About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Stem Cells International
Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 928982, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/928982
Review Article

Dual Differentiation-Exogenous Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Repair in a Murine Hemisection Model

1Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue Box 655, Rochester, NY 14642, USA
2Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital Affiliated Capital Medical University, 6 Tiantan Xili, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100050, China
3Joint Center for Musculoskeletal Research of Zunyi Medical University & University of Rochester Medical Center, Zunyi Medical University, 201 Dalian Road, Zunyi, Guizhou 563003, China

Received 20 February 2013; Revised 10 July 2013; Accepted 24 July 2013

Academic Editor: Paul T. Sharpe

Copyright © 2013 Hai Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) transplantation has shown tremendous promise as a therapy for repair of various tissues of the musculoskeletal, vascular, and central nervous systems. Based on this success, recent research in this field has focused on complex tissue damage, such as that which occurs from traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI). As the critical event for successful exogenous, MSC therapy is their migration to the injury site, which allows for their anti-inflammatory and morphogenic effects on fracture healing, neuronal regeneration, and functional recover. Thus, there is a need for a cost-effective in vivo model that can faithfully recapitulate the salient features of the injury, therapy, and recovery. To address this, we review the recent advances in exogenous MSC therapy for TSCI and traumatic vertebral fracture repair and the existing challenges regarding their translational applications. We also describe a novel murine model designed to take advantage of multidisciplinary collaborations between musculoskeletal and neuroscience researchers, which is needed to establish an efficacious MSC therapy for TSCI.

1. Introduction

With almost 12,000 new spinal cord injuries (SCI) occurring every year in the United States alone, near half a million chronic SCI patients suffer the long term consequences of this devastating injury. Since the major disabilities from SCI are neurological deficits, neural regeneration remains the priority. Consequently, other aspects of SCI, such as vertebral fracture reconstruction, receive less attention. Thus, one major limitation in this field that has contributed to the lack of progress has been the absence of multidisciplinary cooperation between neuroscientists working towards nerve regeneration and orthopaedic investigators working with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for bone repair [1].

One of the most challenging aspects of treating injuries to the spinal cord is the multitude of problems that need to be addressed to restore normal function. These include neural cell death, limited axon regeneration, inflammation and scar formation, and disruption of the neurovascular supply and loss of structural support from the surrounding vertebra. Thus, any therapeutic approach aimed at SCI tissue regeneration requires a coordinated approach in which neural repair is accompanied by fracture repair and revascularization of newly formed tissues [2].

Several types of cell transplants have been proposed for SCI and fracture repair, including stem cells and their differentiated progeny, with the purpose of directly replacing lost neurons, oligodendrocytes, and osteoblasts, respectively. MSCs have shown great potential to enhance osteogenesis and chondrogenesis for spinal fusion repair. Furthermore, transplanted MSCs have the ability to differentiate into osteoblasts in the presence of specific bioactive factors, such as stromal cell-derived factor-1/CXCR4, nutrients, and extracellular matrix in the MSC/hydroxyapatite/type I collagen hybrid graft [1, 35]. However, controversy in the field remains over the extent of exogenous MSC contribution to neuronal regeneration, despite evidence from animal models and human specimens data showing the potential of neuronal differentiation [612]. Thus, the development of a cost-effective animal model to definitively answer this question is warranted.

2. TSCI Murine Models for Cell-Based Therapy

The fundamental events of SCI can be divided into four main stages: the immediate, acute, intermediate, and chronic phases [13]. To fulfill its final neurological outcomes, a reproducible TSCI model is essential that can be either improved or deteriorated by the intervention of interest [14, 15]. For small animals, such as mice and cats, the most widely accepted models include epidural balloon compression [14, 16], weight-drop contusion injury [17, 18] and modified aneurysm clip crash [19, 20], and hemisection removal critical defect and hemicontusion force [21].

2.1. Hemisection Model of Unilateral Injury

Although hemisection of the spinal cord is not a clinical relevant model, our interests in this field are focused on understanding the effects of transplanted MSCs on simultaneous angiogenesis, osteogenesis, neuronal survival, axonal growth, and remyelination following TSCI. Thus, in addition to being a highly reproducible injury and response to host response to TSCI, the hemisection model provides clear injury section boundary for radiological and histological outcomes to assess transplanted MSCs proliferation and neuronal differentiation. To this end, we have developed a novel hemisection-unilateral TSCI model in mice (Figure 1). The major advantage of this model is that it allows researchers to transfer synthetic biomaterials with or without exogenous MSCs locally to overcome secondary damage to the SCI. These transferred MSCs are known to mediate healing by orchestrating a favorable environment for parenchymal cell survival and stimulating cell bridges within the traumatic centromedullary cavity. Following a laminectomy, the surgical procedure involves longitudinal exposure of the dura mater, and then a spinal cord hemisection is made at the appropriate spinal cord level, which is then followed by the removal of 2-3 mm hemicord segment along the midline using microscissors. After cell transplantation, the dura, muscle, and fascia are sutured separately using methods that have been previously described [22, 23].

928982.fig.001
Figure 1: A murine laminectomy and hemisection model of TSCI. Development of a murine laminectomy and hemisection model of TSCI was achieved using protocols approved by the University of Rochester Committee for Animal Resources (IACUC). After the animal is anesthetized, a laminectomy is performed to remove thorax 11 lamina (a), then the dura is opened to expose the spinal cord (b), and, finally, a hemisection lesion is performed to generate a 2 mm defect in the right half side of the spinal cord (c). Postoperatire dorsal view (d) and lateral view (e) of micro-CT scans of the spine; 5x (f) and 20x (g) micrographs of H&E stained histology sections are presented to illustrate the vertebral bone and spinal cord defects that generated in this model, respectively.
2.2. Modified Aneurysm Clip Crash

Compared to other TSCI murine models, modified aneurysm clip could mimic an initial impact plus persisting compression. With a gradient clinical relevant compression that reminds the sparing of white matter tracts, this model can provide information about surviving tracts and residual motor function. However, it suffers from an ~10% mortality rate during the injury procedure, especially during laminectomy, due to excessive blood loss and incidence of anesthetic sensitivities. A longitudinal incision is made on the midline of the back to expose the superficial muscle layers and then bluntly dissect vertebrae attached muscle. A laminectomy is performed on the target vertebrae and part of pedicles with a pair of microscissors. An extradural path between the spinal cord and the vertebral body is created to pass the lower blade of modified aneurysm clip underneath the spinal cord and hook on its upper blade to make a ventral and dorsal compression [19, 20, 24].

2.3. Weight-Drop Contusion Technique

Fifty percent of human spinal cord injuries contain some white matter tissue that is spared, which contains uninjured axonal projections. Friedenstein and colleagues investigated the electrophysiological and morphological data from 85 patients and 27 adult rats that indicated the weight-drop contusion model in rat and demonstrated that this model can serve as an adequate animal model for the effects of new treatment strategies TSCI [25]. To produce the model, T10 laminectomies were performed. While the vertebral column was stabilized by Adson forceps, the impactor probe was positioned 2–4 mm above the spinal cord. An impact force of 150 kilodyne was delivered to the exposed spinal cord through the intact dura with an Infinite Horizons impactor to create a moderate severity contusion injury [26, 27].

2.4. Epidural Balloon Compression Injury

To produce precise quantities submaximal damage SCI, Vanický and colleagues modified a saline-filled Fogarty catheter subdural compression to epidural compression and could customized the gradient of injury [14, 28]. The brief procedures include a 2-French Fogarty arterial embolectomy catheter (Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Irvine, CA) that was inserted in the epidural space at the T10 level and moved rostrally for 2 metameric levels before being inflated with a 15 mL distilled water volume and left in place for 5 minutes. The balloon was then deflated and carefully removed. Skin and muscle were carefully closed in two layers. Histological cross-section of spinal cord has shown a correlated damage of white and gray matter significantly with gradient compression.

3. Current Advances in MSC-Based Therapies for TSCI and Fracture Repair and the Frontier of MSC Dual Differentiation

Since MSCs were first isolated by Friedenstein and colleagues in 1968 [25], the plastic-adherent bone marrow derived MSCs are typically characterized by their cell surface markers positive for Stro-1, CD29, CD73, CD90, CD105, CD166, and CD44 and negative for CD34, CD45, CD14, CD11b, CD19, CD79a, and HLA-DR [29]. The fate of these MSCs is known to be limited in serial passages due to the lack of alternative lengthening of telomeres (ALT), which results in telomeric DNA shortening at each cell division and eventually senescence [3032]. However, prior to its 10th passage, exogenous MSCs retain their stemness and proliferative capacity to facilitate bone repair such as fracture nonunion, osteogenesis imperfecta and hypophosphatasia [29, 3338].

Another important property of MSCs is that they can terminally differentiate into multiple lineages including osteoblasts, chondrocytes and myoblasts, fibroblasts, adipocytes, and oligodendrocytes [3946]. We and others have shown definitive MSC-mediated osteogenesis in murine models of fracture and structural allograft healing. Rashidi et al. compared MSCs with three nonosteogenic cell lines of HEK293, HeLa, and NTera and found that MSCs are uniquely capable of depositing mineral through an independent mechanism of established dexamethasone or bone morphogenetic protein signaling [47].

In contrast, experimental evidence formally demonstrating MSC neuronal differentiation remains controversial, in part because MSCs are derived from the mesoderm, while neurons are derived from the ectoderm. However, in support of the MSC-neuron differentiation theory, there are numerous publications showing that neuronal marker expression in MSCs can be induced following stimulation with epidermal growth factor (EGF) and basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) [4851]. Deng and collogues even reported that MSCs significantly increase expression of the astrocyte-specific glial fibrillary acidic protein spontaneously in the absent of cytoplasmic cyclic AMP, which is a neuronal specialized induction reagent [51].

Collectively, this evidence indicates that MSCs have dual differentiation capability. For clinical transplantation, the ideal administration mode of MSC transplantation is intravenous or intraoperative administration of an MSC pre-seeded biomaterial scaffolds. Clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of exogenous MSC therapy for bone repair have shown significant improvement of bone mineral density and linear bone growth in patients [3438]. In contrast, the efficacy of MSC-mediated neuronal recovery remains to be formally evaluated by functional assessments and histological confirmation. Thus, experiments in the murine model described here should be able to answer these important questions in the future.

Ethical Approval

The murine spinal cord injury model, euthanasia, perfusion, and Micro-CT scan were performed in accordance with NIH guidelines for animal use and were approved by the University of Rochester Committee for Animal Resources IACUC.

Authors’ Contribution

This paper was conducted in parts of murine spinal cord injury model surgery (Hai Liu), perfusion and tissue collection (Hai Liu, Chao Xie), data collection and primary paper writing (Hai Liu, Edward M. Schwarz, Chao Xie), and revision (Edward M. Schwarz, Chao Xie).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Sarah Mack for her assistance with the histology and Michael Thullen for technical assistance with micro-CT analyses. This work was supported by research Grants from the OREF/MTF, the National Institutes of Health (DE019902, AR054041, and AR061307), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 81260280), China Scholarship Council (201209110092). Dr. Hai Liu has received a Visiting Scholarship Award from China Scholarship Council (File no. 201209110092). Drs. Edward Schwarz and Chao Xie have received Grants from Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation (OREF/MTF), AO Trauma, and were supported by NIH PHS AR054041, AR056696, DE019902, and AR061307. Dr. Chao Xie has received Grant support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 81260280).

References

  1. Z. Tsimtsiou., K. S. Kalwant, and R. Jones., “Why do general practitioners apply to do an MSc in primary healthcare? A retrospective study,” Education for Primary Care, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 105–110, 2010. View at Scopus
  2. S. P. Bruder, N. Jaiswal, N. S. Ricalton, J. D. Mosca, K. H. Kraus, and S. Kadiyala, “Mesenchymal stem cells in osteobiology and applied bone regeneration,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, no. 355, pp. S247–S256, 1998. View at Scopus
  3. W. G. Liu, Z. Y. Wang, and Z. S. Huang, “Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells expressing the bFGF transgene promote axon regeneration and functional recovery after spinal cord injury in rats,” Neurological Research, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 686–693, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. S. P. Bruder, D. J. Fink, and A. I. Caplan, “Mesenchymal stem cells in bone development, bone repair, and skeletal regeneration therapy,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 283–294, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. S. P. Bruder, N. S. Ricalton, R. E. Boynton et al., “Mesenchymal stem cell surface antigen SB-10 corresponds to activated leukocyte cell adhesion molecule and is involved in osteogenic differentiation,” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 655–663, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. G. Muñoz-Elias, A. J. Marcus, T. M. Coyne, D. Woodbury, and I. B. Black, “Adult bone marrow stromal cells in the embryonic brain: engraftment, migration, differentiation, and long-term survival,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 24, no. 19, pp. 4585–4595, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. G. Muñoz-Elias, D. Woodbury, and I. B. Black, “Marrow stromal cells, mitosis, and neuronal differentiation: stem cell and precursor functions,” Stem Cells, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 437–448, 2003. View at Scopus
  8. D. Woodbury, K. Reynolds, and I. B. Black, “Adult bone marrow stromal stem cells express germline, ectodermal, endodermal, and mesodermal genes prior to neurogenesis,” Journal of Neuroscience Research, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 908–917, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. I. B. Black and D. Woodbury, “Adult rat and human bone marrow stromal stem cells differentiate into neurons,” Blood Cells, Molecules, and Diseases, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 632–636, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. P. H. Ashjian, A. S. Elbarbary, B. Edmonds et al., “In vitro differentiation of human processed lipoaspirate cells into early neural progenitors,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 111, no. 6, pp. 1922–1931, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. G. A. Moviglia, N. Blasetti, J. O. Zarate, and D. E. Pelayes, “In vitro differentiation of adult adipose mesenchymal stem cells into retinal progenitor cells,” Ophthalmic Research, vol. 48, supplement 1, pp. 1–5, 2012.
  12. P. Mohammad-Gharibani, T. Tiraihi, S. A. Mesbah-Namin, J. Arabkheradmand, and H. Kazemi, “Induction of bone marrow stromal cells into GABAergic neuronal phenotype using creatine as inducer,” Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, vol. 30, pp. 511–525, 2012.
  13. R. P. F. Salewski, E. Eftekharpour, and M. G. Fehlings, “Are induced pluripotent stem cells the future of cell-based regenerative therapies for spinal cord injury?” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 222, no. 3, pp. 515–521, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. I. Vanický, L. Urdzíková, K. Saganová, D. Čízková, and J. Gálik, “A simple and reproducible model of spinal cord injury induced by epidural balloon inflation in the rat,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1399–1407, 2001. View at Scopus
  15. J. Orendáčová, M. Maršala, D. Čížková et al., “Fos protein expression in sacral spinal cord in relation to early phase of cauda equina syndrome in dogs,” Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 413–419, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. D. Cizkova, I. Novotna, L. Slovinska et al., “Repetitive intrathecal catheter delivery of bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells improves functional recovery in a rat model of contusive spinal cord injury,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1951–1961, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. P. Black, R. S. Markowitz, and S. Keller, “Naloxone and experimental spinal cord injury—part 2: megadose treatment in a dynamic load injury model,” Neurosurgery, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 909–913, 1986. View at Scopus
  18. P. Black, R. S. Markowitz, and S. Keller, “Naloxone and experimental spinal cord injury—part 1: high dose administration of a static load compression model,” Neurosurgery, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 905–908, 1986. View at Scopus
  19. M. Joshi and M. G. Fehlings, “Development and characterization of a novel, graded model of clip compressive spinal cord injury in the mouse—part 1: clip design, behavioral outcomes, and histopathology,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 175–190, 2002. View at Scopus
  20. M. G. Fehlings and R. Nashmi, “A new model of acute compressive spinal cord injury in vitro,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 215–224, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. K. A. Dunham, A. Siriphorn, S. Chompoopong, and C. L. Floyd, “Characterization of a graded cervical hemicontusion spinal cord injury model in adult male rats,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 2091–2106, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. J. S. Choi, J. W. Leem, K. H. Lee et al., “Effects of human mesenchymal stem cell transplantation combined with polymer on functional recovery following spinal cord hemisection in rats,” Korean Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 405–411, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. E. Sykova, P. Jendelova, L. Urdzikova, P. Lesny, and A. Hejcl, “Bone marrow stem cells and polymer hydrogels—two strategies for spinal cord injury repair,” Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, vol. 26, no. 7-8, pp. 1113–1129, 2006.
  24. M. Joshi and M. G. Fehlings, “Development and characterization of a novel, graded model of clip compressive spinal cord injury in the mouse—part 2: quantitative neuroanatomical assessment and analysis of the relationships between axonal tracts, residual tissue, and locomotor recovery,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 191–203, 2002. View at Scopus
  25. A. J. Friedenstein, K. V. Petrakova, A. I. Kurolesova, and G. P. Frolova, “Heterotopic of bone marrow. Analysis of precursor cells for osteogenic and hematopoietic tissues,” Transplantation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 230–247, 1968. View at Scopus
  26. N. D. James, K. Bartus, J. Grist, D. L. H. Bennett, S. B. McMahon, and E. J. Bradbury, “Conduction failure following spinal cord injury: functional and anatomical changes from acute to chronic stages,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 31, no. 50, pp. 18543–18555, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. G. A. S. Metz, A. Curt, H. van de Meent, I. Klusman, M. E. Schwab, and V. Dietz, “Validation of the weight-drop contusion model in rats: a comparative study of human spinal cord injury,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2000. View at Scopus
  28. D. Martin, J. Schoenen, P. Delree et al., “Experimental acute traumatic injury of the adult rat spinal cord by a subdural inflatable balloon: methodology, behavioral analysis, and histopathology,” Journal of Neuroscience Research, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 539–550, 1992. View at Scopus
  29. A. H. Undale, J. J. Westendorf, M. J. Yaszemski, and S. Khosla, “Mesenchymal stem cells for bone repair and metabolic bone diseases,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 84, no. 10, pp. 893–902, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. Y. M. Zhao, J. Li, J. Lan et al., “Cell cycle dependent telomere regulation by telomerase in human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 369, no. 4, pp. 1114–1119, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. N. Serakinci, R. Christensen, J. Graakjaer et al., “Ectopically hTERT expressing adult human mesenchymal stem cells are less radiosensitive than their telomerase negative counterpart,” Experimental Cell Research, vol. 313, no. 5, pp. 1056–1067, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. J. Dahl, S. Duggal, N. Coulston et al., “Genetic and epigenetic instability of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells expanded in autologous seum or fatal bovine serum,” International Journal of Developmental Biology, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 1033–1042, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. C. Xie, D. Reynolds, H. Awad et al., “Structural bone allograft combined with genetically engineered mesenchymal stem cells as a novel platform for bone tissue engineering,” Tissue Engineering, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 435–445, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. R. Cancedda, M. Mastrogiacomo, G. Bianchi, A. Derubeis, A. Muraglia, and R. Quarto, “Bone marrow stromal cells and their use in regenerating bone,” Novartis Foundation Symposia, vol. 249, pp. 133–143, 2003.
  35. R. Quarto, M. Mastrogiacomo, R. Cancedda et al., “Repair of large bone defects with the use of autologous bone marrow stromal cells,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 344, no. 5, pp. 385–386, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. E. M. Horwitz, D. J. Prockop, P. L. Gordon et al., “Clinical responses to bone marrow transplantation in children with severe osteogenesis imperfecta,” Blood, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 1227–1231, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. E. M. Horwitz, D. J. Prockop, L. A. Fitzpatrick et al., “Transplantability and therapeutic effects of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal cells in children with osteogenesis imperfecta,” Nature Medicine, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 309–313, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. M. P. Whyte, J. Kurtzberg, W. H. McAlister et al., “Marrow cell transplantation for infantile hypophosphatasia,” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 624–636, 2003. View at Scopus
  39. N. L. Kennea, S. N. Waddington, J. Chan et al., “Differentiation of human fetal mesenchymal stem cells into cells with an oligodendrocyte phenotype,” Cell Cycle, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 1069–1079, 2009. View at Scopus
  40. M. Sato, K. Uchida, H. Nakajima et al., “Direct transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells into the knee joints of Hartley strain guinea pigs with spontaneous osteoarthritis,” Arthritis Research and Therapy, vol. 14, no. 1, article R31, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. T. L. Bonfield, M. T. Nolan, D. P. Lennon, and A. I. Caplan, “Defining human mesenchymal stem cell efficacy in vivo,” Journal of Inflammation, vol. 7, article 51, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. I. Aizman, M. McGrogan, and C. C. Case, “Quantitative microplate assay for studying mesenchymal stromal cell-induced neuropoiesis,” Stem Cells Translational Medicine, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 223–232, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  43. H. J. Park, J. Y. Shin, B. R. Lee, H. O. Kim, and P. H. Lee, “Mesenchymal stem cells augment neurogenesis in the subventricular zone and enhance differentiation of neural precursor cells into dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra of a parkinsonian model,” Cell Transplantation, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1629–1640, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  44. P. Duan, Y. Zhang, X. Han, J. Liu, W. Yan, and Y. Xing, “Effect of neuronal induction on NSE, Tau, and Oct4 promoter methylation in bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells,” In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology—Animal, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 251–258, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. A. V. Shakhbazau, N. V. Petyovka, S. M. Kosmacheva, and M. P. Potapnev, “Neurogenic induction of human mesenchymal stem cells in fibrin 3D matrix,” Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, vol. 150, no. 4, pp. 547–550, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. F. Cimadamore, K. Fishwick, E. Giusto et al., “Human ESC-derived neural crest model reveals a key role for SOX2 in sensory neurogenesis,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 538–551, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. H. Rashidi, S. Strohbuecker, L. Jackson et al., “Differences in the pattern and regulation of mineral deposition in human cell lines of osteogenic and non-osteogenic origin,” Cells Tissues Organs, vol. 195, no. 6, pp. 484–494, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. J. E. Nichols, J. A. Niles, D. Dewitt et al., “Neurogenic and neuro-protective potential of a novel subpopulation of peripheral blood-derived CD133+ ABCG2+CXCR4+ mesenchymal stem cells: development of autologous cell-based therapeutics for traumatic brain injury,” Stem Cell Research and Therapy, vol. 4, no. 1, article 3, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  49. B. Bhatia, H. Jayaram, S. Singhal, M. F. Jones, and G. A. Limb, “Differences between the neurogenic and proliferative abilities of Müller glia with stem cell characteristics and the ciliary epithelium from the adult human eye,” Experimental Eye Research, vol. 93, no. 6, pp. 852–861, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. Y. J. Chang, S. Hwang, C. Tseng et al., “Isolation of mesenchymal stem cells with neurogenic potential from the mesoderm of the amniotic membrane,” Cells Tissues Organs, vol. 192, no. 2, pp. 93–105, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. J. Deng, B. E. Petersen, D. A. Steindler, M. L. Jorgensen, and E. D. Laywell, “Mesenchymal stem cells spontaneously express neural proteins in culture and are neurogenic after transplantation,” Stem Cells, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1054–1064, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus