No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 26, 2026.

The leading edge: Emerging neuroprotective and neuroregenerative cell-based therapies for spinal cord injury

Christopher S. Ahuja, Andrea Mothe, Mohamad Khazaei and 6 more

Stem Cells Translational Medicine · 2020 · Review · CC BY

Abstract

Spinal cord injuries (SCIs) are associated with tremendous physical, social, and financial costs for millions of individuals and families worldwide. Rapid delivery of specialized medical and surgical care has reduced mortality; however, long-term functional recovery remains limited. Cell-based therapies represent an exciting neuroprotective and neuroregenerative strategy for SCI. This article summarizes the most promising preclinical and clinical cell approaches to date including transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells, neural stem cells, oligodendrocyte progenitor cells, Schwann cells, and olfactory ensheathing cells, as well as strategies to activate endogenous multipotent cell pools. Throughout, we emphasize the fundamental biology of cell-based therapies, critical features in the pathophysiology of spinal cord injury, and the strengths and limitations of each approach. We also highlight salient completed and ongoing clinical trials worldwide and the bidirectional translation of their findings. We then provide an overview of key adjunct strategies such as trophic factor support to optimize graft survival and differentiation, engineered biomaterials to provide a support scaffold, electrical fields to stimulate migration, and novel approaches to degrade the glial scar. We also discuss important considerations when initiating a clinical trial for a cell therapy such as the logistics of clinical-grade cell line scale-up, cell storage and transportation, and the delivery of cells into humans. We conclude with an outlook on the future of cell-based treatments for SCI and opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration in the field. Significance statement Traumatic spinal cord injuries (SCIs) result in tremendous lifelong disability and financial burden for millions of patients and caregivers worldwide. Cell-based therapies have emerged as an exciting neuroprotective and neuroregenerative strategy for SCI. This review highlights key preclinical and clinical data in cell therapy with an emphasis on the pathobiology and mechanisms of recovery. Also discussed are adjunct treatments to maximize the efficacy of the grafts. Finally, important translational considerations such as clinical-grade scale-up and delivery techniques are discussed. The article succinctly provides readers with a working knowledge of SCI and cell therapies at the leading edge of research.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 26, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

1Traumatic spinal cord injuries (SCIs) result in tremendous lifelong disability and financial burden for millions of patients and caregivers worldwide. Cell‐based therapies have emerged as an exciting neuroprotective and neuroregenerative strategy for SCI. This review highlights key preclinical and clinical data in cell therapy with an emphasis on the pathobiology and mechanisms of recovery. Also discussed are adjunct treatments to maximize the efficacy of the grafts. Finally, important translational considerations such as clinical‐grade scale‐up and delivery techniques are discussed. The article succinctly provides readers with a working knowledge of SCI and cell therapies at the leading edge of research.

2Traumatic spinal cord injuries (SCIs) result in tremendous lifelong disability and financial burden for millions of patients and caregivers worldwide. Cell‐based therapies have emerged as an exciting neuroprotective and neuroregenerative strategy for SCI. This review highlights key preclinical and clinical data in cell therapy with an emphasis on the pathobiology and mechanisms of recovery. Also discussed are adjunct treatments to maximize the efficacy of the grafts. Finally, important translational considerations such as clinical‐grade scale‐up and delivery techniques are discussed. The article succinctly provides readers with a working knowledge of SCI and cell therapies at the leading edge of research.

INTRODUCTION

3Spinal cord injuries (SCIs) have tremendous physical, social, and financial consequences for over 1 million North Americans and their families. 1, 2 Direct lifetime costs of care range from $1.1 to $4.7 million per person not including lost wages and productivity. 2 Rapid delivery of specialized medical and surgical care has significantly reduced mortality; however, long‐term functional recovery remains limited. 3, 4, 5, 6 Cell‐based therapies have emerged as an exciting strategy to neuroprotect and regenerate the injured cord through multiple mechanisms such as immunomodulation, paracrine signaling, extracellular matrix (ECM) modification, and lost cell replacement. 7, 8 Herein, we summarize the most promising preclinical and clinical cell therapies, adjunct strategies to enhance transplant success, as well as key translational considerations such as sex and age. Throughout, we emphasize the fundamental biology of stem cells, critical features in the pathophysiology of spinal cord injury and provide meaningful discussions on the strengths and limitations of each therapeutic approach.

Epidemiology

4The epidemiology of SCI is an important consideration when designing clinical trials. Traumatic SCI is more common in males (79.8%) than females (20.2%). Most injuries are cervical (~60%) followed by thoracic (32%) and lumbosacral (9%). 9 There is a bimodal age distribution with one peak occurring from 15 to 29 years of age and a second, smaller but growing peak, occurring after age 50. 10, 11 High‐energy motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) and sports‐related injuries disproportionately affect younger individuals. Low‐energy trauma, such as falls, are more common in those over 60 years old where underlying degenerative spinal conditions, such as degenerative cervical myelopathy, are more prevalent. 11, 12 Interestingly, MVCs account for a declining majority (38%) of SCIs in North America, 9 whereas falls are increasing and account for 31% of injuries followed by sports‐related impacts at 10% to 17%. 11, 12

Acute injury and the postinjury milieu

5The initial traumatic event causes permeabilization of cell membranes, ion and small molecule dysregulation, and ischemia due to damage to the sensitive microvascular supply. 13, 14 Together, these events initiate a secondary injury cascade which generates further permanent damage (Figure 1A). Over several hours, progressive edema and hemorrhage cyclically add to the harsh postinjury milieu. The compromised blood‐spinal cord barrier (BSCB) exposes the vulnerable cord to inflammatory cells, vasoactive peptides, and cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor and interleukin‐1β. 16 Ongoing cell death releases DNA, ATP, and K+ into the microenvironment; microglia respond by secreting additional pro‐inflammatory cytokines and promoting the infiltration of large numbers of macrophages, neutrophils, and nearby microglia. This activates astrocytes and endothelial cells which further secrete factors such as BMPs, TGF‐β, and Notch activating ligand, Jagged. Activated phagocytes can clear myelin debris within the injury but also produce oxygen free radicals (eg, O2−, peroxynitrite and hydrogen peroxide) and cytotoxic by‐products which generate additional cell death through lipid peroxidation, protein oxidation, and DNA damage. 17, 18 Extracellular glutamate accumulates as neurons die and astrocytes' reuptake capacity is lost. 19, 20 This leads to excitotoxic cell death of the remaining neurons through NMDA, kainate, and AMPA receptor overactivation combined with ATP‐dependent ion pump dysfunction and subsequent sodium dysregulation (Figure 1B). 21, 22

6At a systemic level, poor respiratory function can cause hypoxia whereas loss of sympathetic innervation to the vasculature can result in profound hypotension. Combined with the impaired autoregulatory capacity of the cord, this can contribute to ongoing ischemia for days to weeks postinjury. 23 The multiple causes of acute and subacute cell death in this injury cascade represent important targets for cell‐based neuroprotective approaches.

Barriers to recovery

7In the intermediate‐chronic phase, acute inflammation subsides and the cord undergoes alterations in ECM composition, attempts at remyelination, and remodeling of neural networks. 24 Although this can result in limited recovery, multiple barriers to local circuit and long‐tract regeneration persist.

8Neuroglial cell death and degeneration in the early phase disrupts the cord's structural framework and leads to ex vacuo formation of microcystic cavitations containing extracellular fluid with thin bands of connective tissue. 25 These cavities coalesce into larger collections which lack substrate for directed axonal regrowth and regenerative cell migration. 26, 27 Additionally, oligodendrocytes are susceptible to necrotic and apoptotic cell death. The denuded axons they leave behind cannot utilize rapid saltatory conduction and are particularly susceptible to nonfunctional electrogenesis which further contributes to poor recovery. 28

9Early after injury, astrocytes also proliferate within the perilesional zone and tightly interweave an irregular mesh of processes to sequester the injured region (Figure 1C). Resident neural stem and progenitor cells surrounding the central canal can also differentiate to astrocytes and contribute to this astrogliosis. The astrocytes, pericytes, and ependymal cells in the region generate dense deposits of chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs), NG2, and tenascin which form the fibrous component of the glial scar. 29, 30, 31, 32 Although literature exists supporting the beneficial aspects of scar, the balance of evidence suggests that chronic scarring potently inhibits axonal regeneration and neurite outgrowth by acting as a physical barrier and tightly binding transmembrane protein tyrosine phosphatase receptors. 33, 34, 35

10Furthermore, CNS myelin‐ and neuron‐associated ligands, such as myelin associated glycoprotein (MAG), oligodendrocyte myelin glycoprotein (OMgp), neurite outgrowth inhibitor (NOGO), and semaphorin 3A/4D, bind NOGO receptor‐p75 complexes (NgR) and plexins to activate Rho GTPase and its downstream effector, Rho‐associated protein kinase (ROCK). 36, 37, 38, 39 This results in a change in actomyosin contractility and collapse of the axonal growth cone and further inhibition of regeneration. There are other potent inhibitors of axonal regeneration such as Repulsive Guidance Molecule A which are upregulated in the injured cord. 40, 41, 42

11Multiple cell strategies discussed below aim to preserve and/or regenerate functional, myelinated neural circuits to enhance functional recovery.

CELL‐BASED THERAPIES

12Cell‐based therapies include cell transplantation and harnessing the potential of endogenous neural precursor cells. Cell treatments can immunomodulate, alter the microenvironment, and replace lost cells depending on the cell type, cell state, delivery route (eg, systemic vs local), and timing of administration. 43, 44, 45, 46 The most commonly studied and promising cell types include mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), neural stem cells (NSCs), oligodendrocyte progenitor cells (OPCs), Schwann cells (SCs), and olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs). 47, 48, 49, 50 This section outlines the mechanisms of action for each and summarizes progress along the translational research spectrum. Key preclinical studies are highlighted in Table 1, and completed and ongoing clinical trials are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

Cell source

13MSCs, SCs, and OECs can all be harvested from an adult allogeneic source to generate standardized stocks depending on the success of proliferation. MSCs, SCs, and OECs can also be derived directly from the patient to avoid post‐transplant immunosuppression. 84 However, autologous primary cells are typically more costly requiring harvest surgery, in vitro expansion and extensive characterization prior to transplant.

14CNS cells, such as NSCs, OPCs, astrocytes and microglia, are more challenging to isolate from adult allogeneic donors, and the performance of a line is influenced by donor age, genetics, and harvest conditions. 85, 86, 87 Furthermore, autologous CNS tissue is inaccessible. As a result, these cells are often derived from embryonic stem cell (ESC) sources. 88, 89 ESCs can be propagated indefinitely and can generate cells of any germ layer. However, ESC‐derived grafts have ethical issues surrounding their use and may show karyotypic instability or hold the potential for tumorigenesis due to incomplete or aberrant differentiation. More recently, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have allowed derivation of NSCs and OPCs from autologous, accessible cells such as bone marrow and skin fibroblasts. This has been further adapted to allow direct reprogramming of adult somatic cells to multipotent neuroglial cells while bypassing the pluripotent state. 7 In more recent protocols, it has also become possible to convert easily accessible somatic cells directly into neurons, 90, 91 neuronal subtypes, 92, 93 and oligodendrocytes progenitors. 94 Some limitations associated with these approaches such as reprogramming efficiency, line variability, lineage‐specific differentiation, and retention of epigenetic memory are being investigated.

Neural stem cells

15NSCs are tripotent, self‐renewing cells which have attracted great interest as they can potentially replace the neurons, oligodendrocytes, and astrocytes lost after injury. 88, 95, 96, 97 During embryological development, NSCs are found throughout the neural tube where they acquire unique identities based on their position and temporal exposure to patterning morphogens. 98, 99, 100, 101 In adults, they are found in a more limited number of regions such as the subventricular zone in the brain 95, 96, 97 and around the central canal in the spinal cord. 102, 103, 104, 105 There are two distinct NSC populations that can be isolated from the adult spinal cord: (a) primitive NSCs (pNSCs) and (b) the definitive NSCs (dNSCs) they give rise to (Figure 2). 106, 107 pNSCs are rare cells expressing pluripotency marker, Oct4, and are responsive to leukemia inhibitory factor in vitro. 108, 109, 110 dNSCs are more abundant in adults, express astrocyte marker, GFAP, and respond to epidermal and fibroblast growth factors (EGF and FGF) in vitro. Both populations can proliferate and generate neurons, astrocytes and oligodendrocytes.

16Numerous small and large animal preclinical studies have provided evidence supporting the therapeutic efficacy of transplanting NSCs derived from ESCs or allogeneic adult sources. 60, 62, 84 More recently, autologous iPSC‐derived and directly reprogrammed NSCs have emerged as translationally relevant options which mitigate immunorejection concerns and generate highly pure populations of cells over several weeks. A 2016 meta‐analysis (N = 74 studies) found all sources of NSCs to provide significant motor recovery in models of SCI (pooled SMD = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23‐1.67; P <.001). 111 Although the mechanisms underlying recovery continue to be investigated in preclinical studies, it is likely that trophic signaling (eg, BDNF, GDNF, IGF‐1, etc.), remyelination of denuded axons, partial regeneration and remodeling of neural circuitry, and ECM deposition play a role. 7, 84, 112 Recent work demonstrating the self‐assembly of grafted spinal cord NSCs into organotypic, dorsal horn‐like domains highlights their plasticity and the potential for further optimization as a therapy. 113

17Currently, a phase I/II study in China (N = 30; NCT02688049) is comparing 1 × 106 MSCs vs NSCs supported by a linearly ordered collagen biomaterial, NeuroRegen scaffold, in individuals with chronic AIS Grade A C5‐T12 injuries. The study is expected to conclude in 2020 and report on AIS grade, somatosensory evoked potentials, motor evoked potentials, Functional Independence Measure, and MRI assessments. Neuralstem is also conducting a trial (N = 8; NCT01772810) of NSI‐566, human fetal spinal cord NSCs, delivered through six intraspinal injections into patients with 1 to 2 year old thoracic injuries. In 2016, a pair of phase II trials led by Stem Cells Inc were terminated prior to completion. The studies were assessing the effects of human CNS stem cell transplants for thoracic (NCT01321333) and cervical (NCT02153876) SCI. 114 A recently published report on the studies found that escalating doses up to 4.0 × 106 were well tolerated with no significant increase in serious adverse events related to the cells or free‐hand manual injection technique. 83 Based on emerging preclinical data, it is likely that further modifying the cells in vitro and/or altering the local environment will be necessary to enhance functional recovery.

Oligodendrocyte progenitor cells

18OPCs are tripotent cells which predominantly differentiate into oligodendrocytes to remyelinate axons. They are suited for regeneration in SCI as they respond rapidly to injuries, can self‐renew, and address an important component of the injury pathophysiology. Animal studies have shown that transplanted OPCs can promote white matter preservation, increase the number of surviving endogenous oligodendrocytes, and reduce cavity volume, resulting in enhanced motor recovery. The underlying mechanism may be a combination of remyelination, local immunomodulation, trophic factor secretion, and provision of a physical scaffold to support growing axons. 69, 70, 115, 116 The cells also possess a favorable secretome, 117 consisting of growth factors, neurotrophins, chemokines and cytokines, and can form glutamatergic synapses with neurons, an area of ongoing discovery. 118 It remains unclear whether improved outcomes are due to these factors or direct remyelination of denuded axons, and to what extent remyelination can itself enhance function after injury. 119, 120

19A large clinical trial by Geron Inc assessing human ESC‐derived OPCs was discontinued for financial reasons. Renewed funding allowed Asterias Biotherapeutics Inc to extend the trial of these cells, termed AST‐OPC1, in a phase I/IIa open‐label dose‐escalation study (N = 25; NCT02302157). 2 × 106, 1 × 107, or 2 × 107 cells were transplanted 21 to 42 days after SCI patients with AIS grade A or B injuries at C4 to C7. The study completed in 2019 and BioTime, which later changed its name to Lineage Cell Therapeutics, acquired the company. Key findings were no increase in significant adverse events and evidence of regeneration on MRI at 12 months. Ninety‐five percent of patients improved by at least 1 AIS grade and 32% of patients improved by at least 2 AIS grades by 12 months after receiving the 1 × 107 and 2 × 107 doses. 114 Longer term follow‐up is continuing and the company plans to further optimize the cell manufacturing process. 121

Olfactory ensheathing cells

20OECs are specialized glial cells that encircle olfactory neurons and clear bacteria and debris at the CNS‐nasal mucosa transition. 122, 123, 124, 125 They also secrete neurotrophic factors 126 and maintain a favorable environment for neuronal function. When the olfactory nerve or epithelium is damaged, OECs support the growth of olfactory epithelium‐derived neurons into the olfactory bulb. They differ from typical glia but share a number of morphological and molecular markers with astrocytes and SCs. After transplantation, OECs form a cellular substrate through which injured axons can regenerate across a spinal cord transection lesion site. 127 OECs can be harvested from the nasal mucosa or directly from the olfactory bulb and transplanted into the cord parenchyma as a bridging, nonrelay approach. 75 OECs have also been shown to enhance neurite outgrowth, promote remyelination, neuroprotect, provide guidance cues, and locally immunomodulate. 49, 128, 129

21Several clinical trials have transplanted OECs for subacute and chronic SCI. Early work confirmed the safety of a purified population of OECs; however, subsequent studies using mucosal tissue reported conflicting results. 130, 131, 132 To clarify the discrepancy, a meta‐analysis of key clinical trials (pooled N = 1193) was conducted which found no statistically significant increase in serious adverse events; however, efficacy has not been definitively established due to technical and methodological concerns with existing studies. 133 Recently, a small phase I trial (N = 6) of autologous mucosal OECs and olfactory fibroblasts demonstrated sensorimotor improvements after transplant into patients with AIS grade A injuries; however, a larger sample size and extended follow‐up will be required to confirm safety and efficacy. 45, 129, 131

Schwann cells

22SCs are myelinating cells in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) and are an important component of the robust, spontaneous regeneration observed in the PNS. They provide a structural scaffold acting as a conduit to guide growing axons. They also produce a favorable environment by expressing growth factors and extracellular proteins. In animal models of SCI, they have been shown to promote tissue sparing, reduce cystic cavitation, enhance CNS axon regeneration, remyelinate axons, and enhance endogenous SC myelination resulting in sensorimotor recovery. 134, 135, 136, 137, 138 The growth‐promoting properties of SCs are also being exploited in combinatorial therapies. For example, neuroprotectant D15A (a modified human NT3 that can activate both TrkB and TrkC receptors) has been combined with phosphodiesterase‐4 inhibitor, rolipram, and SCs to enhance axonal sparing and growth of serotonergic fibers into and beyond the SC graft. 139 SCs have also been combined with NSC, 140 OEC, 74 and BM‐MSC 141 transplants to enhance cell survival and promote additional remyelination.

23In humans, The Miami Project to Cure Paralysis conducted a phase I, open‐label study (N = 8; NCT02354625) of autologous SC transplants in individuals with chronic AIS grade A‐C C5‐T12 injuries. The study completed in August 2019 with results pending. The same group conducted an open‐label, nonrandomized, noncontrolled, dose‐escalation phase I study (N = 6) of autologous SCs transplanted into the lesion epicenter for subacute‐intermediate AIS grade A thoracic injuries. SCs were harvested from the sural nerve within 5 to 30 days of injury, expanded in vitro, and transplanted within 4 to 7 weeks of injury. After 1 year, there were no medical, surgical, or neurological complications to indicate that the treatment was unsafe. 50

Mesenchymal stem cell

24MSCs are multipotent, self‐renewing connective tissue progenitor cells found throughout the body, particularly in the perivascular region. They have the capacity to regenerate muscles (myocytes), cartilage (chondrocytes), bone (osteoblasts), and fat (adipocytes). 142, 143 They also have favored properties for conducting a clinical trial. Multipotent MSCs expand rapidly, 144 remain viable after −80°C or liquid nitrogen cryostorage, 145 demonstrate minimal immunoreactivity after allogenic transplant, 146 and can be harvested from accessible tissue such as fat, bone marrow, and skeletal muscle. 147 This has encouraged their translation in multiple fields such as sepsis, 148 multiple sclerosis, 149 and arthritis. 150 In SCI, MSCs have been shown to promote angiogenesis and significantly enhance tissue sparing through neurotrophic signaling and immunomodulation. 8, 56, 151, 152 There is also evidence that MSCs transplanted directly into the spinal cord can modulate activation of macrophages and promote tissue sparing. 153, 154 However, MSC transplants have shown considerable variability with some studies showing positive effects whereas other studies have shown no benefit (Table 1).

25Multiple adipocyte‐derived MSC clinical trials are ongoing to assess safety, dosing, and efficacy. The Mayo Clinic is conducting a phase I study (N = 10; clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03308565) of 1 × 108 autologous, adipose‐derived MSCs delivered intrathecally into patients with American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) grade A/B/C injuries from 2 weeks to 1 year prior to transplant. The study will be completed by 2023.

26Bone marrow‐derived MSCs are also being studied. A phase II/III trial (N = 32; NCT01676441) conducted by Pharmicell Co is assessing 1.6 × 107 intraparenchymal and 3.2 × 107 intrathecal autologous bone marrow‐derived MSCs in chronic cervical AIS grade B patients with 12 month follow‐up of ASIA motor scores, MR Diffusion Tensor Imaging, and electrophysiological parameters. The study is expected to conclude in 2020.

27The umbilical cord is an alternate source of MSCs (UC‐MSCs). UC‐MSCs can be isolated from cord tissue, cord blood, or Wharton's jelly, a gelatinous substance within the umbilical cord that insulates the blood vessels. Umbilical cord tissue is readily accessible and frequently discarded, and MSCs from the umbilical cord are less prone to rejection, as evidenced by a lower risk of developing graft vs host disease. 155 Compared with adult sources, the number of MSCs obtained from cord blood or placental tissues is small, although they can be readily expanded and tissue can be frozen and used later for isolation. 156 MSCs derived from the umbilical cord have also been shown to have immunomodulatory properties. 157 Several recently registered phase I/II trials (NCT03505034; NCT02481440; NCT03521323) are recruiting to assess allogeneic UC‐derived MSCs for subacute and chronic SCI. A phase I/II open‐label study (N = 14; NCT02981576) in Jordan directly compared adverse effects and AIS improvement with intrathecal adipose‐ vs bone marrow‐derived MSCs in AIS A/B/C patients 2 or more weeks postinjury. The study completed in January 2019 with results pending.

Endogenous stem cell therapies

28An alternative approach to promote neural repair is to harness the potential of resident stem cells, such as NSCs within the injured CNS. 158, 159 This approach circumvents immunorejection, cell delivery challenges and logistical hurdles such as good manufacturing practice (GMP) scale‐up, cell storage, and transport. Within the spinal cord, it has been demonstrated that NSCs respond to injury by proliferating 160 and migrating to the lesion, although the effect is likely insufficient to generate recovery. 29, 159 Recently, small molecules, such as the FDA‐approved drugs cyclosporin A and Metformin, have been found to increase the size of the endogenous pNSC and dNSC pool to augment this intrinsic injury response. 161, 162 Cyclosporin A is an immunosuppressive medication that has been shown to enhance survival of NSCs and promote recovery within the brain. 161, 162 Activation of NSCs with cyclosporin A has also been observed in the spinal cord and ongoing investigations aim to elucidate its effect following SCI. 161, 162 Metformin, a drug commonly used to treat type II diabetes, has also been shown to activate endogenous NSCs and direct their differentiation toward neurons and oligodendrocytes. 110, 159 Although molecular mechanisms underlying these effects have not been elucidated, metformin administration has been shown to improve functional recovery after insult to the brain. 110, 159 Studies of metformin in SCI animal models are ongoing. Additional targets being explored to enhance the endogenous NSC response are the C‐Kit and ErbB2 signaling pathways. 163

ENHANCING CELL TRANSPLANTATION THERAPIES

29Transplanted cell survival has historically been low in animal models of SCI. 164 This is typically overcome by delivering excess numbers of cells to compensate for losses; however, this approach introduces variability into the therapy, contributes cytotoxic by‐products of cell death to the microenvironment, and becomes infeasible when large numbers of surviving cells are required. Ongoing work seeks to enhance cell survival, migration, and axonal outgrowth by overcoming key barriers in the SCI microenvironment.

Growth factors

30To support graft survival, growth factors (eg, PDGF, EGF, and IGF‐1), neurotrophins (eg, BDNF, NT3, NGF), and anti‐inflammatory agents (eg, minocycline) have all been successfully delivered via intrathecal injections and pumps. 63, 164, 165, 166 Unique biomaterials have also been engineered to gradually deliver key factors to support grafts. 167 Growth factors and treatments such as ferritin are also associated with enhanced endogenous OPC proliferation and oligodendrogenesis. However, pumps are prone to failure, require refilling and explant procedures, and expose growth factors to mammalian body temperatures for prolonged periods. As a result, alternate approaches continue to be investigated such as the codelivery of cells with biomaterials capable of slowly releasing growth factors directly into the environment. This unique strategy is discussed further in the Biomaterials section below. Another approach is the in vitro genetic modification of cells or the in vivo transfection of endogenous cells to secrete the necessary factors. For example, MSCs have been successfully engineered to express bFGF, 168 HGF, 169 NT3, 170 BDNF, 171 and GDNF 172 in vivo for various applications. SCs have also been transduced to overexpress BDNF and NT3 simultaneously. 173 Similarly, safe and highly efficient methods of engineering human iPSCs, ESCs, and NSCs are currently being developed.

Rehabilitation

31An often overlooked method of promoting endogenous trophic factor release and long‐term cell survival noninvasively is rehabilitation. Physical rehabilitation, with or without electroceutical augmentation, is an integral component of the care plan for individuals with SCI; however, it is underrepresented in preclinical trials. Whether the rehabilitation entails forced treadmill training, free swimming, or task‐specific tests such as forelimb reaching, the functional benefits can be significant. 174 In addition to enhancing cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal function, treadmill locomotor training has been found to enhance transplanted NSC survival by more than fivefold through increased IGF‐1 signaling. 175 This finding underscores the value of multimodality, interdisciplinary care in SCI.

Biomaterials

32Biomaterials can enhance cell‐based approaches for SCI in several ways. Scaffolds derived from either natural or synthetic polymers have been implanted within the lesion cavity to bridge the gap to serve as a substrate for axonal growth and cell migration. 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 InVivo Therapeutics' Neuro‐Spinal Scaffold is a porous bioresorbable polymer scaffold shown to promote appositional healing, white matter sparing, and normalization of intraparenchymal tissue pressure in preclinical models of SCI. 181 A recent case study at 6 month follow‐up from a patient enrolled in the clinical trial (NCT02138110) reported no adverse effects related to acute scaffold implantation. 182

33Scaffolds can also provide a physical substrate for seeded cells and provide directional guidance for axons. Moreover, biomaterials can also be used as vehicles to deliver cells and release growth factors to aid in graft cell survival, integration, and differentiation. Injectable in situ polymerizing hydrogels can deliver cells and factors directly into a lesion site with less invasive surgical interventions. For example, a polymer blend of hyaluronan/methylcellulose (HAMC) is injectable, in situ gelling, biodegradable, and noncytotoxic. 183 HAMC modified with PDGF‐AA, to enhance graft survival and oligodendrocyte differentiation of cotransplanted rat brain‐derived NSCs, 184, 185 promoted host oligodendrocyte sparing and improved fine motor function. 186 Further modification of the HAMC hydrogel with RGD peptide promoted the survival, integration, and differentiation of human iPSC‐derived OPCs. 187

34Another approach has been the use of fibrin scaffolds which have been shown to promote the survival of transplanted stem cells after SCI and, when codelivered with growth factors, have been used to direct differentiation and enhance recovery. 188, 189 QL6 is an exciting peptide biomaterial which self‐assembles to form a lattice‐like structure at physiological temperatures. QL6 injected with NSCs improved graft survival, reduced glial scarring and inflammation, and improved forelimb function in cervical models of SCI. 190, 191, 192

Galvanotaxis

35Electrical fields (EFs) are a physical environmental cue present within living tissue. During development, multipotent cells rely on these fields for appropriate migration and differentiation. If the fields are disrupted, severe defects can result. 193 EFs have also been shown to guide cells in adults after injury. 194, 195 Therapeutic galvanotaxis (the directed migration of cells in an electric field) exploits the electrosensitivity of cells to promote migration using externally applied EFs. 196 This has been shown to be feasible with SCs, 197 NSCs, 198 and many other cell types. 199 Both endogenous and transplanted NSCs, but not their differentiated progeny, have been shown to migrate with transcranial direct current electrical stimulation; however, directed migration will require further optimization to establish the ideal current, voltage, phase, lead placement, and timing of EF application. 200, 201

Disrupting the glial scar

36The glial/CSPG scar is well established in chronic injury and limits axon regeneration through the lesional/perilesional region (Figure 1C). A meta‐analysis of NSC treatments found motor function recovered to a greater extent with cell delivery in the acute phase (SMD = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.36‐2.24) or subacute phase (SMD = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.08‐1.67) than in the chronic phase (SMD = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.47‐1.60; P =.03) of injury 111 highlighting the difficulty in regenerating the chronically injured spinal cord.

37As a result, numerous labs have focused on methods to disrupt the glial/CSPG scar during or prior to cell transplant. Chondroitinase ABC (ChABC) is a bacterial enzyme which rapidly degrades the long glycosaminoglycan (GAG) side chains of CSPGs 202 In SCI, intrathecal or intraparenchymal ChABC treatments have been shown to promote neurite outgrowth and enhance anatomic plasticity, by degrading CSPGs within the perineuronal nets, resulting in sensorimotor behavioral recovery. 203, 204, 205 This exciting approach is under further development to address key limitations and better combine with cell transplants. First, thermostabilized variants of ChABC are being developed to retain activity for longer periods at mammalian body temperatures. 206 Second, ChABC is being delivered via novel vehicles such as affinity‐release biomaterials or lentivirus transfections of host cells. 207, 208 Finally, alternate human enzymes with GAG or CSPG core protein degrading activity are being studied to mitigate immunogenicity risks associated with using a bacterial protein. 209

38Another exciting approach is to inhibit the association of the protein tyrosine phosphatase σ receptor with its CSPG ligand. 210 An example is Intracellular Sigma Peptide (ISP) which is administered subcutaneously after injury, crosses the BSCB, and results in significant axonal regrowth within the injured cord. 34 Recently, ISP has also been shown to indirectly immunomodulate when combined with leukocyte antigen‐related receptor blockade. 211

Graft survival

39A major challenge in translating cell therapies to clinic is assessing and optimizing graft survival. Culture and storage conditions, characterization pipelines, and transplant conditions can be significantly different in the laboratory than in clinical trial or routine use. 212 Furthermore, commonly employed graft assessment techniques such as immunohistochemistry and bioluminescent tagging are typically not possible in humans. Strategies discussed previously such as increased trophic support, timed rehabilitation, and codelivering biomaterials may prove to be important adjuvants in advancing cell therapy for humans. These are in early deployment such as Neuro‐Spinal Scaffold (NCT02138110) by InVivo Therapeutics Inc or the phase I/II study of MSCs and NSCs using the NeuroRegen scaffold (NCT02688049). Assessing grafted cells in vivo may also become viable as novel MRI‐based cell trackers are developed. 213, 214

Immunorejection

40Another important translational hurdle is understanding and overcoming potential immunorejection within the CNS. The extent and temporality of cell graft rejection within the human CNS is currently unknown. Additionally, the cell source (eg, autologous, allogenic, genetically modified, etc.) may significantly affect downstream graft survival in humans. 215, 216 Enhancing endogenous cell proliferation is one strategy to avoid immunorejection; however, endogenous cell pools may still be limited and optimal methods to drive their differentiation and migration have not yet been established. 217 Recently, genetic techniques which modify major histocompatibility complexes and CD47 have been shown to generate immune‐evasive iPSC lines. 218 This may become an important strategy in the future to protect grafts from immune cells.

GMP‐grade scale‐up

41Effective translation of cell therapies into clinical trial and beyond requires careful planning of GMP facilities and scale‐up strategies. Many challenges of GMP‐grade production are not typically encountered in a research setting and are associated with significant financial costs. For example, all manual handling must be highly reproducible between facilities and occur in stringent GMP‐grade clean rooms. Standard operating procedures must be established and compliance must be traceable throughout the production chain. 212 Cultures are typically free of animal products (eg, proteins, feeder cells, etc.), unless more suitable options are not available, and all reagents require qualification as meeting the standards for GMP‐grade culture. 212 Common viral transduction and nonviral transfection (eg, electroporation, lipofection) techniques require additional steps to validate that risks inherent to viral particles or foreign DNA have been mitigated. Furthermore, master and working cell banks must be established with extensive testing for bacteria, viruses, fungi, mycoplasma, and endotoxins at each step of preparation. It is also important to note that during this translational process, the research cell line with which preclinical efficacy was validated, may not be the same as the final clinical cell line for trial which may necessitate additional efficacy testing in animal models. 219

42The importance of cell line and subline testing is apparent when addressing the potential for tumor formation as graft‐derived tumors can occur in rigorously tested and banked lines due to the multiple potential etiologies of tumorigenicity. 220, 221 As a living therapy, even small variations in transport, subculture, or transplant technique at individual centers hold the potential to alter the phenotype of the graft. Furthermore, lines are typically characterized by sampling a portion of the larger population; however, tumor formation can occur due to a single aberrant cell. Advanced technologies, such as environment‐controlled cell culture robots and high‐throughput total population screening techniques, seek to address these challenges. 222, 223

43Fortunately, the US FDA and European Medicines Agency have provided regulatory frameworks to begin approaching the complexities of GMP cell manufacturing. 224, 225 Additionally, networks of GMP‐grade facilities, such as the CellCAN Regenerative Medicine and Cell Therapy Network in Canada, have been established to aid in navigating these challenges. 226

Storage and transport

44Conducting clinical trials or treatments across multiple sites requires a coordinated storage and transportation approach capable of accommodating international shipping delays and unexpected package handling conditions. For example, a study of human MSCs found that cells stored at 2°C to 8°C were sensitive to 25 Hz vibrations, 227 leading to cell death and increases in MSC marker expression such as CD29 and CD44. 228 Similarly, temperature and repeated freeze‐thaw cycles have a significant effect on cell viability. Cryoprotectant toxicity, rapid osmotic shifts, ice crystal formation, and activation of apoptosis are key mechanisms underlying cell death during the process. 229 Early studies achieved human cryopreserved pluripotent cell survival rates of only 30% or less. 230 As a result, other cold storage techniques have been developed such as vitrification, the rapid cooling of cells in high concentrations of cryoprotectants to inhibit ice formation. These were found to provide >75% survival but add technical complexity and may be limiting in the production of large‐scale banks. 229 Furthermore, the storage solution (eg, DMSO, polyethylene glycol, etc.) and additives (eg, ROCK‐inhibitor, trehalose, poly‐L‐lysine, etc.) exert their own effects on the survival and differentiation of stored cells. 229 Therefore, each cell type and cell line requires optimization to establish ideal conditions for a functional and reliable supply chain.

Patient selection

45Establishing the ideal patient population for cell transplant in SCI is challenging. Given the currently high cost and limited availability of GMP‐grade cell therapies, one strategy is to focus on populations with the greatest potential gains. Cervical cord injuries are the most common and can result in devastating impairments in activities of daily living (eg, feeding, grooming, transferring) and are often associated with respiratory and autonomic complications. 47 Even modest improvements in key muscle groups such as grip and elbow flexion can have profound benefits for quality of life making this an important population for inclusion in cell‐based studies. It is, however, important to balance these inclusion benefits with potential risks. The cervical SCI population can be more expensive to study in trial as hospital stay, treatment, and rehabilitation costs are higher. 2 Additionally, limiting studies to highly specific study regions can make recruitment more challenging.

46Another key consideration is transplant timing. Due to differences in physiology, injury etiology, cord architecture, patient comorbidities, and a host of microenvironmental cell signals, the optimal timing for transplant in animal models likely differs from humans. 15 Furthermore, even with established infrastructure, there is often a lead time associated with delivering banked cells (eg, allogeneic therapy) or generating a cell line (eg, autologous therapy). 231 Therefore, many trials are now conducted in the intermediate to chronic phases of injury where the patients' condition and neurologic status are better established and study recruitment is less complex. However, overcoming regenerative barriers in chronic SCI such as the glial scar and cystic cavitation may require some of the innovative strategies discussed previously.

Delivery techniques

47Adapting delivery techniques is a key facet of translating cell therapies. Systemic or intrathecal treatments avoid many challenges by using existing, well‐established medical techniques; however, the distribution of cells is poorly controlled. For intraparenchymal treatments (Figure 3), trials are increasingly utilizing standardized, tightly controlled delivery systems which must be scaled for human doses, provide high reliability, allow sterilization, and have undergone regulatory approval as a medical device. 232

48The two main classes of injectors currently in use are table‐mounted and spine‐mounted systems. Table‐mounted injectors 233, 234 provide a high degree of injection cannula stability along all three axes but do not account for cord movement due to ventilation, cardiovascular pulsations, or other patient movement. Spine‐mounted devices are typically immobilized on pedicle screws or by clamping the posterior vertebral arch to account for respiration but may not account for all cord pulsations. Recently, a floating cannula system has also been developed which compensates for these natural pulsations to further improve targeting. 235 A third class of devices is also under development which utilizes tools mounted on surgical robots, such as the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc), for highly precise localization.

OUTLOOK

49The multifaceted pathophysiology of SCI and the complexities of neural repair and regeneration necessitate novel approaches to treatment. Cell‐based therapies continue to be very attractive and hopeful strategies for repair of SCI and the rapid pace of innovation continues to increase as our understanding of fundamental cell biology deepens. We predict that as the timing, dose, and delivery of adult‐ and pluripotent stem cell‐derived treatments are optimized, increasing numbers of cell‐based therapies will be translated to humans. It is highly likely that successful approaches will integrate strategies to enhance and support cells, such as genetic engineering, biomaterials, galvanotaxis, and scar degradation to maximize clinical outcomes. Ongoing preclinical and clinical trials highlight the excitement and tremendous progress that has been made in the field and underscore the importance of the collaborative work being conducted by researchers, clinicians, stakeholders, and funding agencies worldwide.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

50Michael G. Fehlings declared advisory role with Fortuna Fix. The other authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

51C.S.A., A.M.: conception and design, collection and/or assembly of data, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing, final approval of manuscript; M.K., J.H.B., E.A.G., D.V.D.K., C.M.M., C.T.: manuscript writing, final approval of manuscript; M.G.F.: conception and design, financial support, manuscript writing, final approval of manuscript.

References 235

1.
Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation. 2010. One degree of separation: paralysis and spinal cord injury in the United States.
Not in our library
2.
National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center. Facts and Figures at a Glance. Birmingham, AL: University of Alabama at Birmingham; 2018.
Not in our library
3.
Ahuja CS, Martin AR, Fehlings M. Recent advances in managing a spinal cord injury secondary to trauma. F1000Res. 2016;5:1–12.
Not in our library10.12688/f1000research.7586.1
4.
Ahuja CS, Nori S, Tetreault L, et al. Traumatic spinal cord injury‐repair and regeneration. Neurosurgery. 2017;80:S9‐S22.
Not in our library10.1093/neuros/nyw080
5.
Hachem LD, Ahuja CS, Fehlings MG. Assessment and management of acute spinal cord injury: from point of injury to rehabilitation. J Spinal Cord Med. 2017;40:665‐675.
Not in our library10.1080/10790268.2017.1329076
6.
Ahuja CS, Schroeder GD, Vaccaro AR, Fehlings MG. Spinal cord injury‐what are the controversies? J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31(Suppl 4):S7‐S13.
Not in our library10.1097/bot.0000000000000943
7.
Khazaei M, Ahuja CS, Fehlings MG. Induced pluripotent stem cells for traumatic spinal cord injury. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2017;4:1–9.
Not in our library10.3389/fcell.2016.00152
8.
Ulndreaj A, Chio JC, Ahuja CS, Fehlings MG. Modulating the immune response in spinal cord injury. Expert Rev Neurother. 2016;16:1127‐1129.
Not in our library10.1080/14737175.2016.1207532
9.
Chen Y, He Y, DeVivo MJ. Changing demographics and injury profile of new traumatic spinal cord injuries in the United States, 1972‐2014. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97:1610‐1619.
Not in our library10.1016/j.apmr.2016.03.017
10.
van den Berg ME, Castellote JM, Mahillo‐Fernandez I, de Pedro‐Cuesta J. Incidence of spinal cord injury worldwide: a systematic review. Neuroepidemiology. 2010;34:184‐192. discussion 192.
Not in our library10.1159/000279335
11.
Lenehan B, Street J, Kwon BK, et al. The epidemiology of traumatic spinal cord injury in British Columbia, Canada. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:321‐329.
Not in our library10.1097/brs.0b013e31822e5ff8
12.
DeVivo MJ, Chen Y. Trends in new injuries, prevalent cases, and aging with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:332‐338.
Not in our library10.1016/j.apmr.2010.08.031
13.
LaPlaca MC, Simon CM, Prado GR, Cullen DK. CNS injury biomechanics and experimental models. Prog Brain Res. 2007;161:13‐26.
Not in our library10.1016/s0079-6123(06)61002-9
14.
Choo AM, Liu J, Lam CK, Dvorak M, Tetzlaff W, Oxland TR. Contusion, dislocation, and distraction: primary hemorrhage and membrane permeability in distinct mechanisms of spinal cord injury. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6:255‐266.
Not in our library10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.255
15.
Ahuja C, Wilson JR, Nori S, et al. Traumatic spinal cord injury. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:1‐21.
Not in our library10.1038/nrdp.2017.18
16.
Pineau I, Lacroix S. Proinflammatory cytokine synthesis in the injured mouse spinal cord: multiphasic expression pattern and identification of the cell types involved. J Comp Neurol. 2007;500:267‐285.
Not in our library10.1002/cne.21149
17.
Dizdaroglu M, Jaruga P, Birincioglu M, Rodriguez H. Free radical‐induced damage to DNA: mechanisms and measurement. This article is part of a series of reviews on “Oxidative DNA Damage and Repair.” The full list of papers may be found on the homepage of the journal. Guest editor: Miral Dizdaroglu. Free Radic Biol Med. 2002;32:1102‐1115.
Not in our library10.1016/s0891-5849(02)00826-2
18.
Hausmann ON. Post‐traumatic inflammation following spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2003;41:369‐378.
Not in our library10.1038/sj.sc.3101483
19.
Liu M, Wu W, Li H, et al. Necroptosis, a novel type of programmed cell death, contributes to early neural cells damage after spinal cord injury in adult mice. J Spinal Cord Med. 2015;38:745‐753.
Not in our library10.1179/2045772314y.0000000224
20.
Wang Y, Wang H, Tao Y, Zhang S, Wang J, Feng X. Necroptosis inhibitor necrostatin‐1 promotes cell protection and physiological function in traumatic spinal cord injury. Neuroscience. 2014;266:91‐101.
Not in our library10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.02.007
21.
Li S, Mealing GA, Morley P, Stys PK. Novel injury mechanism in anoxia and trauma of spinal cord white matter: glutamate release via reverse Na+‐dependent glutamate transport. J Neurosci. 1999;19:RC16.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.19-14-j0002.1999
22.
Li S, Stys PK. Mechanisms of ionotropic glutamate receptor‐mediated excitotoxicity in isolated spinal cord white matter. J Neurosci. 2000;20:1190‐1198.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.20-03-01190.2000
23.
Ahuja CS, Wilson JR, Nori S, et al. Traumatic spinal cord injury. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17018.
Not in our library10.1038/nrdp.2017.18
24.
Kwon B. Pathophysiology and pharmacologic treatment of acute spinal cord injury. Spine J. 2004;4:451‐464.
Not in our library10.1016/j.spinee.2003.07.007
25.
Pathania S, Bagler G, Ahuja PS. Differential network analysis reveals evolutionary complexity in secondary metabolism of Rauvolfia serpentina over Catharanthus roseus. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:1229.
Not in our library10.3389/fpls.2016.01229
26.
Tator CH. Update on the pathophysiology and pathology of acute spinal cord injury. Brain Pathol. 1995;5:407‐413.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1750-3639.1995.tb00619.x
27.
Milhorat TH, Capocelli AL, Anzil AP, Kotzen RM, Milhorat RH. Pathological basis of spinal cord cavitation in syringomyelia: analysis of 105 autopsy cases. J Neurosurg. 1995;82:802‐812.
Not in our library10.3171/jns.1995.82.5.0802
28.
Jeffery ND, Blakemore WF. Locomotor deficits induced by experimental spinal cord demyelination are abolished by spontaneous remyelination. Brain. 1997;120(Pt 1):27‐37.
Not in our library10.1093/brain/120.1.27
29.
Barnabe‐Heider F, Goritz C, Sabelstrom H, et al. Origin of new glial cells in intact and injured adult spinal cord. Cell Stem Cell. 2010;7:470‐482.
Not in our library10.1016/j.stem.2010.07.014
30.
Goritz C, Dias DO, Tomilin N, Barbacid M, Shupliakov O, Frisen J. A pericyte origin of spinal cord scar tissue. Science. 2011;333:238‐242.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1203165
31.
Spinal Cord Injury Reveals Multilineage Differentiation of Ependymal Cells · 2008
No notice
32.
Soderblom C, Luo X, Blumenthal E, et al. Perivascular fibroblasts form the fibrotic scar after contusive spinal cord injury. J Neurosci. 2013;33:13882‐13887.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.2524-13.2013
33.
Silver J, Miller JH. Regeneration beyond the glial scar. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004;5:146‐156.
Not in our library10.1038/nrn1326
34.
Lang BT, Cregg JM, DePaul MA, et al. Modulation of the proteoglycan receptor PTPsigma promotes recovery after spinal cord injury. Nature. 2015;518:404‐408.
Not in our library10.1038/nature13974
35.
McKeon RJ, Schreiber RC, Rudge JS, Silver J. Reduction of neurite outgrowth in a model of glial scarring following CNS injury is correlated with the expression of inhibitory molecules on reactive astrocytes. J Neurosci. 1991;11:3398‐3411.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.11-11-03398.1991
36.
Forgione N, Fehlings MG. Rho‐ROCK inhibition in the treatment of spinal cord injury. World Neurosurg. 2014;82:e535‐e539.
Not in our library10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.009
37.
Chen MS, Huber AB, van der Haar ME, et al. Nogo‐A is a myelin‐associated neurite outgrowth inhibitor and an antigen for monoclonal antibody IN‐1. Nature. 2000;403:434‐439.
Not in our library10.1038/35000219
38.
Moreau‐Fauvarque C, Kumanogoh A, Camand E, et al. The transmembrane semaphorin Sema4D/CD100, an inhibitor of axonal growth, is expressed on oligodendrocytes and upregulated after CNS lesion. J Neurosci. 2003;23:9229‐9239.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.23-27-09229.2003
39.
Cafferty WB, Duffy P, Huebner E, Strittmatter SM. MAG and OMgp synergize with Nogo‐A to restrict axonal growth and neurological recovery after spinal cord trauma. J Neurosci. 2010;30:6825‐6837.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.6239-09.2010
40.
Hata K, Fujitani M, Yasuda Y, et al. RGMa inhibition promotes axonal growth and recovery after spinal cord injury. J Cell Biol. 2006;173:47‐58.
Not in our library10.1083/jcb.200508143
41.
Mothe AJ, Tassew NG, Shabanzadeh AP, et al. RGMa inhibition with human monoclonal antibodies promotes regeneration, plasticity and repair, and attenuates neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. Sci Rep. 2017;7:10529.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-017-10987-7
42.
Schwab JM, Conrad S, Monnier PP, Julien S, Mueller BK, Schluesener HJ. Spinal cord injury‐induced lesional expression of the repulsive guidance molecule (RGM). Eur J Neurosci. 2005;21:1569‐1576.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03962.x
43.
Rosado IR, Carvalho PH, Alves EG, et al. Immunomodulatory and neuroprotective effect of cryopreserved allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells on spinal cord injury in rats. Genet Mol Res. 2017;16(1)..
Not in our library10.4238/gmr16019555
44.
Khazaei M, Ahuja CS, Nakashima H, et al. GDNF rescues the fate of neural progenitor grafts by attenuating notch signals in the injured spinal cord in rodents. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12:eaau3538.
Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aau3538
45.
Transplantation of Autologous Olfactory Ensheathing Cells in Complete Human Spinal Cord Injury · 2013
Not checked
46.
Piltti KM, Salazar DL, Uchida N, Cummings BJ, Anderson AJ. Safety of human neural stem cell transplantation in chronic spinal cord injury. Stem Cells Translational Medicine. 2013;2:961‐974.
Not in our library10.5966/sctm.2013-0064
47.
Badhiwala JH, Ahuja CS, Fehlings MG. Time is spine: a review of translational advances in spinal cord injury. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;30:1‐18.
Not in our library10.3171/2018.9.spine18682
48.
Torres‐Espin A, Redondo‐Castro E, Hernandez J, Navarro X. Immunosuppression of allogenic mesenchymal stem cells transplantation after spinal cord injury improves graft survival and beneficial outcomes. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32:367‐380.
Not in our library10.1089/neu.2014.3562
49.
Liu J, Chen P, Wang Q, et al. Meta analysis of olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation promoting functional recovery of motor nerves in rats with complete spinal cord transection. Neural Regen Res. 2014;9:1850‐1858.
Not in our library10.4103/1673-5374.143434
50.
Anderson KD, Guest JD, Dietrich WD, et al. Safety of autologous human Schwann cell transplantation in subacute thoracic spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34:2950‐2963.
Not in our library10.1089/neu.2016.4895
51.
Himes BT, Neuhuber B, Coleman C, et al. Recovery of function following grafting of human bone marrow‐derived stromal cells into the injured spinal cord. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006;20:278‐296.
Not in our library10.1177/1545968306286976
52.
Cizkova D, Rosocha J, Vanicky I, Jergova S, Cizek M. Transplants of human mesenchymal stem cells improve functional recovery after spinal cord injury in the rat. Cell Mol Neurobiol. 2006;26:1167‐1180.
Not in our library10.1007/s10571-006-9093-1
53.
Hofstetter CP, Schwarz EJ, Hess D, et al. Marrow stromal cells form guiding strands in the injured spinal cord and promote recovery. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99:2199‐2204.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.042678299
54.
Wu S, Suzuki Y, Ejiri Y, et al. Bone marrow stromal cells enhance differentiation of cocultured neurosphere cells and promote regeneration of injured spinal cord. J Neurosci Res. 2003;72:343‐351.
Not in our library10.1002/jnr.10587
55.
Ohta M, Suzuki Y, Noda T, et al. Bone marrow stromal cells infused into the cerebrospinal fluid promote functional recovery of the injured rat spinal cord with reduced cavity formation. Exp Neurol. 2004;187:266‐278.
Not in our library10.1016/j.expneurol.2004.01.021
56.
Ankeny DP, McTigue DM, Jakeman LB. Bone marrow transplants provide tissue protection and directional guidance for axons after contusive spinal cord injury in rats. Exp Neurol. 2004;190:17‐31.
Not in our library10.1016/j.expneurol.2004.05.045
57.
Urdzikova L, Jendelova P, Glogarova K, Burian M, Hajek M, Sykova E. Transplantation of bone marrow stem cells as well as mobilization by granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor promotes recovery after spinal cord injury in rats. J Neurotrauma. 2006;23:1379‐1391.
Not in our library10.1089/neu.2006.23.1379
58.
Park SI, Lim JY, Jeong CH, et al. Human umbilical cord blood‐derived mesenchymal stem cell therapy promotes functional recovery of contused rat spinal cord through enhancement of endogenous cell proliferation and oligogenesis. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2012;2012:362473.
Not in our library10.1155/2012/362473
59.
Human mesenchymal cells from adipose tissue deposit laminin and promote regeneration of injured spinal cord in rats. · 2014
Not checked
60.
Parr AM, Kulbatski I, Zahir T, et al. Transplanted adult spinal cord‐derived neural stem/progenitor cells promote early functional recovery after rat spinal cord injury. Neuroscience. 2008;155:760‐770.
Not in our library10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.05.042
61.
Parr AM, Kulbatski I, Tator CH. Transplantation of adult rat spinal cord stem/progenitor cells for spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:835‐845.
Not in our library10.1089/neu.2006.3771
62.
Karimi‐Abdolrezaee S, Eftekharpour E, Wang J, Morshead CM, Fehlings MG. Delayed transplantation of adult neural precursor cells promotes remyelination and functional neurological recovery after spinal cord injury. J Neurosci. 2006;26:3377‐3389.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.4184-05.2006
63.
Karimi‐Abdolrezaee S, Eftekharpour E, Wang J, Schut D, Fehlings MG. Synergistic effects of transplanted adult neural stem/progenitor cells, chondroitinase, and growth factors promote functional repair and plasticity of the chronically injured spinal cord. J Neurosci. 2010;30:1657‐1676.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.3111-09.2010
64.
Cummings BJ, Uchida N, Tamaki SJ, et al. Human neural stem cells differentiate and promote locomotor recovery in spinal cord‐injured mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:14069‐14074.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0507063102
65.
Iwanami A, Kaneko S, Nakamura M, et al. Transplantation of human neural stem cells for spinal cord injury in primates. J Neurosci Res. 2005;80:182‐190.
Not in our library10.1002/jnr.20436
66.
Nori S, Okada Y, Yasuda A, et al. Grafted human‐induced pluripotent stem‐cell‐derived neurospheres promote motor functional recovery after spinal cord injury in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:16825‐16830.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1108077108
67.
Fujimoto Y, Abematsu M, Falk A, et al. Treatment of a mouse model of spinal cord injury by transplantation of human induced pluripotent stem cell‐derived long‐term self‐renewing neuroepithelial‐like stem cells. Stem Cells. 2012;30:1163‐1173.
Not in our library10.1002/stem.1083
68.
McDonald JW. Repairing the damaged spinal cord. Sci Am. 1999;281:64‐73.
Not in our library10.1038/scientificamerican0999-64
69.
Keirstead HS, Nistor G, Bernal G, et al. Human embryonic stem cell‐derived oligodendrocyte progenitor cell transplants remyelinate and restore locomotion after spinal cord injury. J Neurosci. 2005;25:4694‐4705.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.0311-05.2005
70.
Sharp J, Frame J, Siegenthaler M, Nistor G, Keirstead HS. Human embryonic stem cell‐derived oligodendrocyte progenitor cell transplants improve recovery after cervical spinal cord injury. Stem Cells. 2010;28:152‐163.
Not in our library10.1002/stem.245
71.
Guest JD, Rao A, Olson L, Bunge MB, Bunge RP. The ability of human Schwann cell grafts to promote regeneration in the transected nude rat spinal cord. Exp Neurol. 1997;148:502‐522.
Not in our library10.1006/exnr.1997.6693
72.
Takami T, Oudega M, Bates ML, Wood PM, Kleitman N, Bunge MB. Schwann cell but not olfactory ensheathing glia transplants improve hindlimb locomotor performance in the moderately contused adult rat thoracic spinal cord. J Neurosci. 2002;22:6670‐6681.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.22-15-06670.2002
73.
Barakat DJ, Gaglani SM, Neravetla SR, et al. Survival, integration, and axon growth support of glia transplanted into the chronically contused spinal cord. Cell Transplant. 2005;14:225‐240.
Not in our library10.3727/000000005783983106
74.
Pearse DD, Sanchez AR, Pereira FC, et al. Transplantation of Schwann cells and/or olfactory ensheathing glia into the contused spinal cord: survival, migration, axon association, and functional recovery. Glia. 2007;55:976‐1000.
Not in our library10.1002/glia.20490
75.
Li Y, Field PM, Raisman G. Repair of adult rat corticospinal tract by transplants of olfactory ensheathing cells. Science. 1997;277:2000‐2002.
Not in our library10.1126/science.277.5334.2000
76.
Ramon‐Cueto A, Cordero MI, Santos‐Benito FF, Avila J. Functional recovery of paraplegic rats and motor axon regeneration in their spinal cords by olfactory ensheathing glia. Neuron. 2000;25:425‐435.
Not in our library10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80905-8
77.
Chhabra HS, Sarda K, Arora M, et al. Autologous bone marrow cell transplantation in acute spinal cord injury—an Indian pilot study. Spinal Cord. 2016;54:57‐64.
Not in our library10.1038/sc.2015.134
78.
Safety and neurological assessments after autologous transplantation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in subjects with chronic spinal cord injury · 2014
No notice
79.
El‐Kheir WA, Gabr H, Awad MR, et al. Autologous bone marrow‐derived cell therapy combined with physical therapy induces functional improvement in chronic spinal cord injury patients. Cell Transplant. 2014;23:729‐745.
Not in our library10.3727/096368913x664540
80.
Hur JW, Cho TH, Park DH, Lee JB, Park JY, Chung YG. Intrathecal transplantation of autologous adipose‐derived mesenchymal stem cells for treating spinal cord injury: a human trial. J Spinal Cord Med. 2016;39:655‐664.
Not in our library10.1179/2045772315y.0000000048
81.
Ra JC, Shin IS, Kim SH, et al. Safety of intravenous infusion of human adipose tissue‐derived mesenchymal stem cells in animals and humans. Stem Cells Dev. 2011;20:1297‐1308.
Not in our library10.1089/scd.2010.0466
82.
Satti HS, Waheed A, Ahmed P, et al. Autologous mesenchymal stromal cell transplantation for spinal cord injury: a phase I pilot study. Cytotherapy. 2016;18:518‐522.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jcyt.2016.01.004
83.
Levi AD, Okonkwo DO, Park P, et al. Emerging safety of intramedullary transplantation of human neural stem cells in chronic cervical and thoracic spinal cord injury. Neurosurgery. 2018;82:562‐575.
Not in our library10.1093/neuros/nyx250
84.
Assinck P, Duncan GJ, Hilton BJ, Plemel JR, Tetzlaff W. Cell transplantation therapy for spinal cord injury. Nat Neurosci. 2017;20:637‐647.
Not in our library10.1038/nn.4541
85.
Mothe AJ, Zahir T, Santaguida C, Cook D, Tator CH. Neural stem/progenitor cells from the adult human spinal cord are multipotent and self‐renewing and differentiate after transplantation. PLoS One. 2011;6:e27079.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0027079
86.
Neuhuber B, Timothy Himes B, Shumsky JS, Gallo G, Fischer I. Axon growth and recovery of function supported by human bone marrow stromal cells in the injured spinal cord exhibit donor variations. Brain Res. 2005;1035:73‐85.
Not in our library10.1016/j.brainres.2004.11.055
87.
Rustenhoven J, Park TI, Schweder P, et al. Isolation of highly enriched primary human microglia for functional studies. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19371.
Not in our library10.1038/srep19371
88.
Chaddah R, Arntfield M, Runciman S, Clarke L, van der Kooy D. Clonal neural stem cells from human embryonic stem cell colonies. J Neurosci. 2012;32:7771‐7781.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.3286-11.2012
89.
Umebayashi D, Coles B, van der Kooy D. Enrichment of oligodendrocyte progenitors from differentiated neural precursors by clonal sphere preparations. Stem Cells Dev. 2016;25:712‐728.
Not in our library10.1089/scd.2015.0244
90.
Colasante G, Rubio A, Massimino L, Broccoli V. Direct neuronal reprogramming reveals unknown functions for known transcription factors. Front Neurosci. 2019;13:283.
Not in our library10.3389/fnins.2019.00283
91.
Ambasudhan R, Talantova M, Coleman R, et al. Direct reprogramming of adult human fibroblasts to functional neurons under defined conditions. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;9:113‐118.
Not in our library10.1016/j.stem.2011.07.002
92.
Caiazzo M, Dell'Anno MT, Dvoretskova E, et al. Direct generation of functional dopaminergic neurons from mouse and human fibroblasts. Nature. 2011;476:224‐227.
Not in our library10.1038/nature10284
93.
Colasante G, Lignani G, Rubio A, et al. Rapid conversion of fibroblasts into functional forebrain GABAergic interneurons by direct genetic reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;17:719‐734.
Not in our library10.1016/j.stem.2015.09.002
94.
Najm FJ, Lager AM, Zaremba A, et al. Transcription factor‐mediated reprogramming of fibroblasts to expandable, myelinogenic oligodendrocyte progenitor cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:426‐433.
Not in our library10.1038/nbt.2561
95.
Gritti A, Parati EA, Cova L, et al. Multipotential stem cells from the adult mouse brain proliferate and self‐renew in response to basic fibroblast growth factor. J Neurosci. 1996;16:1091‐1100.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.16-03-01091.1996
96.
Morshead CM, Reynolds BA, Craig CG, et al. Neural stem cells in the adult mammalian forebrain: a relatively quiescent subpopulation of subependymal cells. Neuron. 1994;13:1071‐1082.
Not in our library10.1016/0896-6273(94)90046-9
97.
Palmer TD, Takahashi J, Gage FH. The adult rat hippocampus contains primordial neural stem cells. Mol Cell Neurosci. 1997;8:389‐404.
Not in our library10.1006/mcne.1996.0595
98.
Dessaud E, McMahon AP, Briscoe J. Pattern formation in the vertebrate neural tube: a sonic hedgehog morphogen‐regulated transcriptional network. Development. 2008;135:2489‐2503.
Not in our library10.1242/dev.009324
99.
Dynamic Assignment and Maintenance of Positional Identity in the Ventral Neural Tube by the Morphogen Sonic Hedgehog · 2010
No notice
100.
Ulloa F, Briscoe J. Morphogens and the control of cell proliferation and patterning in the spinal cord. Cell Cycle. 2007;6:2640‐2649.
Not in our library10.4161/cc.6.21.4822
101.
Wilson L, Maden M. The mechanisms of dorsoventral patterning in the vertebrate neural tube. Dev Biol. 2005;282:1‐13.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.02.027
102.
Kulbatski I, Mothe AJ, Keating A, Hakamata Y, Kobayashi E, Tator CH. Oligodendrocytes and radial glia derived from adult rat spinal cord progenitors: morphological and immunocytochemical characterization. J Histochem Cytochem. 2007;55:209‐222.
Not in our library10.1369/jhc.6a7020.2006
103.
Martens DJ, Seaberg RM, van der Kooy D. In vivo infusions of exogenous growth factors into the fourth ventricle of the adult mouse brain increase the proliferation of neural progenitors around the fourth ventricle and the central canal of the spinal cord. Eur J Neurosci. 2002;16:1045‐1057.
Not in our library10.1046/j.1460-9568.2002.02181.x
104.
Mothe AJ, Zahir T, Santaguida C, Cook D, Tator CH. Neural stem/progenitor cells from the adult human spinal cord are multipotent and self‐renewing and differentiate after transplantation. PLoS One. 2011;6:e27079.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0027079
105.
Weiss S, Dunne C, Hewson J, et al. Multipotent CNS stem cells are present in the adult mammalian spinal cord and ventricular neuroaxis. J Neurosci. 1996;16:7599‐7609.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.16-23-07599.1996
106.
Hitoshi S, Seaberg RM, Koscik C, et al. Primitive neural stem cells from the mammalian epiblast differentiate to definitive neural stem cells under the control of notch signaling. Genes Dev. 2004;18:1806‐1811.
Not in our library10.1101/gad.1208404
107.
Xu W, Lakshman N, Morshead CM. Building a central nervous system: the neural stem cell lineage revealed. Neurogenesis (Austin). 2017;4:e1300037.
Not in our library10.1080/23262133.2017.1300037
108.
Sachewsky N, Morshead CM. Prosurvival factors derived from the embryonic brain promote adult neural stem cell survival. Stem Cells Dev. 2014;23:2469‐2481.
Not in our library10.1089/scd.2013.0646
109.
Xu W, Lakshman N, Morshead CM. Stem cells in the adult CNS revealed: examining their regulation by myelin basic protein. Neural Regen Res. 2016;11:1916‐1917.
Not in our library10.4103/1673-5374.197127
110.
Dadwal P, Mahmud N, Sinai L, et al. Activating endogenous neural precursor cells using metformin leads to neural repair and functional recovery in a model of childhood brain injury. Stem Cell Rep. 2015;5:166‐173.
Not in our library10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.06.011
111.
Yousefifard M, Rahimi‐Movaghar V, Nasirinezhad F, et al. Neural stem/progenitor cell transplantation for spinal cord injury treatment; a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Neuroscience. 2016;322:377‐397.
Not in our library10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.02.034
112.
Mothe AJ, Tator CH. Review of transplantation of neural stem/progenitor cells for spinal cord injury. Int J Dev Neurosci. 2013;31:701‐713.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2013.07.004
113.
Dulin JN, Adler AF, Kumamaru H, et al. Injured adult motor and sensory axons regenerate into appropriate organotypic domains of neural progenitor grafts. Nat Commun. 2018;9:84.
Not in our library10.1038/s41467-017-02613-x
114.
ClinicalTrials.gov. National Institutes of Health: USA; 2016.
Not in our library
115.
All AH, Gharibani P, Gupta S, et al. Early intervention for spinal cord injury with human induced pluripotent stem cells oligodendrocyte progenitors. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0116933.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0116933
116.
Grafted Human iPS Cell-Derived Oligodendrocyte Precursor Cells Contribute to Robust Remyelination of Demyelinated Axons after Spinal Cord Injury · 2016
No notice
117.
Zhang YW, Denham J, Thies RS. Oligodendrocyte progenitor cells derived from human embryonic stem cells express neurotrophic factors. Stem Cells Dev. 2006;15:943‐952.
Not in our library10.1089/scd.2006.15.943
118.
Bergles DE, Roberts JD, Somogyi P, Jahr CE. Glutamatergic synapses on oligodendrocyte precursor cells in the hippocampus. Nature. 2000;405:187‐191.
Not in our library10.1038/35012083
119.
Plemel JR, Keough MB, Duncan GJ, et al. Remyelination after spinal cord injury: is it a target for repair? Prog Neurobiol. 2014;117:54‐72.
Not in our library10.1016/j.pneurobio.2014.02.006
120.
Myers SA, Bankston AN, Burke DA, Ohri SS, Whittemore SR. Does the preclinical evidence for functional remyelination following myelinating cell engraftment into the injured spinal cord support progression to clinical trials? Exp Neurol. 2016;283:560‐572.
Not in our library10.1016/j.expneurol.2016.04.009
121.
Asterias Biotherapeutics. Asterias Provides Top Line 12 Month Data Update for its OPC1 Phase 1/2a Clinical Trial in Severe Spinal Cord Injury. Omaha, Nebraska: GlobeNewsWire; 2019.
Not in our library
122.
Windus LC, Lineburg KE, Scott SE, et al. Lamellipodia mediate the heterogeneity of central olfactory ensheathing cell interactions. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2010;67:1735‐1750.
Not in our library10.1007/s00018-010-0280-3
123.
Silva NA, Cooke MJ, Tam RY, et al. The effects of peptide modified gellan gum and olfactory ensheathing glia cells on neural stem/progenitor cell fate. Biomaterials. 2012;33:6345‐6354.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.05.050
124.
Zhang J, Chen H, Duan Z, et al. The effects of co‐transplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells and Schwann cells on local inflammation environment in the contused spinal cord of rats. Mol Neurobiol. 2016;54:943‐953.
Not in our library10.1007/s12035-016-9709-5
125.
Ekberg JA, St John JA. Olfactory ensheathing cells for spinal cord repair: crucial differences between subpopulations of the glia. Neural Regen Res. 2015;10:1395‐1396.
Not in our library10.4103/1673-5374.165504
126.
Roet KC, Verhaagen J. Understanding the neural repair‐promoting properties of olfactory ensheathing cells. Exp Neurol. 2014;261:594‐609.
Not in our library10.1016/j.expneurol.2014.05.007
127.
Sasaki M, Lankford KL, Zemedkun M, Kocsis JD. Identified olfactory ensheathing cells transplanted into the transected dorsal funiculus bridge the lesion and form myelin. J Neurosci. 2004;24:8485‐8493.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.1998-04.2004
128.
Watzlawick R, Rind J, Sena ES, et al. Olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation in experimental spinal cord injury: effect size and reporting bias of 62 experimental treatments: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. PLoS Biol. 2016;14:e1002468.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pbio.1002468
129.
Ramer LM, Au E, Richter MW, Liu J, Tetzlaff W, Roskams AJ. Peripheral olfactory ensheathing cells reduce scar and cavity formation and promote regeneration after spinal cord injury. J Comp Neurol. 2004;473:1‐15.
Not in our library10.1002/cne.20049
130.
Mackay‐Sim A, Feron F, Cochrane J, et al. Autologous olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation in human paraplegia: a 3‐year clinical trial. Brain. 2008;131:2376‐2386.
Not in our library10.1093/brain/awn173
131.
Dlouhy BJ, Awe O, Rao RC, Kirby PA, Hitchon PW. Autograft‐derived spinal cord mass following olfactory mucosal cell transplantation in a spinal cord injury patient: case report. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21:618‐622.
Not in our library10.3171/2014.5.spine13992
132.
Chhabra HS, Lima C, Sachdeva S, et al. Autologous olfactory [corrected] mucosal transplant in chronic spinal cord injury: an Indian Pilot Study. Spinal Cord. 2009;47:887‐895.
Not in our library10.1038/sc.2009.54
133.
Li L, Adnan H, Xu B, et al. Effects of transplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells in chronic spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:919‐930.
Not in our library10.1007/s00586-014-3416-6
134.
Kanno H, Pearse DD, Ozawa H, Itoi E, Bunge MB. Schwann cell transplantation for spinal cord injury repair: its significant therapeutic potential and prospectus. Rev Neurosci. 2015;26:121‐128.
Not in our library10.1515/revneuro-2014-0068
135.
Wiliams RR, Bunge MB. Schwann cell transplantation: a repair strategy for spinal cord injury? Prog Brain Res. 2012;201:295‐312.
Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-444-59544-7.00014-7
136.
Honmou O, Felts PA, Waxman SG, Kocsis JD. Restoration of normal conduction properties in demyelinated spinal cord axons in the adult rat by transplantation of exogenous Schwann cells. J Neurosci. 1996;16:3199‐3208.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.16-10-03199.1996
137.
Sparling JS, Bretzner F, Biernaskie J, et al. Schwann cells generated from neonatal skin‐derived precursors or neonatal peripheral nerve improve functional recovery after acute transplantation into the partially injured cervical spinal cord of the rat. J Neurosci. 2015;35:6714‐6730.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.1070-14.2015
138.
Biernaskie J, Sparling JS, Liu J, et al. Skin‐derived precursors generate myelinating Schwann cells that promote remyelination and functional recovery after contusion spinal cord injury. J Neurosci. 2007;27:9545‐9559.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.1930-07.2007
139.
Pearse DD, Pereira FC, Marcillo AE, et al. cAMP and Schwann cells promote axonal growth and functional recovery after spinal cord injury. Nat Med. 2004;10:610‐616.
Not in our library10.1038/nm1056
140.
Cotransplantation of Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Neural Progenitors and Schwann Cells in a Rat Spinal Cord Contusion Injury Model Elicits a Distinct Neurogenesis and Functional Recovery · 2012
Not checked
141.
Pourheydar B, Joghataei MT, Bakhtiari M, Mehdizadeh M, Yekta Z, Najafzadeh N. Co‐transplantation of bone marrow stromal cells with Schwann cells evokes mechanical allodynia in the contusion model of spinal cord injury in rats. Cell J. 2012;13:213‐222.
Not in our library
142.
Adipose, Bone Marrow and Synovial Joint-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Cartilage Repair · 2016
No notice
143.
Law S, Chaudhuri S. Mesenchymal stem cell and regenerative medicine: regeneration versus immunomodulatory challenges. Am J Stem Cells. 2013;2:22‐38.
Not in our library
144.
Sekiya I, Larson BL, Smith JR, Pochampally R, Cui JG, Prockop DJ. Expansion of human adult stem cells from bone marrow stroma: conditions that maximize the yields of early progenitors and evaluate their quality. Stem Cells. 2002;20:530‐541.
Not in our library10.1634/stemcells.20-6-530
145.
Kotobuki N, Hirose M, Takakura Y, Ohgushi H. Cultured autologous human cells for hard tissue regeneration: preparation and characterization of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow. Artif Organs. 2004;28:33‐39.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1525-1594.2004.07320.x
146.
Carrade DD, Affolter VK, Outerbridge CA, et al. Intradermal injections of equine allogeneic umbilical cord‐derived mesenchymal stem cells are well tolerated and do not elicit immediate or delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Cytotherapy. 2011;13:1180‐1192.
Not in our library10.3109/14653249.2011.602338
147.
Dasari VR, Veeravalli KK, Dinh DH. Mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of spinal cord injuries: a review. World J Stem Cells. 2014;6:120‐133.
Not in our library10.4252/wjsc.v6.i2.120
148.
Lalu MM, Sullivan KJ, Mei SH, et al. Evaluating mesenchymal stem cell therapy for sepsis with preclinical meta‐analyses prior to initiating a first‐in‐human trial. Elife. 2016;5:e17850.
Not in our library10.7554/elife.17850
149.
Dulamea A. Mesenchymal stem cells in multiple sclerosis ‐ translation to clinical trials. J Med Life. 2015;8:24‐27.
Not in our library
150.
Yan X, Cen Y, Wang Q. Mesenchymal stem cells alleviate experimental rheumatoid arthritis through microRNA‐regulated IkappaB expression. Sci Rep. 2016;6:28915.
Not in our library10.1038/srep28915
151.
Akiyama Y, Radtke C, Kocsis JD. Remyelination of the rat spinal cord by transplantation of identified bone marrow stromal cells. J Neurosci. 2002;22:6623‐6630.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.22-15-06623.2002
152.
Sasaki M, Radtke C, Tan AM, et al. BDNF‐hypersecreting human mesenchymal stem cells promote functional recovery, axonal sprouting, and protection of corticospinal neurons after spinal cord injury. J Neurosci. 2009;29:14932‐14941.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.2769-09.2009
153.
Nakajima H, Uchida K, Guerrero AR, et al. Transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells promotes an alternative pathway of macrophage activation and functional recovery after spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:1614‐1625.
Not in our library10.1089/neu.2011.2109
154.
Boido M, Garbossa D, Fontanella M, Ducati A, Vercelli A. Mesenchymal stem cell transplantation reduces glial cyst and improves functional outcome after spinal cord compression. World Neurosurg. 2014;81:183‐190.
Not in our library10.1016/j.wneu.2012.08.014
155.
Laughlin MJ, Barker J, Bambach B, et al. Hematopoietic engraftment and survival in adult recipients of umbilical‐cord blood from unrelated donors. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1815‐1822.
Not in our library10.1056/nejm200106143442402
156.
Park DH, Lee JH, Borlongan CV, Sanberg PR, Chung YG, Cho TH. Transplantation of umbilical cord blood stem cells for treating spinal cord injury. Stem Cell Rev. 2011;7:181‐194.
Not in our library10.1007/s12015-010-9163-0
157.
Zhou C, Yang B, Tian Y, et al. Immunomodulatory effect of human umbilical cord Wharton's jelly‐derived mesenchymal stem cells on lymphocytes. Cell Immunol. 2011;272:33‐38.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cellimm.2011.09.010
158.
Gregoire CA, Goldenstein BL, Floriddia EM, Barnabe‐Heider F, Fernandes KJ. Endogenous neural stem cell responses to stroke and spinal cord injury. Glia. 2015;63:1469‐1482.
Not in our library10.1002/glia.22851
159.
Wang J, Gallagher D, DeVito LM, et al. Metformin activates an atypical PKC‐CBP pathway to promote neurogenesis and enhance spatial memory formation. Cell Stem Cell. 2012;11:23‐35.
Not in our library10.1016/j.stem.2012.03.016
160.
Namiki J, Tator CH. Cell proliferation and nestin expression in the ependyma of the adult rat spinal cord after injury. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1999;58:489‐498.
Not in our library10.1097/00005072-199905000-00008
161.
Hunt J, Cheng A, Hoyles A, Jervis E, Morshead CM. Cyclosporin A has direct effects on adult neural precursor cells. J Neurosci. 2010;30:2888‐2896.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.5991-09.2010
162.
Sachewsky N, Hunt J, Cooke MJ, et al. Cyclosporin A enhances neural precursor cell survival in mice through a calcineurin‐independent pathway. Dis Model Mech. 2014;7:953‐961.
Not in our library10.1242/dmm.014480
163.
Reeve RL, Yammine SZ, DeVeale B, van der Kooy D. Targeted activation of primitive neural stem cells in the mouse brain. Eur J Neurosci. 2016;43:1474‐1485.
Not in our library10.1111/ejn.13228
164.
Tetzlaff W, Okon EB, Karimi‐Abdolrezaee S, et al. A systematic review of cellular transplantation therapies for spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2011;28:1611‐1682.
Not in our library10.1089/neu.2009.1177
165.
Kojima A, Tator CH. Intrathecal administration of epidermal growth factor and fibroblast growth factor 2 promotes ependymal proliferation and functional recovery after spinal cord injury in adult rats. J Neurotrauma. 2002;19:223‐238.
Not in our library10.1089/08977150252806974
166.
Kojima A, Tator CH. Epidermal growth factor and fibroblast growth factor 2 cause proliferation of ependymal precursor cells in the adult rat spinal cord in vivo. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2000;59:687‐697.
Not in our library10.1093/jnen/59.8.687
167.
Kim H, Zahir T, Tator CH, Shoichet MS. Effects of dibutyryl cyclic‐AMP on survival and neuronal differentiation of neural stem/progenitor cells transplanted into spinal cord injured rats. PLoS One. 2011;6:e21744.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0021744
168.
Liu WG, Wang ZY, Huang ZS. Bone marrow‐derived mesenchymal stem cells expressing the bFGF transgene promote axon regeneration and functional recovery after spinal cord injury in rats. Neurol Res. 2011;33:686‐693.
Not in our library10.1179/1743132810y.0000000031
169.
Jung WS, Han SM, Kim SM, et al. Stimulatory effect of HGF‐overexpressing adipose tissue‐derived mesenchymal stem cells on thymus regeneration in a rat thymus involution model. Cell Biol Int. 2014;38:1106‐1117.
Not in our library10.1002/cbin.10306
170.
Kim YH, Cho SH, Lee SJ, et al. Growth‐inhibitory effect of neurotrophin‐3‐secreting adipose tissue‐derived mesenchymal stem cells on the D283‐MED human medulloblastoma cell line. J Neurooncol. 2012;106:89‐98.
Not in our library10.1007/s11060-011-0656-8
171.
Gransee HM, Zhan WZ, Sieck GC, Mantilla CB. Localized delivery of brain‐derived neurotrophic factor‐expressing mesenchymal stem cells enhances functional recovery following cervical spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32:185‐193.
Not in our library10.1089/neu.2014.3464
172.
Rooney GE, McMahon SS, Ritter T, et al. Neurotrophic factor‐expressing mesenchymal stem cells survive transplantation into the contused spinal cord without differentiating into neural cells. Tissue Eng Part A. 2009;15:3049‐3059.
Not in our library10.1089/ten.tea.2009.0045
173.
Girard C, Bemelmans AP, Dufour N, et al. Grafts of brain‐derived neurotrophic factor and neurotrophin 3‐transduced primate Schwann cells lead to functional recovery of the demyelinated mouse spinal cord. J Neurosci. 2005;25:7924‐7933.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.4890-04.2005
174.
Dietz V, Fouad K. Restoration of sensorimotor functions after spinal cord injury. Brain. 2014;137:654‐667.
Not in our library10.1093/brain/awt262
175.
Hwang DH, Shin HY, Kwon MJ, Choi JY, Ryu BY, Kim BG. Survival of neural stem cell grafts in the lesioned spinal cord is enhanced by a combination of treadmill locomotor training via insulin‐like growth factor‐1 signaling. J Neurosci. 2014;34:12788‐12800.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.5359-13.2014
176.
Bozkurt G, Mothe AJ, Zahir T, Kim H, Shoichet MS, Tator CH. Chitosan channels containing spinal cord‐derived stem/progenitor cells for repair of subacute spinal cord injury in the rat. Neurosurgery. 2010;67:1733‐1744.
Not in our library10.1227/neu.0b013e3181f9af35
177.
The Effect of Growth Factors and Soluble Nogo-66 Receptor Protein on Transplanted Neural Stem/Progenitor Survival and Axonal Regeneration after Complete Transection of Rat Spinal Cord · 2012
Not checked
178.
Rauch MF, Hynes SR, Bertram J, et al. Engineering angiogenesis following spinal cord injury: a coculture of neural progenitor and endothelial cells in a degradable polymer implant leads to an increase in vessel density and formation of the blood‐spinal cord barrier. Eur J Neurosci. 2009;29:132‐145.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06567.x
179.
Tsai EC, Dalton PD, Shoichet MS, Tator CH. Synthetic hydrogel guidance channels facilitate regeneration of adult rat brainstem motor axons after complete spinal cord transection. J Neurotrauma. 2004;21:789‐804.
Not in our library10.1089/0897715041269687
180.
Tsai EC, Dalton PD, Shoichet MS, Tator CH. Matrix inclusion within synthetic hydrogel guidance channels improves specific supraspinal and local axonal regeneration after complete spinal cord transection. Biomaterials. 2006;27:519‐533.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.07.025
181.
Layer RT, Ulich TR, Coric D, et al. New clinical‐pathological classification of intraspinal injury following traumatic acute complete thoracic spinal cord injury: postdurotomy/myelotomy observations from the INSPIRE trial. Neurosurgery. 2017;64:105‐109.
Not in our library10.1093/neuros/nyx204
182.
Theodore N, Hlubek R, Danielson J, et al. First human implantation of a bioresorbable polymer scaffold for acute traumatic spinal cord injury: a clinical pilot study for safety and feasibility. Neurosurgery. 2016;79:E305‐E312.
Not in our library10.1227/neu.0000000000001283
183.
Gupta D, Tator CH, Shoichet MS. Fast‐gelling injectable blend of hyaluronan and methylcellulose for intrathecal, localized delivery to the injured spinal cord. Biomaterials. 2006;27:2370‐2379.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.11.015
184.
Caicco MJ, Zahir T, Mothe AJ, et al. Characterization of hyaluronan‐methylcellulose hydrogels for cell delivery to the injured spinal cord. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013;101:1472‐1477.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.34454
185.
Fisher SA, Tam RY, Shoichet MS. Tissue mimetics: engineered hydrogel matrices provide biomimetic environments for cell growth. Tissue Eng Part A. 2014;20:895‐898.
Not in our library10.1089/ten.tea.2013.0765
186.
Mothe AJ, Tam RY, Zahir T, Tator CH, Shoichet MS. Repair of the injured spinal cord by transplantation of neural stem cells in a hyaluronan‐based hydrogel. Biomaterials. 2013;34:3775‐3783.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.02.002
187.
Fuhrmann T, Tam RY, Ballarin B, et al. Injectable hydrogel promotes early survival of induced pluripotent stem cell‐derived oligodendrocytes and attenuates longterm teratoma formation in a spinal cord injury model. Biomaterials. 2016;83:23‐36.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.12.032
188.
Johnson PJ, Parker SR, Sakiyama‐Elbert SE. Fibrin‐based tissue engineering scaffolds enhance neural fiber sprouting and delay the accumulation of reactive astrocytes at the lesion in a subacute model of spinal cord injury. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010;92:152‐163.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.32343
189.
Lu P, Woodruff G, Wang Y, et al. Long‐distance axonal growth from human induced pluripotent stem cells after spinal cord injury. Neuron. 2014;83:789‐796.
Not in our library10.1016/j.neuron.2014.07.014
190.
Iwasaki M, Wilcox JT, Nishimura Y, et al. Synergistic effects of self‐assembling peptide and neural stem/progenitor cells to promote tissue repair and forelimb functional recovery in cervical spinal cord injury. Biomaterials. 2014;35:2617‐2629.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.12.019
191.
Liu Y, Ye H, Satkunendrarajah K, Yao GS, Bayon Y, Fehlings MG. A self‐assembling peptide reduces glial scarring, attenuates post‐traumatic inflammation and promotes neurological recovery following spinal cord injury. Acta Biomater. 2013;9:8075‐8088.
Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2013.06.001
192.
Zweckberger K, Ahuja CS, Liu Y, Wang J, Fehlings MG. Self‐assembling peptides optimize the post‐traumatic milieu and synergistically enhance the effects of neural stem cell therapy after cervical spinal cord injury. Acta Biomater. 2016;42:77‐89.
Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2016.06.016
193.
Hotary KB, Robinson KR. Evidence of a role for endogenous electrical fields in chick embryo development. Development. 1992;114:985‐996.
Not in our library10.1242/dev.114.4.985
194.
Nuccitelli R. Endogenous electric fields in embryos during development, regeneration and wound healing. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2003;106:375‐383.
Not in our library10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a006375
195.
Chiang MC, Cragoe EJ Jr, Vanable JW Jr. Intrinsic electric fields promote epithelization of wounds in the newt, Notophthalmus viridescens. Dev Biol. 1991;146:377‐385.
Not in our library10.1016/0012-1606(91)90239-y
196.
Ross CL, Syed I, Smith TL, Harrison BS. The regenerative effects of electromagnetic field on spinal cord injury. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017;36:74‐87.
Not in our library10.3109/15368378.2016.1160408
197.
McKasson MJ, Huang L, Robinson KR. Chick embryonic Schwann cells migrate anodally in small electrical fields. Exp Neurol. 2008;211:585‐587.
Not in our library10.1016/j.expneurol.2008.02.015
198.
Babona‐Pilipos R, Droujinine IA, Popovic MR, Morshead CM. Adult subependymal neural precursors, but not differentiated cells, undergo rapid cathodal migration in the presence of direct current electric fields. PLoS One. 2011;6:e23808.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0023808
199.
Iwasa SN, Babona‐Pilipos R, Morshead CM. Environmental factors that influence stem cell migration: an "electric field". Stem Cells Int. 2017;2017:4276927.
Not in our library10.1155/2017/4276927
200.
Keuters MH, Aswendt M, Tennstaedt A, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation promotes the mobility of engrafted NSCs in the rat brain. NMR Biomed. 2015;28:231‐239.
Not in our library10.1002/nbm.3244
201.
Rueger MA, Keuters MH, Walberer M, et al. Multi‐session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) elicits inflammatory and regenerative processes in the rat brain. PLoS One. 2012;7:e43776.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0043776
202.
Bradbury EJ, Moon LD, Popat RJ, et al. Chondroitinase ABC promotes functional recovery after spinal cord injury. Nature. 2002;416:636‐640.
Not in our library10.1038/416636a
203.
Barritt AW, Davies M, Marchand F, et al. Chondroitinase ABC promotes sprouting of intact and injured spinal systems after spinal cord injury. J Neurosci. 2006;26:10856‐10867.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.2980-06.2006
204.
Bradbury EJ, Moon LDF, Popat RJ, et al. Chondroitinase ABC promotes functional recovery after spinal cord injury. Nature. 2002;416:636‐640.
Not in our library10.1038/416636a
205.
Suzuki H, Ahuja CS, Salewski RP, et al. Neural stem cell mediated recovery is enhanced by chondroitinase ABC pretreatment in chronic cervical spinal cord injury. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0182339.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0182339
206.
Lee H, McKeon RJ, Bellamkonda RV. Sustained delivery of thermostabilized chABC enhances axonal sprouting and functional recovery after spinal cord injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:3340‐3345.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0905437106
207.
Bartus K, James ND, Didangelos A, et al. Large‐scale chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan digestion with chondroitinase gene therapy leads to reduced pathology and modulates macrophage phenotype following spinal cord contusion injury. J Neurosci. 2014;34:4822‐4836.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.4369-13.2014
208.
Pakulska MM, Tator CH, Shoichet MS. Local delivery of chondroitinase ABC with or without stromal cell‐derived factor 1‐alpha promotes functional repair in the injured rat spinal cord. Biomaterials. 2017;134:13‐21.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.04.016
209.
Tauchi R, Imagama S, Natori T, et al. The endogenous proteoglycan‐degrading enzyme ADAMTS‐4 promotes functional recovery after spinal cord injury. J Neuroinflammation. 2012;9:53.
Not in our library10.1186/1742-2094-9-53
210.
Filous AR, Tran A, Howell CJ, et al. Entrapment via synaptic‐like connections between NG2 proteoglycan+ cells and dystrophic axons in the lesion plays a role in regeneration failure after spinal cord injury. J Neurosci. 2014;34:16369‐16384.
Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.1309-14.2014
211.
Dyck S, Kataria H, Alizadeh A, et al. Perturbing chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan signaling through LAR and PTPsigma receptors promotes a beneficial inflammatory response following spinal cord injury. J Neuroinflammation. 2018;15:90.
Not in our library10.1186/s12974-018-1128-2
212.
Neofytou E, O'Brien CG, Couture LA, Wu JC. Hurdles to clinical translation of human induced pluripotent stem cells. J Clin Invest. 2015;125:2551‐2557.
Not in our library10.1172/jci80575
213.
Moghaddam SE, Hernandez‐Rivera M, Zaibaq NG, et al. A new high‐performance gadonanotube‐polymer hybrid material for stem cell labeling and tracking by MRI. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2018;2018:2853736.
Not in our library10.1155/2018/2853736
214.
Ariza de Schellenberger A, Kratz H, Farr TD, et al. Labeling of mesenchymal stem cells for MRI with single‐cell sensitivity. Int J Nanomedicine. 2016;11:1517‐1535.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s101141
215.
Chen Z, Palmer TD. Cellular repair of CNS disorders: an immunological perspective. Hum Mol Genet. 2008;17:R84‐R92.
Not in our library10.1093/hmg/ddn104
216.
Hoornaert CJ, Le Blon D, Quarta A, et al. Concise review: innate and adaptive immune recognition of allogeneic and xenogeneic cell transplants in the central nervous system. Stem Cells Translational Medicine. 2017;6:1434‐1441.
Not in our library10.1002/sctm.16-0434
217.
Mao Y, Nguyen T, Sutherland T, Gorrie CA. Endogenous neural progenitor cells in the repair of the injured spinal cord. Neural Regen Res. 2016;11:1075‐1076.
Not in our library10.4103/1673-5374.187035
218.
Deuse T, Hu X, Gravina A, et al. Hypoimmunogenic derivatives of induced pluripotent stem cells evade immune rejection in fully immunocompetent allogeneic recipients. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37:252‐258.
Not in our library10.1038/s41587-019-0016-3
219.
Anderson AJ, Piltti KM, Hooshmand MJ, Nishi RA, Cummings BJ. Preclinical efficacy failure of human CNS‐derived stem cells for use in the pathway study of cervical spinal cord injury. Stem Cell Rep. 2017;8:249‐263.
Not in our library10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.12.018
220.
Tan Y, Ooi S, Wang L. Immunogenicity and tumorigenicity of pluripotent stem cells and their derivatives: genetic and epigenetic perspectives. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther. 2014;9:63‐72.
Not in our library10.2174/1574888x113086660068
221.
Deng J, Zhang Y, Xie Y, Zhang L, Tang P. Cell transplantation for spinal cord injury: tumorigenicity of induced pluripotent stem cell‐derived neural stem/progenitor cells. Stem Cells Int. 2018;2018:5653787.
Not in our library10.1155/2018/5653787
222.
Kami D, Watakabe K, Yamazaki‐Inoue M, et al. Large‐scale cell production of stem cells for clinical application using the automated cell processing machine. BMC Biotechnol. 2013;13:102.
Not in our library10.1186/1472-6750-13-102
223.
Rafiq QA, Twomey K, Kulik M, et al. Developing an automated robotic factory for novel stem cell therapy production. Regen Med. 2016;11:351‐354.
Not in our library10.2217/rme-2016-0040
224.
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Cellular & gene therapy guidances Vaccines, Blood & Biologics. Silver Sprong, Maryland: Author; 2018.
Not in our library
225.
European Medicines Agency. Multidisciplinary: cell therapy and tissue engineering.
Not in our library
226.
Roy DC, Alarco AM, Isasi R. CellCAN: a unique enabler of regenerative medicine and cell therapy in Canada. Stem Cells Dev. 2014;23(Suppl 1):24‐28.
Not in our library10.1089/scd.2014.0354
227.
Prażnowski K, Mamala J. Classification of the road surface condition on the basis of vibrations of the sprung mass in a passenger car. Paper presented at: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; 2016:012022.
Not in our library
228.
Nikolaev NI, Liu Y, Hussein H, Williams DJ. The sensitivity of human mesenchymal stem cells to vibration and cold storage conditions representative of cold transportation. J R Soc Interface. 2012;9:2503‐2515.
Not in our library10.1098/rsif.2012.0271
229.
Hunt CJ. Cryopreservation of human stem cells for clinical application: a review. Transfus Med Hemother. 2011;38:107‐123.
Not in our library10.1159/000326623
230.
Heng BC, Kuleshova LL, Bested SM, Liu H, Cao T. The cryopreservation of human embryonic stem cells. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2005;41:97‐104.
Not in our library10.1042/ba20040161
231.
Abraham E, Ahmadian BB, Holderness K, Levinson Y, McAfee E. Platforms for manufacturing allogeneic, autologous and iPSC cell therapy products: an industry perspective. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2018;165:323‐350.
Not in our library10.1007/10_2017_14
232.
Donnelly EM, Lamanna J, Boulis NM. Stem cell therapy for the spinal cord. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2012;3:24.
Not in our library10.1186/scrt115
233.
Mazzini L, Mareschi K, Ferrero I, et al. Stem cell treatment in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2008;265:78‐83.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jns.2007.05.016
234.
Feron F, Perry C, Cochrane J, et al. Autologous olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation in human spinal cord injury. Brain. 2005;128:2951‐2960.
Not in our library10.1093/brain/awh657
235.
Raore B, Federici T, Taub J, et al. Cervical multilevel intraspinal stem cell therapy: assessment of surgical risks in Gottingen minipigs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:E164‐E171.
Not in our library10.1097/brs.0b013e3181d77a47

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.