brain injury. Stroke 39:2867–2875. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 52 Mitkari BEKerkela JNystedt MKorhonen VMikkonen THuhtala JJolkkonen 2012Intra-arterial infusion of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells results in transient localization in the brain after cerebral ischemia in ratsExp Neurol239C158162.52. Mitkari B, E Kerkela, J Nystedt, M Korhonen, V Mikkonen, T Huhtala and J Jolkkonen. (2012). Intra-arterial infusion of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells results in transient localization in the brain after cerebral ischemia in rats. Exp Neurol 239C:158–162. Google Scholar
    • 53 Borlongan CVMHadman CDSanberg PRSanberg 2004Central nervous system entry of peripherally injected umbilical cord blood cells is not required for neuroprotection in strokeStroke3523852389.53. Borlongan CV, M Hadman, CD Sanberg and PR Sanberg. (2004). Central nervous system entry of peripherally injected umbilical cord blood cells is not required for neuroprotection in stroke. Stroke 35:2385–2389. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 54 Vendrame MCGemma Dde Mesquita LCollier PCBickford CDSanberg PRSanberg KRPennypacker AEWilling 2005Anti-inflammatory effects of human cord blood cells in a rat model of strokeStem Cells Dev14595604.54. Vendrame M, C Gemma, D de Mesquita, L Collier, PC Bickford, CD Sanberg, PR Sanberg, KR Pennypacker and AE Willing. (2005). Anti-inflammatory effects of human cord blood cells in a rat model of stroke. Stem Cells Dev 14:595–604. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 55 Vendrame MCGemma KRPennypacker PCBickford CDavis Sanberg PRSanberg AEWilling 2006Cord blood rescues stroke-induced changes in splenocyte phenotype and functionExp Neurol199191200.55. Vendrame M, C Gemma, KR Pennypacker, PC Bickford, C Davis Sanberg, PR Sanberg and AE Willing. (2006). Cord blood rescues stroke-induced changes in splenocyte phenotype and function. Exp Neurol 199:191–200. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 56 Ohtaki HJHYlostalo JEForaker APRobinson RLReger SShioda DJProckop 2008Stem/progenitor cells from bone marrow decrease neuronal death in global ischemia by modulation of inflammatory/immune responsesProc Natl Acad Sci (USA)1051463814643.56. Ohtaki H, JH Ylostalo, JE Foraker, AP Robinson, RL Reger, S Shioda and DJ Prockop. (2008). Stem/progenitor cells from bone marrow decrease neuronal death in global ischemia by modulation of inflammatory/immune responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA) 105:14638–14643. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 57 Giraldi-Guimaraes AMRezende-Lima FPBruno RMendez-Otero 2009Treatment with bone marrow mononuclear cells induces functional recovery and decreases neurodegeneration after sensorimotor cortical ischemia in ratsBrain Res1266108120.57. Giraldi-Guimaraes A, M Rezende-Lima, FP Bruno and R Mendez-Otero. (2009). Treatment with bone marrow mononuclear cells induces functional recovery and decreases neurodegeneration after sensorimotor cortical ischemia in rats. Brain Res 1266:108–120. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 58 Chopp MYLi ZGZhang 2009Mechanisms underlying improved recovery of neurological function after stroke in the rodent after treatment with neurorestorative cell-based therapiesStroke40S143S145.58. Chopp M, Y Li and ZG Zhang. (2009). Mechanisms underlying improved recovery of neurological function after stroke in the rodent after treatment with neurorestorative cell-based therapies. Stroke 40:S143–S145. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 59 de Vasconcelos Dos Santos AJda Costa Reis BDiaz Paredes LMoraes Jasmin AGiraldi-Guimaraes RMendez-Otero 2010Therapeutic window for treatment of cortical ischemia with bone marrow-derived cells in ratsBrain Res1306149158.59. de Vasconcelos Dos Santos A, J da Costa Reis, B Diaz Paredes, L Moraes, Jasmin, A Giraldi-Guimaraes and R Mendez-Otero. (2010). Therapeutic window for treatment of cortical ischemia with bone marrow-derived cells in rats. Brain Res 1306:149–158. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 60 Brenneman MSSharma MHarting RStrong CSCox Jr.JAronowski JCGrotta SISavitz 2010Autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells enhance recovery after acute ischemic stroke in young and middle-aged ratsJ Cereb Blood Flow Metab30140149.60. Brenneman M, S Sharma, M Harting, R Strong, CS Cox, Jr., J Aronowski, JC Grotta and SI Savitz. (2010). Autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells enhance recovery after acute ischemic stroke in young and middle-aged rats. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 30:140–149. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 61 Yasuhara TNMatsukawa KHara MMaki MMAli SJYu EBae GYu LXu et al.2009Notch-induced rat and human bone marrow stromal cell grafts reduce ischemic cell loss and ameliorate behavioral deficits in chronic stroke animalsStem Cells Dev1815011514.61. Yasuhara T, N Matsukawa, K Hara, M Maki, MM Ali, SJ Yu, E Bae, G Yu, L Xu, et al. (2009). Notch-induced rat and human bone marrow stromal cell grafts reduce ischemic cell loss and ameliorate behavioral deficits in chronic stroke animals. Stem Cells Dev 18:1501–1514. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 62 Xiao JZNan YMotooka WCLow 2005Transplantation of a novel cell line population of umbilical cord blood stem cells ameliorates neurological deficits associated with ischemic brain injuryStem Cells Dev14722733.62. Xiao J, Z Nan, Y Motooka and WC Low. (2005). Transplantation of a novel cell line population of umbilical cord blood stem cells ameliorates neurological deficits associated with ischemic brain injury. Stem Cells Dev 14:722–733. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 63 Newman MBAEWilling JJManresa CDavis-Sanberg PRSanberg 2005Stroke-induced migration of human umbilical cord blood cells: time course and cytokinesStem Cells Dev14576586.63. Newman MB, AE Willing, JJ Manresa, C Davis-Sanberg and PR Sanberg. (2005). Stroke-induced migration of human umbilical cord blood cells: time course and cytokines. Stem Cells Dev 14:576–586. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 64 Bakondi BISShimada BMPeterson JLSpees 2011SDF-1alpha secreted by human CD133-derived multipotent stromal cells promotes neural progenitor cell survival through CXCR7Stem Cells Dev2010211029.64. Bakondi B, IS Shimada, BM Peterson and JL Spees. (2011). SDF-1alpha secreted by human CD133-derived multipotent stromal cells promotes neural progenitor cell survival through CXCR7. Stem Cells Dev 20:1021–1029. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 65 Taguchi ATSoma HTanaka TKanda HNishimura HYoshikawa YTsukamoto HIso YFujimori et al.2004Administration of CD34+ cells after stroke enhances neurogenesis via angiogenesis in a mouse modelJ Clin Invest114330338.65. Taguchi A, T Soma, H Tanaka, T Kanda, H Nishimura, H Yoshikawa, Y Tsukamoto, H Iso, Y Fujimori, et al. (2004). Administration of CD34+ cells after stroke enhances neurogenesis via angiogenesis in a mouse model. J Clin Invest 114:330–338. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 66 Bao XMFeng JWei QHan HZhao GLi ZZhu HXing YAn et al.2011Transplantation of Flk-1+ human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells promotes angiogenesis and neurogenesis after cerebral ischemia in ratsEur J Neurosci348798.66. Bao X, M Feng, J Wei, Q Han, H Zhao, G Li, Z Zhu, H Xing, Y An, et al. (2011). Transplantation of Flk-1+ human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells promotes angiogenesis and neurogenesis after cerebral ischemia in rats. Eur J Neurosci 34:87–98. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 67 Goldman SAZChen 2011Perivascular instruction of cell genesis and fate in the adult brainNat Neurosci1413821389.67. Goldman SA and Z Chen. (2011). Perivascular instruction of cell genesis and fate in the adult brain. Nat Neurosci 14:1382–1389. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 68 Lin YCTLKo YHShih MYLin TWFu HSHsiao JYHsu YSFu 2011Human umbilical mesenchymal stem cells promote recovery after ischemic strokeStroke4220452053.68. Lin YC, TL Ko, YH Shih, MY Lin, TW Fu, HS Hsiao, JY Hsu and YS Fu. (2011). Human umbilical mesenchymal stem cells promote recovery after ischemic stroke. Stroke 42:2045–2053. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 69 Ranganath SHOLevy MSInamdar JMKarp 2012Harnessing the mesenchymal stem cell secretome for the treatment of cardiovascular diseaseCell Stem Cell10244258.69. Ranganath SH, O Levy, MS Inamdar and JM Karp. (2012). Harnessing the mesenchymal stem cell secretome for the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Cell Stem Cell 10:244–258. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 70 Xin HYLi BBuller MKatakowski YZhang XWang XShang ZGZhang MChopp 2012Exosome-mediated transfer of miR-133b from multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells to neural cells contributes to neurite outgrowthStem Cells3015561564.70. Xin H, Y Li, B Buller, M Katakowski, Y Zhang, X Wang, X Shang, ZG Zhang and M Chopp. (2012). Exosome-mediated transfer of miR-133b from multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells to neural cells contributes to neurite outgrowth. Stem Cells 30:1556–1564. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 71 van Velthoven CTAKavelaars Fvan Bel CJHeijnen 2010Repeated mesenchymal stem cell treatment after neonatal hypoxia-ischemia has distinct effects on formation and maturation of new neurons and oligodendrocytes leading to restoration of damage, corticospinal motor tract activity, and sensorimotor functionJ Neurosci3096039611.71. van Velthoven CT, A Kavelaars, F van Bel and CJ Heijnen. (2010). Repeated mesenchymal stem cell treatment after neonatal hypoxia-ischemia has distinct effects on formation and maturation of new neurons and oligodendrocytes leading to restoration of damage, corticospinal motor tract activity, and sensorimotor function. J Neurosci 30:9603–9611. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 72 Yang BXXi JAronowski SISavitz 2012Ischemic stroke may activate bone marrow mononuclear cells to enhance recovery after strokeStem Cells Dev.2133323340.72. Yang B, X Xi, J Aronowski and SI Savitz. (2012). Ischemic stroke may activate bone marrow mononuclear cells to enhance recovery after stroke. Stem Cells Dev. 21:3332–3340. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 73 Fan YFShen TFrenzel WZhu JYe JLiu YChen HSu WLYoung GYYang 2010Endothelial progenitor cell transplantation improves long-term stroke outcome in miceAnn Neurol67488497.73. Fan Y, F Shen, T Frenzel, W Zhu, J Ye, J Liu, Y Chen, H Su, WL Young and GY Yang. (2010). Endothelial progenitor cell transplantation improves long-term stroke outcome in mice. Ann Neurol 67:488–497. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 74 Nih LRNDeroide CLere-Dean DLerouet MSoustrat BILevy JSSilvestre TMerkulova-Rainon MPocard IMargaill NKubis 2012Neuroblast survival depends on mature vascular network formation after mouse stroke: role of endothelial and smooth muscle progenitor cell co-administrationEur J Neurosci3512081217.74. Nih LR, N Deroide, C Lere-Dean, D Lerouet, M Soustrat, BI Levy, JS Silvestre, T Merkulova-Rainon, M Pocard, I Margaill and N Kubis. (2012). Neuroblast survival depends on mature vascular network formation after mouse stroke: role of endothelial and smooth muscle progenitor cell co-administration. Eur J Neurosci 35:1208–1217. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 75 Zhang LYLi CZhang MChopp AGosiewska KHong 2011Delayed administration of human umbilical tissue-derived cells improved neurological functional recovery in a rodent model of focal ischemiaStroke4214371444.75. Zhang L, Y Li, C Zhang, M Chopp, A Gosiewska and K Hong. (2011). Delayed administration of human umbilical tissue-derived cells improved neurological functional recovery in a rodent model of focal ischemia. Stroke 42:1437–1444. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 76 Savitz SIJDinsmore JWu GVHenderson PStieg LRCaplan 2005Neurotransplantation of fetal porcine cells in patients with basal ganglia infarcts: a preliminary safety and feasibility studyCerebrovasc Dis20101107.76. Savitz SI, J Dinsmore, J Wu, GV Henderson, P Stieg and LR Caplan. (2005). Neurotransplantation of fetal porcine cells in patients with basal ganglia infarcts: a preliminary safety and feasibility study. Cerebrovasc Dis 20:101–107. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 77 Suarez-Monteagudo CPHernandez-Ramirez LAlvarez-Gonzalez IGarcia-Maeso Kde la Cuetara-Bernal LCastillo-Diaz MLBringas-Vega GMartinez-Aching LMMorales-Chacon et al.2009Autologous bone marrow stem cell neurotransplantation in stroke patients. An open studyRestor Neurol Neurosci27151161.77. Suarez-Monteagudo C, P Hernandez-Ramirez, L Alvarez-Gonzalez, I Garcia-Maeso, K de la Cuetara-Bernal, L Castillo-Diaz, ML Bringas-Vega, G Martinez-Aching, LM Morales-Chacon, et al. (2009). Autologous bone marrow stem cell neurotransplantation in stroke patients. An open study. Restor Neurol Neurosci 27:151–161. MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 78 Bringas MLCSuarez CSanchez LMAlvarez PValdes SSalazar DChongo MJahanshahi 2011Cognitive changes after stem cell transplantation in a patient with subcortical strokeBMJ Case Rep.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bcr.03.2011.3944.78. Bringas ML, C Suarez, C Sanchez, LM Alvarez, P Valdes, S Salazar, D Chongo and M Jahanshahi. (2011). Cognitive changes after stem cell transplantation in a patient with subcortical stroke. BMJ Case Rep. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bcr.03.2011.3944. Google Scholar
    • 79 Li ZMZTZhang CJGuo FYGeng FQiang LXWang 2013Autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell implantation for intracerebral hemorrhage-A prospective clinical observationClin Neurol Neurosurg1157276.79. Li ZM, ZT Zhang, CJ Guo, FY Geng, F Qiang and LX Wang. (2013). Autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell implantation for intracerebral hemorrhage-A prospective clinical observation. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 115:72–76. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 80 Rabinovich SSVISeledtsov NVBanul OVPoveshchenko VVSenyukov SVAstrakov DMSamarin VYTaraban 2005Cell therapy of brain strokeBull Exp Biol Med139126128.80. Rabinovich SS, VI Seledtsov, NV Banul, OV Poveshchenko, VV Senyukov, SV Astrakov, DM Samarin and VY Taraban. (2005). Cell therapy of brain stroke. Bull Exp Biol Med 139:126–128. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 81 Sharma AHSane PBadhe PKulkarni GChopra MLohia NGokulchandran 2012Autologous bone marrow stem cell therapy shows functional improvement in hemorrhagic strokeIndian J Clin Pract23100105.81. Sharma A, H Sane, P Badhe, P Kulkarni, G Chopra, M Lohia and N Gokulchandran. (2012). Autologous bone marrow stem cell therapy shows functional improvement in hemorrhagic stroke. Indian J Clin Pract 23:100–105. Google Scholar
    • 82 Han HSKChang JJChang SHHwang SHHan BHChun 2011Intrathecal injection of human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of basilar artery dissection: a case reportJ Med Case Rep5562.82. Han H, SK Chang, JJ Chang, SH Hwang, SH Han and BH Chun. (2011). Intrathecal injection of human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of basilar artery dissection: a case report. J Med Case Rep 5:562. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 83 Correa PRFelix MLMendonca GFreitas JAzevedo HDohmann SAlves CMesquita 2005Dual-head coincidence gamma camera FDG-PET before and after autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell implantation in ischaemic strokeEur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging32999.83. Correa P, R Felix, ML Mendonca, G Freitas, J Azevedo, H Dohmann, S Alves and C Mesquita. (2005). Dual-head coincidence gamma camera FDG-PET before and after autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell implantation in ischaemic stroke. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:999. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 84 Mendonca MLGRFreitas SASilva AManfrim CHFalcao CGonzales CAndre HFDohmann RBorojevic RMOtero 2006[Safety of intra-arterial autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation for acute ischemic stroke]Arq Bras Cardiol865255.84. Mendonca ML, GR Freitas, SA Silva, A Manfrim, CH Falcao, C Gonzales, C Andre, HF Dohmann, R Borojevic and RM Otero. (2006). [Safety of intra-arterial autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation for acute ischemic stroke]. Arq Bras Cardiol 86:52–55. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 85 Correa PLCTMesquita RMFelix JCAzevedo GBBarbirato CHFalcao CGonzalez MLMendonca AManfrim et al.2007Assessment of intra-arterial injected autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell distribution by radioactive labeling in acute ischemic strokeClin Nucl Med32839841.85. Correa PL, CT Mesquita, RM Felix, JC Azevedo, GB Barbirato, CH Falcao, C Gonzalez, ML Mendonca, A Manfrim, et al. (2007). Assessment of intra-arterial injected autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell distribution by radioactive labeling in acute ischemic stroke. Clin Nucl Med 32:839–841. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 86 Barbosa da Fonseca LMVBattistella GRde Freitas BGutfilen RCDos Santos Goldenberg AMaiolino EWajnberg PHRosado de Castro RMendez-Otero CAndre 2009Early tissue distribution of bone marrow mononuclear cells after intra-arterial delivery in a patient with chronic strokeCirculation120539541.86. Barbosa da Fonseca LM, V Battistella, GR de Freitas, B Gutfilen, RC Dos Santos Goldenberg, A Maiolino, E Wajnberg, PH Rosado de Castro, R Mendez-Otero and C Andre. (2009). Early tissue distribution of bone marrow mononuclear cells after intra-arterial delivery in a patient with chronic stroke. Circulation 120:539–541. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 87 Barbosa da Fonseca LMBGutfilen PHRosado de Castro VBattistella RCGoldenberg TKasai-Brunswick CLChagas EWajnberg AMaiolino et al.2010Migration and homing of bone-marrow mononuclear cells in chronic ischemic stroke after intra-arterial injectionExp Neurol221122128.87. Barbosa da Fonseca LM, B Gutfilen, PH Rosado de Castro, V Battistella, RC Goldenberg, T Kasai-Brunswick, CL Chagas, E Wajnberg, A Maiolino, et al. (2010). Migration and homing of bone-marrow mononuclear cells in chronic ischemic stroke after intra-arterial injection. Exp Neurol 221:122–128. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 88 Battistella VGRde Freitas LMda Fonseca DMercante BGutfilen RCGoldenberg JVDias THKasai-Brunswick EWajnberg et al.2011Safety of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation in patients with nonacute ischemic strokeRegen Med64552.88. Battistella V, GR de Freitas, LM da Fonseca, D Mercante, B Gutfilen, RC Goldenberg, JV Dias, TH Kasai-Brunswick, E Wajnberg, et al. (2011). Safety of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation in patients with nonacute ischemic stroke. Regen Med 6:45–52. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 89 Rosado de Castro PHFRSchmidt VBattistella SALopes de Souza BGutfilen RCGoldenberg THKasai-Brunswick LVairo RMSilva et al.2013Biodistribution of bone marrow mononuclear cells after intra-arterial or intravenous transplantation in subacute stroke patientsRegen Med8145155.89. Rosado de Castro PH, FR Schmidt, V Battistella, SA Lopes de Souza, B Gutfilen, RC Goldenberg, TH Kasai-Brunswick, L Vairo, RM Silva, et al. (2013). Biodistribution of bone marrow mononuclear cells after intra-arterial or intravenous transplantation in subacute stroke patients. Regen Med 8:145–155. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 90 Friedrich MAMPMartins MDAraujo CKlamt LVedolin BGaricochea EFRaupp JSAmmar DCMachado et al.2012Intra-arterial infusion of autologous bone-marrow mononuclear cells in patients with moderate to severe middle-cerebral-artery acute ischemic strokeCell Transplant21S13S21.90. Friedrich MA, MP Martins, MD Araujo, C Klamt, L Vedolin, B Garicochea, EF Raupp, JS Ammar, DC Machado, et al. (2012). Intra-arterial infusion of autologous bone-marrow mononuclear cells in patients with moderate to severe middle-cerebral-artery acute ischemic stroke. Cell Transplant 21:S13–S21. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 91 Moniche FAGonzalez JRGonzalez-Marcos MCarmona PPinero IEspigado DGarcia-Solis ACayuela JMontaner et al.2012Intra-arterial bone marrow mononuclear cells in ischemic stroke: a pilot clinical trialStroke4322422244.91. Moniche F, A Gonzalez, JR Gonzalez-Marcos, M Carmona, P Pinero, I Espigado, D Garcia-Solis, A Cayuela, J Montaner, et al. (2012). Intra-arterial bone marrow mononuclear cells in ischemic stroke: a pilot clinical trial. Stroke 43:2242–2244. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 92 Jiang YWZhu JZhu LWu GXu XLiu 2012Feasibility of delivering mesenchymal stem cells via catheter to the proximal end of lesion artery in patients with stroke in the territory of middle cerebral arteryCell Transplant.[Epub ahead of print];10.3727/096368912X658818.92. Jiang Y, W Zhu, J Zhu, L Wu, G Xu and X Liu. (2012). Feasibility of delivering mesenchymal stem cells via catheter to the proximal end of lesion artery in patients with stroke in the territory of middle cerebral artery. Cell Transplant. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.3727/096368912X658818. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 93 Man YJLi BYang JMa 2006Vein transplantation using human umbilical cord blood stem cells in the treatment of stroke sequelaNeural Regen Res1618621.93. Man Y, J Li, B Yang and J Ma. (2006). Vein transplantation using human umbilical cord blood stem cells in the treatment of stroke sequela. Neural Regen Res 1:618–621. Google Scholar
    • 94 Bang OYJSLee PHLee GLee 2005Autologous mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in stroke patientsAnn Neurol57874882.94. Bang OY, JS Lee, PH Lee and G Lee. (2005). Autologous mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in stroke patients. Ann Neurol 57:874–882. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 95 Lee JSJMHong GJMoon PHLee YHAhn OYBang Scollaborators 2010A long-term follow-up study of intravenous autologous mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in patients with ischemic strokeStem Cells2810991106.95. Lee JS, JM Hong, GJ Moon, PH Lee, YH Ahn, OY Bang and S collaborators. (2010). A long-term follow-up study of intravenous autologous mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in patients with ischemic stroke. Stem Cells 28:1099–1106. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 96 Honmou OKHoukin TMatsunaga YNiitsu SIshiai ROnodera SGWaxman JDKocsis 2011Intravenous administration of auto serum-expanded autologous mesenchymal stem cells in strokeBrain13417901807.96. Honmou O, K Houkin, T Matsunaga, Y Niitsu, S Ishiai, R Onodera, SG Waxman and JD Kocsis. (2011). Intravenous administration of auto serum-expanded autologous mesenchymal stem cells in stroke. Brain 134:1790–1807. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 97 Bhasin AMVSrivastava SSKumaran SMohanty RBhatia SBose SGaikwad AGarg BAiran 2011Autologous mesenchymal stem cells in chronic strokeCerebrovasc Dis Extra193104.97. Bhasin A, MV Srivastava, SS Kumaran, S Mohanty, R Bhatia, S Bose, S Gaikwad, A Garg and B Airan. (2011). Autologous mesenchymal stem cells in chronic stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis Extra 1:93–104. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 98 Savitz SIVMisra MKasam HJuneja CSCox Jr.SAlderman IAisiku SKar AGee JCGrotta 2011Intravenous autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells for ischemic strokeAnn Neurol705969.98. Savitz SI, V Misra, M Kasam, H Juneja, CS Cox, Jr., S Alderman, I Aisiku, S Kar, A Gee and JC Grotta. (2011). Intravenous autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells for ischemic stroke. Ann Neurol 70:59–69. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 99 Prasad KSMohanty RBhatia MVSrivastava AGarg ASrivastava VGoyal MTripathi AKumar et al.2012Autologous intravenous bone marrow mononuclear cell therapy for patients with subacute ischaemic stroke: A pilot studyIndian J Med Res136221228.99. Prasad K, S Mohanty, R Bhatia, MV Srivastava, A Garg, A Srivastava, V Goyal, M Tripathi, A Kumar, et al. (2012). Autologous intravenous bone marrow mononuclear cell therapy for patients with subacute ischaemic stroke: A pilot study. Indian J Med Res 136:221–228. MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 100 Bhasin AMVSrivastava RBhatia SMohanty SSKumaran SBose 2012aAutologous intravenous mononuclear stem cell therapy in chronic ischemic strokeJ Stem Cells Regen Med8181189.100. Bhasin A, MV Srivastava, R Bhatia, S Mohanty, SS Kumaran and S Bose. (2012a). Autologous intravenous mononuclear stem cell therapy in chronic ischemic stroke. J Stem Cells Regen Med 8:181–189. MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 101 Bhasin AMVPadma Srivastava SMohanty RBhatia SSKumaran SBose 2012bStem cell therapy: A clinical trial of strokeClin Neurol Neurosurg.In Press.101. Bhasin A, MV Padma Srivastava, S Mohanty, R Bhatia, SS Kumaran and S Bose. (2012b). Stem cell therapy: A clinical trial of stroke. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. In Press. MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 102 England TJMAbaei DPAuer JLowe DRJones GSare MWalker PMBath 2012Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for mobilizing bone marrow stem cells in subacute stroke: the stem cell trial of recovery enhancement after stroke 2 randomized controlled trialStroke43405411.102. England TJ, M Abaei, DP Auer, J Lowe, DR Jones, G Sare, M Walker and PM Bath. (2012). Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for mobilizing bone marrow stem cells in subacute stroke: the stem cell trial of recovery enhancement after stroke 2 randomized controlled trial. Stroke 43:405–411. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 103 Bliss TMRHAndres GKSteinberg 2010Optimizing the success of cell transplantation therapy for strokeNeurobiol Dis37275283.103. Bliss TM, RH Andres and GK Steinberg. (2010). Optimizing the success of cell transplantation therapy for stroke. Neurobiol Dis 37:275–283. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 104 Burt RKYLoh WPearce NBeohar WGBarr RCraig YWen JARapp JKessler 2008Clinical applications of blood-derived and marrow-derived stem cells for nonmalignant diseasesJAMA299925936.104. Burt RK, Y Loh, W Pearce, N Beohar, WG Barr, R Craig, Y Wen, JA Rapp and J Kessler. (2008). Clinical applications of blood-derived and marrow-derived stem cells for nonmalignant diseases. JAMA 299:925–936. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 105 Resnick IBMYShapira SSlavin 2005Nonmyeloablative stem cell transplantation and cell therapy for malignant and non-malignant diseasesTranspl Immunol14207219.105. Resnick IB, MY Shapira and S Slavin. (2005). Nonmyeloablative stem cell transplantation and cell therapy for malignant and non-malignant diseases. Transpl Immunol 14:207–219. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 106 Jeevanantham VMButler ASaad AAbdel-Latif EKZuba-Surma BDawn 2012Adult bone marrow cell therapy improves survival and induces long-term improvement in cardiac parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysisCirculation126551568.106. Jeevanantham V, M Butler, A Saad, A Abdel-Latif, EK Zuba-Surma and B Dawn. (2012). Adult bone marrow cell therapy improves survival and induces long-term improvement in cardiac parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 126:551–568. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 107 Hare JMJEFishman GGerstenblith DLDifede Velazquez JPZambrano VYSuncion MTracy EGhersin PVJohnston et al.2012Comparison of Allogeneic vs Autologous Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Delivered by Transendocardial Injection in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: The POSEIDON Randomized TrialJAMA111.107. Hare JM, JE Fishman, G Gerstenblith, DL Difede Velazquez, JP Zambrano, VY Suncion, M Tracy, E Ghersin, PV Johnston, et al. (2012). Comparison of Allogeneic vs Autologous Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Delivered by Transendocardial Injection in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: The POSEIDON Randomized Trial. JAMA:1–11. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 108 Fadini GPCAgostini AAvogaro 2010Autologous stem cell therapy for peripheral arterial disease meta-analysis and systematic review of the literatureAtherosclerosis2091017.108. Fadini GP, C Agostini and A Avogaro. (2010). Autologous stem cell therapy for peripheral arterial disease meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature. Atherosclerosis 209:10–17. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 109 Lees JSESSena KJEgan AAntonic SAKoblar DWHowells MRMacleod 2012Stem cell-based therapy for experimental stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysisInt J Stroke7582588.109. Lees JS, ES Sena, KJ Egan, A Antonic, SA Koblar, DW Howells and MR Macleod. (2012). Stem cell-based therapy for experimental stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Stroke 7:582–588. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 110 Iadecola CJAnrather 2011The immunology of stroke: from mechanisms to translationNat Med17796808.110. Iadecola C and J Anrather. (2011). The immunology of stroke: from mechanisms to translation. Nat Med 17:796–808. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 111 Imitola JKRaddassi KIPark FJMueller MNieto YDTeng DFrenkel JLi RLSidman et al.2004Directed migration of neural stem cells to sites of CNS injury by the stromal cell-derived factor 1alpha/CXC chemokine receptor 4 pathwayProc Natl Acad Sci (USA)1011811718122.111. Imitola J, K Raddassi, KI Park, FJ Mueller, M Nieto, YD Teng, D Frenkel, J Li, RL Sidman, et al. (2004). Directed migration of neural stem cells to sites of CNS injury by the stromal cell-derived factor 1alpha/CXC chemokine receptor 4 pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA) 101:18117–18122. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 112 Wang YYDeng GQZhou 2008SDF-1alpha/CXCR4-mediated migration of systemically transplanted bone marrow stromal cells towards ischemic brain lesion in a rat modelBrain Res1195104112.112. Wang Y, Y Deng and GQ Zhou. (2008). SDF-1alpha/CXCR4-mediated migration of systemically transplanted bone marrow stromal cells towards ischemic brain lesion in a rat model. Brain Res 1195:104–112. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 113 Abarbanell AMYWang JLHerrmann BRWeil JAPoynter MCManukyan DRMeldrum 2010Toll-like receptor 2 mediates mesenchymal stem cell-associated myocardial recovery and VEGF production following acute ischemia-reperfusion injuryAm J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol298H15291536.113. Abarbanell AM, Y Wang, JL Herrmann, BR Weil, JA Poynter, MC Manukyan and DR Meldrum. (2010). Toll-like receptor 2 mediates mesenchymal stem cell-associated myocardial recovery and VEGF production following acute ischemia-reperfusion injury. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 298:H1529-1536. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 114 Mine YJTatarishvili KOki EMonni ZKokaia OLindvall 2013Grafted human neural stem cells enhance several steps of endogenous neurogenesis and improve behavioral recovery after middle cerebral artery occlusion in ratsNeurobiol Dis52191203.114. Mine Y, J Tatarishvili, K Oki, E Monni, Z Kokaia and O Lindvall. (2013). Grafted human neural stem cells enhance several steps of endogenous neurogenesis and improve behavioral recovery after middle cerebral artery occlusion in rats. Neurobiol Dis 52:191–203. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 115 Oki KJTatarishvili JWood PKoch SWattananit YMine EMonni DTornero HAhlenius et al.2012Human-induced pluripotent stem cells form functional neurons and improve recovery after grafting in stroke-damaged brainStem Cells3011201133.115. Oki K, J Tatarishvili, J Wood, P Koch, S Wattananit, Y Mine, E Monni, D Tornero, H Ahlenius, et al. (2012). Human-induced pluripotent stem cells form functional neurons and improve recovery after grafting in stroke-damaged brain. Stem Cells 30:1120–1133. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 116 Sakata HPNarasimhan KNiizuma CMMaier TWakai PHChan 2012Interleukin 6-preconditioned neural stem cells reduce ischaemic injury in stroke miceBrain13532983310.116. Sakata H, P Narasimhan, K Niizuma, CM Maier, T Wakai and PH Chan. (2012). Interleukin 6-preconditioned neural stem cells reduce ischaemic injury in stroke mice. Brain 135:3298–3310. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 117 Yang BRStrong SSharma MBrenneman KMallikarjunarao XXi JCGrotta JAronowski SISavitz 2011Therapeutic time window and dose response of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells for ischemic strokeJ Neurosci Res89833839.117. Yang B, R Strong, S Sharma, M Brenneman, K Mallikarjunarao, X Xi, JC Grotta, J Aronowski and SI Savitz. (2011). Therapeutic time window and dose response of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells for ischemic stroke. J Neurosci Res 89:833–839. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 118 Komatsu KOHonmou JSuzuki KHoukin HHamada JDKocsis 2010Therapeutic time window of mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow after cerebral ischemiaBrain Res13348492.118. Komatsu K, O Honmou, J Suzuki, K Houkin, H Hamada and JD Kocsis. (2010). Therapeutic time window of mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow after cerebral ischemia. Brain Res 1334:84–92. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 119 Saporta SCVBorlongan PRSanberg 1999Neural transplantation of human neuroteratocarcinoma (hNT) neurons into ischemic rats. A quantitative dose-response analysis of cell survival and behavioral recoveryNeuroscience91519525.119. Saporta S, CV Borlongan and PR Sanberg. (1999). Neural transplantation of human neuroteratocarcinoma (hNT) neurons into ischemic rats. A quantitative dose-response analysis of cell survival and behavioral recovery. Neuroscience 91:519–525. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 120 Li LQJiang GDing LZhang ZGZhang QLi SPanda MLu JREwing MChopp 2010Effects of administration route on migration and distribution of neural progenitor cells transplanted into rats with focal cerebral ischemia, an MRI studyJ Cereb Blood Flow Metab30653662.120. Li L, Q Jiang, G Ding, L Zhang, ZG Zhang, Q Li, S Panda, M Lu, JR Ewing and M Chopp. (2010). Effects of administration route on migration and distribution of neural progenitor cells transplanted into rats with focal cerebral ischemia, an MRI study. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 30:653–662. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 121 Walczak PJZhang AAGilad DAKedziorek JRuiz-Cabello RGYoung MFPittenger PCvan Zijl JHuang JWBulte 2008Dual-modality monitoring of targeted intraarterial delivery of mesenchymal stem cells after transient ischemiaStroke3915691574.121. Walczak P, J Zhang, AA Gilad, DA Kedziorek, J Ruiz-Cabello, RG Young, MF Pittenger, PC van Zijl, J Huang and JW Bulte. (2008). Dual-modality monitoring of targeted intraarterial delivery of mesenchymal stem cells after transient ischemia. Stroke 39:1569–1574. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 122 Kamiya NMUeda HIgarashi YNishiyama SSuda TInaba YKatayama 2008Intra-arterial transplantation of bone marrow mononuclear cells immediately after reperfusion decreases brain injury after focal ischemia in ratsLife Sci83433437.122. Kamiya N, M Ueda, H Igarashi, Y Nishiyama, S Suda, T Inaba and Y Katayama. (2008). Intra-arterial transplantation of bone marrow mononuclear cells immediately after reperfusion decreases brain injury after focal ischemia in rats. Life Sci 83:433–437. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 123 Vasconcelos-dos-Santos APHRosado-de-Castro SALopes de Souza Jda Costa Silva ABRamos GRodriguez de Freitas LMBarbosa da Fonseca BGutfilen RMendez-Otero 2012Intravenous and intra-arterial administration of bone marrow mononuclear cells after focal cerebral ischemia: is there a difference in biodistribution and efficacy?Stem Cell Res918.123. Vasconcelos-dos-Santos A, PH Rosado-de-Castro, SA Lopes de Souza, J da Costa Silva, AB Ramos, G Rodriguez de Freitas, LM Barbosa da Fonseca, B Gutfilen and R Mendez-Otero. (2012). Intravenous and intra-arterial administration of bone marrow mononuclear cells after focal cerebral ischemia: is there a difference in biodistribution and efficacy? Stem Cell Res 9:1–8. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 124 Zhang LYLi MRomanko BCKramer AGosiewska MChopp KHong 2012Different routes of administration of human umbilical tissue-derived cells improve functional recovery in the rat after focal cerebral ischemiaBrain Res1489104112.124. Zhang L, Y Li, M Romanko, BC Kramer, A Gosiewska, M Chopp and K Hong. (2012). Different routes of administration of human umbilical tissue-derived cells improve functional recovery in the rat after focal cerebral ischemia. Brain Res 1489:104–112. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 125 de Freitas GRRMendez-Otero 2013Intra-arterial Cell Therapy in Stroke PatientsCell-Based Therapies in StrokeJolkkonen JPWalczak SpringerNew York181190.125. de Freitas GR and R Mendez-Otero. (2013). Intra-arterial Cell Therapy in Stroke Patients. In: Cell-Based Therapies in Stroke. Jolkkonen J, P Walczak, eds. Springer, New York, pp 181–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 126 El Khoury RVMisra SSharma CSCox PWalker JCGrotta AGee SSuzuki SISavitz 2010The effect of transcatheter injections on cell viability and cytokine release of mononuclear cellsAJNR Am J Neuroradiol3114881492.126. El Khoury R, V Misra, S Sharma, CS Cox, P Walker, JC Grotta, A Gee, S Suzuki and SI Savitz. (2010). The effect of transcatheter injections on cell viability and cytokine release of mononuclear cells. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31:1488–1492. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 127 Ben-David UQFGan TGolan-Lev PArora OYanuka YSOren ALeikin-Frenkel MGraf RGarippa et al.2013Selective elimination of human pluripotent stem cells by an oleate synthesis inhibitor discovered in a high-throughput screenCell Stem Cell12167179.127. Ben-David U, QF Gan, T Golan-Lev, P Arora, O Yanuka, YS Oren, A Leikin-Frenkel, M Graf, R Garippa, et al. (2013). Selective elimination of human pluripotent stem cells by an oleate synthesis inhibitor discovered in a high-throughput screen. Cell Stem Cell 12:167–179. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 128 Chen JXYe TYan CZhang XPYang XCui YCui AZacharek CRoberts et al.2011Adverse effects of bone marrow stromal cell treatment of stroke in diabetic ratsStroke4235513558.128. Chen J, X Ye, T Yan, C Zhang, XP Yang, X Cui, Y Cui, A Zacharek, C Roberts, et al. (2011). Adverse effects of bone marrow stromal cell treatment of stroke in diabetic rats. Stroke 42:3551–3558. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 129 Sprigg NPMBath LZhao MRWillmot LJGray MFWalker MSDennis NRussell 2006Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor mobilizes bone marrow stem cells in patients with subacute ischemic stroke: the Stem cell Trial of recovery EnhanceMent after Stroke (STEMS) pilot randomized, controlled trial (ISRCTN 16784092)Stroke3729792983.129. Sprigg N, PM Bath, L Zhao, MR Willmot, LJ Gray, MF Walker, MS Dennis and N Russell. (2006). Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor mobilizes bone marrow stem cells in patients with subacute ischemic stroke: the Stem cell Trial of recovery EnhanceMent after Stroke (STEMS) pilot randomized, controlled trial (ISRCTN 16784092). Stroke 37:2979–2983. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 130 Shyu WCSZLin CCLee DDLiu HLi 2006Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for acute ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trialCMAJ174927933.130. Shyu WC, SZ Lin, CC Lee, DD Liu and H Li. (2006). Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for acute ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 174:927–933. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 131 Schabitz WRRLaage GVogt WKoch RKollmar SSchwab DSchneider GFHamann MRosenkranz et al.2010AXIS: a trial of intravenous granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in acute ischemic strokeStroke4125452551.131. Schabitz WR, R Laage, G Vogt, W Koch, R Kollmar, S Schwab, D Schneider, GF Hamann, M Rosenkranz, et al. (2010). AXIS: a trial of intravenous granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 41:2545–2551. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 132 Boy SSSauerbruch MKraemer TSchormann FSchlachetzki GSchuierer RLuerding BHennemann EOrso et al.2011Mobilisation of hematopoietic CD34+ precursor cells in patients with acute stroke is safe—results of an open-labeled non randomized phase I/II trialPLoS One6e23099.132. Boy S, S Sauerbruch, M Kraemer, T Schormann, F Schlachetzki, G Schuierer, R Luerding, B Hennemann, E Orso, et al. (2011). Mobilisation of hematopoietic CD34+ precursor cells in patients with acute stroke is safe—results of an open-labeled non randomized phase I/II trial. PLoS One 6:e23099. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 133 Floel ATWarnecke TDuning YLating JUhlenbrock ASchneider GVogt RLaage WKoch SKnecht WRSchabitz 2011Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) in stroke patients with concomitant vascular disease—a randomized controlled trialPLoS One6e19767.133. Floel A, T Warnecke, T Duning, Y Lating, J Uhlenbrock, A Schneider, G Vogt, R Laage, W Koch, S Knecht and WR Schabitz. (2011). Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) in stroke patients with concomitant vascular disease—a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 6:e19767. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 134 Moriya YAMizuma TUesugi YOhnuki ENagata WTakahashi HKobayashi HKawada KAndo STakagi STakizawa 2012Phase I Study of intravenous low-dose granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in acute and subacute ischemic strokeJ Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis.[Epub ahead of print]10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.08.002.134. Moriya Y, A Mizuma, T Uesugi, Y Ohnuki, E Nagata, W Takahashi, H Kobayashi, H Kawada, K Ando, S Takagi and S Takizawa. (2012). Phase I Study of intravenous low-dose granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in acute and subacute ischemic stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.08.002. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 135 Goldring CEPADuffy NBenvenisty PWAndrews UBen-David REakins NFrench NAHanley LKelly et al.2011Assessing the safety of stem cell therapeuticsCell Stem Cell8618628.135. Goldring CE, PA Duffy, N Benvenisty, PW Andrews, U Ben-David, R Eakins, N French, NA Hanley, L Kelly, et al. (2011). Assessing the safety of stem cell therapeutics. Cell Stem Cell 8:618–628. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    Back to Top