Endothelial Progenitor Cells for Ischemic Stroke: Update on Basic Research and Application

Liao, Shaohua; Luo, Chunxia; Cao, Bingzhen; Hu, Huaiqiang; Wang, Suxia; Yue, Huili; Chen, Lin; Zhou, Zhenhua

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2193432

Stem Cells International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusion Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Brain Injury and Stem Cells Replacement

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2017 | Article ID 2193432 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2193432

Endothelial Progenitor Cells for Ischemic Stroke: Update on Basic Research and Application

Shaohua Liao,^1,2Chunxia Luo,²Bingzhen Cao,³Huaiqiang Hu,³Suxia Wang,²Huili Yue,¹Lin Chen,²and Zhenhua Zhou²

Academic Editor: Yao Li

Received16 May 2017

Accepted03 Jul 2017

Published16 Aug 2017

Abstract

Ischemic stroke is one of the leading causes of human death and disability worldwide. So far, ultra-early thrombolytic therapy is the most effective treatment. However, most patients still live with varying degrees of neurological dysfunction due to its narrow therapeutic time window. It has been confirmed in many studies that endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), as a kind of adult stem cells, can protect the neurovascular unit by repairing the vascular endothelium and its secretory function, which contribute to the recovery of neurological function after an ischemic stroke. This paper reviews the basic researches and clinical trials of EPCs especially in the field of ischemic stroke and addresses the combination of EPC application with new technologies, including neurovascular intervention, synthetic particles, cytokines, and EPC modification, with the aim of shedding some light on the application of EPCs in treating ischemic stroke in the future.

1. Introduction

In the world, stroke is the second cause of death and the leading cause of adult disability [1]. It is also the fifth cause of death and the leading cause of disabilities among American adults [2], of which 87% is ischemic stroke [3]. Hospitalized patients with ischemic stroke in China have a 3.3–5.2% mortality rate and a 34.5–37.1% death/disability rate 3 months after onset [4–6]. In the pathological process of ischemic stroke, the blood supply is interrupted after cerebral vascular occlusion, together with energy failure, acidosis, excitatory amino acid release, intracellular calcium overload, and generation of free radicals, which eventually lead to brain parenchymal damages composed of necrosis, apoptosis, and autophagy [7–11]. However, the treatment of ischemic stroke is still very limited. Clinical trials on neuroprotective drugs have not been successful [12], and the only FDA-approved treatment of acute stroke is to apply t-PA within 4.5 hours after onset. The emerging intravenous rt-PA thrombolysis prior to intravascular therapy in recent years requires that the femoral artery puncture be performed 120–212.5 minutes after the onset of symptoms [13]. As such, there are only about 2%–5% of stroke patients who meet the criteria for intravenous t-PA with or without bridging therapy due to its narrow therapeutic time window [14, 15]. Most patients still live with varying degrees of neurological dysfunctions. Therefore, a new effective treatment is badly needed to change this situation.

EPCs are regarded as immature endothelial cells which circulate in the peripheral blood. In 1997, Asahara et al. [16] isolated CD34 and Flk1-positive mononuclear cells from the peripheral blood, and these cells were named EPCs because of endothelial cell characteristics in culture medium. It is now believed that EPCs are precursor cells of mature vascular endothelial cells, which belong to stem cell populations with self-renewal capacity that can differentiate into mature endothelial cells (ECs). EPCs are confirmed to insert into the endothelium of newly formed vessels in the ischemic area, which play an important role in the process of endothelial repair and angiogenesis after injury. Studies also verify that EPCs have the potency of secreting a variety of cytokines and growth factors, which provide nutritional and antiapoptotic support for the circulating and resident EPCs and other cells (ECs, cardiomyocytes, neurons, neural stem cells, and so forth). Circulating human EPCs injected into nude mice after transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (tMCAO) can protect the neurovascular unit and contribute considerably to the recovery of neurological function [17], which has made itself an important candidate for stem cell therapy. In this review, we discuss the current development of EPC research in ischemic cerebrovascular diseases. In the first section of this review, we describe the basic research in the field of EPCs, including the effect on blood vessels and secreting function of EPCs. In the second part, the clinical application of EPCs is introduced, specially emphasizing the combination of EPC application with new technologies. This review is ended with the consideration of the safety of EPC application, which needs to be carefully concerned in future clinical trials.

2. Basic Research

2.1. Dynamic Changes of EPCs under Pathophysiological Conditions

Under physiological conditions, a small poll of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in the bone marrow niche were differentiated and released into circulation, which are bone marrow-derived EPCs marked with KDR+, CD34+, and CD133+, and the level of EPCs in the peripheral circulation is low [18–20]. The supplementation of some food, such as onion peel, black raspberry, fish oil, and red wine, may be helpful in increasing the number of circulating EPCs [21–24]. Multiple factors (cytokines released by target tissue, growth factors, sex hormones, etc.) mobilize EPCs to migrate from the bone marrow stroma into the blood circulation. This process relies on the activation by endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS). Upregulation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) may mobilize EPCs to migrate into the blood circulation [25], and the release of EPCs from the bone marrow may also be promoted by upregulating granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) [26, 27]. EPC level and G-CSF level are elevated after acute myocardial infarction [28]. Parathyroid hormone (PTH) can also facilitate bone marrow stem cell (BMSCs) and/or progenitor cell release into circulation [29, 30]. Under hypoxic or inflammatory conditions, endothelial cells (ECs) can upregulate the expression of stromal cell-derived factor-1α (SDF-1α) [31] and interact with EPCs that highly express C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4) [32, 33], which not only promotes EPC mobilization from the bone marrow but also stimulates EPC recruitment and adherence to the ischemic regional vascular endothelium [20, 34, 35]. Nitric oxide (NO) and erythropoietin (EPO) are currently considered to be key factors for EPC mobilization. EPCs themselves can also promote the aggregation of more circulating EPCs by releasing VEGF and SDF-1α [36].

In the process of EPCs migrating to ischemic or damaged areas, CXCR4/SDF-1 plays an important role in directing EPCs to migrate to the damaged vascular endothelium [31, 37]. The binding of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and glycoprotein (gp80 or gp130) expressed by EPCs promotes the proliferation and migration of EPCs [38]. Some drugs, such as statins, can promote EPC migration and proliferation and reduce EPC apoptosis by activating the Akt/NOS pathway and upregulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) and MMP-9 expression [39], which enhance EPC function.

In the ischemic area, EPC homing to the damaged vessels is considered as an essential step in the interaction with ECs of many cytokines and their receptors. The interaction of P-selectin expressed by platelet and P-selectin glycoprotein ligand-1 (PSGL-1) expressed by EPCs plays a key role in the process of EPC adherence to neovascularization [40, 41]. In addition, the interaction of β1/β2 integrins with the ligands, intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), expressed in ischemic vessel endothelium, high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) and gpIIb-dependent platelet aggregates, and α4 integrins also participate in and promote EPC adhesion and homing [41–46].

The interaction of VEGF and EPCs is complicated and lies in many steps. In the process of dynamic change, VEGF is one of the critical factors and plays an essential role for EPCs. VEGF has effects on mobilization and migration of EPCs through the receptor KDR [47]. In hypoxia circumstance, HIF-1α is activated in the damaged tissue, which leads to increased levels of VEGF. Then, the VEGF prompts a migration of EPCs and hematopoietic cells [48], and the migratory effects have been documented by several studies [49, 50]. The protection of neurovascular unit of VEGF secreted by EPCs is illustrated in the “Secreting Function of EPCs” section.

For the dynamic changes in the function and number of EPCs under ischemic or inflammatory conditions [51], the use of microbeads and Q-dot-based nanoparticle is superior to conventional flow cytometry in analyzing the microvesicles released from EPCs. Other studies used Dex-DOTA-Gd3⁺ as a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agent to observe the survival period of transplanted EPCs in the rat hind limb ischemic model [52] or used DiI-Ac-LDL staining or ¹¹¹In-oxine radioactive markers to track transplanted EPCs [17, 53, 54]. These methods can be used to monitor or track EPCs transplanted in the body, providing evidence for EPC-based clinical or preclinical trials.

2.2. The Effect of EPCs on Blood Vessels

EPCs display three fundamental activities within the vascular systems, which include secretion, repairing endothelial damage, and formatting new blood vessels in ischemic tissues [18]. The secreting function of EPCs is mainly described in the next paragraph. In the process of atherosclerosis, focal arterial lesions contain cholesterol, fibrosis, and inflammatory cell infiltrates [55, 56], which substantially indicate the destruction of a balance between endothelial damage and repair. EPCs homing into the artery wall may assist to repair the endothelial injury [57], although the mechanisms involved are still unclear. In the ischemic or inflammation condition, the damaged tissue may release a variety of factors and induce the mobilization of EPCs from the bone marrow to the peripheral blood [58]. Bone marrow-derived EPCs can home to the neovascularization site, proliferating and differentiating into ECs [59, 60] and participating in angiogenesis. The transplanted EPCs may also appear in the newly formed vascular endothelium of the ischemic site, participating in postischemic angiogenesis [16, 61]. It has been demonstrated that MMP9 plays a key role in poststroke EPC-induced angiogenesis [62]. Some factors including VEGF, SDF-1, platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), and microparticles secreted by EPCs can stimulate tip and stalk cells [63], to promote angiogenesis and local EC proliferation and migration [64]. EPCs can also differentiate into ECs, replacing or directly integrating with the damaged endothelial layer [65–68] to repair the vascular endothelium. However, it is also argued that circulating EPCs may not directly replenish ECs, but activate resident ECs [69] by secreting VEGF, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and other factors, or releasing microvesicles from the cell membrane to transmit mRNA to ECs that promote EC proliferation, form microtubules, and reduce apoptosis [70]. EPCs also contribute to the recovery of vascular ECs by secreting exosomes, a nanoscale vesicle encapsulated by lipid membrane structures [71]. This new approach may play a dominant role in the working mechanism of EPCs.

2.3. Secreting Function of EPCs

The neurovascular unit is a complex network of interactions, including neurons, astrocytes, microglias, microvascular ECs, and pericytes [72]. EPCs interact with the neurovascular unit by secreting multiple factors [36, 73–75]. Moreover, EPCs secrete SDF-1α and VEGF, creating a microenvironment for neuronal survival and regeneration [76, 77].

Further studies have shown that EPCs secrete multiple growth factors such as VEGF, SDF-1α, and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which can not only recruit more circulating EPCs and maintain their survival but also protect the existing collateral circulation and neurovascular unit [78]. VEGF may also promote angiogenesis and stimulate the proliferation and migration of new neurons [79].

Wang et al. [80] confirmed that cocultured EPCs and neural progenitor cells (NPCs) may secrete VEGF and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and provide synergistic protection through activating the PI3K/Akt pathway and minimizing cerebral vascular EC ischemia/reperfusion injury. It has also been found that intravenous combined transplantation of bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs) and EPCs contributes to the recovery of neurological function in the rat cerebral ischemia model, which may be achieved by high expression of basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), BDNF, and VEGF [81] and may be associated with the eNOS/BDNF pathway [82].

In short, complex interactions between EPCs and the neurovascular unit take place in the ischemic area. In the progress, EPCs and the factors they secrete jointly contribute to poststroke angiogenesis and neurogenesis, reconstructing the functions and structures of vascular and neural networks, which promote the recovery of neurological function after ischemic stroke [78] (Figure 1).

Figure 1

EPCs interact with the neurovascular unit. In the early stage (within 24 to 48 hours), EPCs provide nutritional support for glial cells and reduce neuronal apoptosis through secreting cytokines; during the acute phase (within 1 week), EPCs repair the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and reduce cerebral edema by replacing and repairing the vascular endothelium or promoting the proliferation and migration of resident ECs, thereby reducing nerve cell injury in the ischemic penumbra; in the late acute phase (after 1 week), EPCs recover and reconstruct the neurological functions of nerve cells in the necrotic region by promoting angiogenesis, blood supply, and proliferation and migration of neuroblasts. The figure partly refer to Li et al. [63].

3. Application

3.1. Clinical Trial

Clinical trials for EPCs used as a marker of prognosis or transplanting therapies have been or are being carried out, primarily targeting the limbs and the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular ischemia. The number of EPCs can be used as a marker of endothelial dysfunction in cardiovascular diseases [83–85]. In the case of acute coronary events or myocardial infarction, the growing number of EPCs indicates that EPC-mediated repair is a physiological response to severe cardiovascular events [86–88]. In the observation of 122 patients with coronary heart disease and normal control group, the number of circulating EPCs was significantly decreased in patients with coronary heart disease [89–91]. Adams et al. verify that mobilization of lin-2/Sca-1+/c/kit + cells into the peripheral blood could be motivated in a long-term treatment of PTH followed by G-CSF administration in mice [92]. PTH treatment mobilizes endothelial stem cells (ESCs)/EPCs from the bone marrow into the peripheral blood in mice of MCAO, which enhances tissue repair and function recovery and reduces adverse immune response [93]. Some trials applied patients’ own EPCs mobilized and recruited by G-CSF [94] to the site of myocardial infarction; some used EPCs from the bone marrow in the coronary artery of patients with myocardial infarction [95–97] and successfully recovered the function of the left ventricle; some have started the second phase trials [98–100]; and some trials conducted direct endocardial injection of unfractionated bone marrow cells [101] or injection of mononuclear cells from patients’ own bone marrow in critical limb ischemia [102], both of which have improved ischemic symptoms.

It has been proven that the level of circulating EPCs is an independent predictor of the prognosis of patients with acute ischemic stroke [103]. High levels of EPCs in these patients indicate that the infarct volume is smaller and less likely to develop, which may be a marker for the severity of acute stroke [104]. Clinical observational trials have shown that the number of circulating EPCs significantly decreased in patients with cerebrovascular disease than control subjects [105], and the absence of circulating EPCs is associated with increased risk of future vascular events, but not indicating recurrence of stroke [106]. In the ten cases of acute middle cerebral artery infarction, it has been proven to be viable and safe to conduct intravenous injection of patients’ own mononuclear cells within 72 hours after onset [107]. Several studies have been conducted or are still undergoing, but with no available results reported, with the purpose of assessing the safety and efficacy of autologous stem cell administration to treat ischemic stroke. Most clinical trials are focusing on bone marrow- or adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal cell transplantation (NCT02378974; NCT01091701; NCT01461720; NCT01678534; NCT01716481; NCT01922908; NCT01297413; NCT00875654; NCT02580019;NCT01714167; NCT02580019; NCT01714167; NCT02580019; and NCT02564328). The remaining studies use peripheral blood- or umbilical cord blood-derived hematopoietic stem cells intracerebrally or infused into the middle cerebral artery of patients (NCT01518231; NCT01249287; NCT00761982; NCT01438593; and NCT00950521) [108]. In this review, we have also queried clinical trials of EPC application in ischemic stroke in ClinicalTrials.gov (Table 1), which have no available results reported.

3.2. Time and Methods in Clinical Application

Due to continuous changes in the microenvironment of the stroke site, the timing of stem cell transplantation is a factor that must be considered. However, current animal and clinical trials have not identified a perfect timing for transplantation. Transplantation within 24 hours of stroke has been partially demonstrated to have neuroprotective effects [109, 110]. In some trials, neural stem cell (NSCs) transplantation was used to treat stroke, and it was found that when the transplantation was conducted on the second day after onset, the number of surviving cells was greater compared with the transplantation done in the sixth week [111]. Taking into account the excitotoxicity, brain edema, inflammatory response, and the expression of nutritional factors and other factors, most researchers believe that 7 days after the onset of stroke is a better time for transplantation, because at this time the brain microenvironment has entered the stage of promoting regeneration [112].

Stem cells can be transplanted in the following ways: intracerebral or intracerebroventricular injection, intravascular infusion, and intranasal delivery [113]. Transplanted stem cells may appear in the damaged core and surrounding areas [114]. Different transplantation methods will affect the cell migration, distribution, and number of cells in the target area [115]. In addition, it is also necessary to take into account the type of disease, the dose of transplanted cells, and the timing of transplantation [113]. In the clinical trial in ischemic stroke, intravascular infusion of EPCs, especially super selective injecting into the ischemic area, maybe a feasible and effective approach.

3.3. Combination of EPCs and New Technologies

3.3.1. Combination of EPCs and Neurovascular Intervention

The experiment of using EPCs to be implanted on several different scaffolds to form microvascular networks [116] or using stents of collagen-coupled CD34 antibody seeded with EPCs transfected with the A20 gene [117] has become a very promising approach. Blindt et al. has designed an EPC-capturing stent, instead of an EPC-covering stent [118], and a short-term result using such a stent is feasible and effective in a clinical trial [119–121], which is helpful to lead to further development of tissue-engineered stent. Another approach is to design clinical trials, in which intra-arterial EPC perfusion is conducted before or after the intravenous t-PA with mechanical thrombectomy bridging therapy or stent implantation in the intracranial and extracranial artery, so that a high concentration of EPCs is formed; then observe the indicators of postoperative brain edema, vascular reendothelialization, postoperative restenosis rate, and neurological function recovery, so as to find out whether the combination of EPCs transplantation and neurovascular intervention technology is better in protecting the neurovascular unit. In the process, patients of the selective operation implant stent in the intracranial and extracranial artery, and EPCs from the periphery blood or bone marrow are perfused through a hyperselective catheter during the operation. The cell number for implantation is referred to the paper [122, 123]: 20 × 10⁶ or 3 × 10⁶. The clinical trial is not perfect and the detail is not completed now. With the rapid development of neurovascular intervention, the combined application may be a direct and effective way to utilize EPCs and also overcome side effects of the stent treatment and provide expansive prospect in clinical therapy in ischemic stroke.

3.3.2. Combined Transplantation of EPCs and Cytokines

The combined transplantation of FGF-2/PDGF-BB and EPCs has been proven to promote EPC migration [124]. SDF-1α and VEGF alone decreased apoptosis, and they may play synergistic role in promoting cell survival and the angiogenesis of EPCs [125]. There is also a study in combined therapy of FGF-2 and G-CSF with EPCs to improve the angiogenic effect in mouse hind limb ischemia models [126]. In the poststroke local acidic environment (pH 6.5), the biological activity of EPCs is impaired, and TPO, stem cell factor (SCF), and IL-3 each could reduce the exposure of EPCs to acid-induced apoptosis. The combined transplantation of the three factors and EPCs can stimulate EPC proliferation and reduce apoptosis, which may be a better choice for vascular endothelial repair and angiogenesis [125]. In the future, growth factor analogues that are more stable in low pH condition may provide better therapeutic strategies with combined transplantation of EPCs.

3.3.3. Combination of EPCs and Synthetic Particles

A nanoparticle is an ideal carrier whose shape, size, surface charge, composition, and coating can be highly customized. It can also protect its carriers and may be released in a controlled manner [127–130]. Nanoparticles can be implanted in molecules, such as VEGF, FGF-2, transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β), G-CSF, and PDGF [108], that promote EPC function and coated the surface with the amino acid sequence LQNAPRS, which has recently been shown to recognize CD133 [131] and anti-CD34 antibodies that are used to recognize EPC [132], which is a type of nanoparticle that contributes to EPC survival and promote angiogenesis. Experiments were carried out using a synthetic pH-sensitive polymer (urethane spherical sulfamethazine) to load SDF-1α and release it in the local acidic environment of the cerebral infarction [133]; other experiments used computer to redesign SDF peptide analogues, which would more effectively induce EPC migration [134] and enhance neurogenesis and angiogenesis. This process may be related to SDF-1α/CXCR4 interaction and recruitment of more EPCs, MSCs, and NSCs.

3.3.4. EPC Modification and Pretreatment

To enhance the therapeutic effect, EPCs can also be used for its modification, mainly gene transduction. Experiments have been conducted to use transduced EPCs to overexpress CXCR4, VEGF, IGF-1, hypoxia-inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), eNOS, and other genes, and the transplantation has achieved positive results [135–138]. Other studies used virus-transduced EPCs to overexpress VEGF, which enhanced EPC proliferation and promoted angiogenesis [139]. Compared with conventional EPCs, using EPCs to overexpress anticoagulant and vascular protection genes more effectively reduce pathological vascular remodeling [140, 141]. Due to the fact that stem cells can secret a variety of factors, it is also possible to overexpress antiapoptotic or angiogenic factors through gene manipulation before transplantation, such as kit ligands, VEGF, and FGF2 [142–144]. These gene modification strategies are likely to enhance the therapeutic effect of EPCs [145]. Another method of enhancing the function of EPCs is ischemic preconditioning, which can increase the expression of VEGFR2 on EPCs, thereby promoting the angiogenic effect of EPCs after application [146]. Other preconditioning triggers have been tried out in stem cells or progenitor cells including hypoxia, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and some cytokines and pharmacological agents. The preconditioned stem/progenitor cells show enhanced paracrine effects and better cell survival, which promote functional recovery much better [147]. Alternative test of EPCs is to coincubate with SDF-1α, which has also promoted angiogenesis in the limb ischemia models [148] (Table 2). These studies suggest that enhancing the EPC function through modification techniques and pretreatment may have a greater advantage in the treatment of ischemic stroke.

3.4. Safety

The safety and potential risks of EPC transplantation are also validated in some studies. The impact of EPC effect on formation and progression of atherosclerotic plaques still remains controversial [149], which may be involved with a more accurate phenotypic characterization of EPCs [145]. It has been found that bone marrow-derived EPCs are associated with early angiogenesis in tumors, and in later tumors, these neovessels are diluted by vessels from the periphery [150], which indicate that EPCs are involved in the earliest phases of tumor angiogenesis and therefore EPCs transplantation should not be applied to tumor patients [78]. EPCs may also increase ischemia-induced inflammatory factors, including IL8, monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1), and recruit mononuclear-macrophages, thereby aggravating ischemic injury [53, 151, 152]. After EPC transplantation, the connection between nascent capillary endothelial cells is not tight enough and the permeability is high, which may aggravate brain edema [153] and increase the risk of bleeding. EPCs and paracrine VEGF promote angiogenesis, which may lead to uncontrolled growth of local capillaries, developing into hemangioma or capillary groups. Other possible side effects include epilepsy, direct injection-induced injury, and transplantation failure caused by allotransplantation-induced immune responses [154, 155]. In the current clinical trials, there are some limitations which include lack of appropriate controls, randomization, blinding, and a small number of patients followed up for short periods [145]. However, transplantation of EPCs in patients with acute myocardial infarction did not affect plasma C-reactive protein and leukocyte levels [96] and did not lead to tumor angiogenesis in the 5-year follow-up [99]. More experimental animal studies of EPC-based therapy, especially in ischemic cerebrovascular disease, and systemic designed clinical trials should be carried out to interpret the safety issues of EPC application in the future.

4. Conclusion

As a kind of adult stem cells, EPCs’ biological characteristics have been determined to repair BBB, improve microcirculation, reduce neuronal apoptosis, and promote the proliferation and migration of neural stem cells through replacing and repairing vascular endothelial cells, promoting angiogenesis, and secreting cytokines and growth factors, which have enabled it to protect the neurological vascular unit. The combination of EPC transplantation with neurovascular intervention, synthetic particles, gene modification, and other technologies will further enhance the therapeutic effect of EPCs and play a more significant role in the treatment of ischemic stroke. There may be a promising approach of EPC application although some safety issues need to be solved.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no competing interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 81471194), the Clinical Innovation Foundation of Third Military Medical University (no. SWH2013LC18), and the Clinical Novel Technology Program of Military Medicine and Injury Treatment of Southwest Hospital (no. 2016).

References

M. Gutierrez-Fernandez, L. Otero-Ortega, J. Ramos-Cejudo, B. Rodríguez-Frutos, B. Fuentes, and E. Díez-Tejedor, “Adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells as a strategy to improve recovery after stroke,” Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 873–881, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Mozaffarian, E. J. Benjamin, A. S. Go et al., “Heart disease and stroke statistics—2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association,” Circulation, vol. 131, no. 4, pp. e29–e322, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Wei, Z. Z. Wei, M. Q. Jiang, O. Mohamad, and S. P. Yu, “Stem cell transplantation therapy for multifaceted therapeutic benefits after stroke,” Progress in Neurobiology, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. M. Chen, R. Collins, L. S. Liu, H. C. Pan, R. Peto, and J. X. Xie, “CAST: randomised placebo-controlled trial of early aspirin use in 20,000 patients with acute ischaemic stroke. CAST (Chinese Acute Stroke Trial) Collaborative Group,” Lancet, vol. 349, no. 9066, pp. 1641–1649, 1997.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. Wang, J. Li, C. Wang et al., “Gender differences in 1-year clinical characteristics and outcomes after stroke: results from the China National Stroke Registry,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 2, article e56459, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. L. Hao, M. Liu, W. Li et al., “Basic characteristics and functional outcomes of 3123 consecutive patients in Chengdu stroke registry,” Chinese Journal of Neurology, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 826–831, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Durukan and T. Tatlisumak, “Acute ischemic stroke: overview of major experimental rodent models, pathophysiology, and therapy of focal cerebral ischemia,” Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 179–197, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. L. Li, S. P. Yu, D. Chen et al., “The regulatory role of NF-kappaB in autophagy-like cell death after focal cerebral ischemia in mice,” Neuroscience, vol. 244, pp. 16–30, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Puyal, V. Ginet, and P. G. Clarke, “Multiple interacting cell death mechanisms in the mediation of excitotoxicity and ischemic brain damage: a challenge for neuroprotection,” Progress in Neurobiology, vol. 105, pp. 24–48, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Wei, D. J. Ying, L. Cui, J. Langsdorf, and S. P. Yu, “Necrosis, apoptosis and hybrid death in the cortex and thalamus after barrel cortex ischemia in rats,” Brain Research, vol. 1022, no. 1-2, pp. 54–61, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Y. Xiao, L. Wei, S. Xia, S. Rothman, and S. P. Yu, “Ionic mechanism of ouabain-induced concurrent apoptosis and necrosis in individual cultured cortical neurons,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1350–1362, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Hoyte, J. Kaur, and A. M. Buchan, “Lost in translation: taking neuroprotection from animal models to clinical trials,” Experimental Neurology, vol. 188, no. 2, pp. 200–204, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. L. Maier, D. Behme, M. Schnieder et al., “Bridging-therapy with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator improves functional outcome in patients with endovascular treatment in acute stroke,” Journal of the Neurological Sciences, vol. 372, pp. 300–304, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Wahlgren, N. Ahmed, A. Davalos et al., “Thrombolysis with alteplase 3-4. 5 h after acute ischaemic stroke (SITS-ISTR): an observational study,” Lancet, vol. 372, no. 9646, pp. 1303–1309, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. C. Fonarow, E. E. Smith, J. L. Saver et al., “Timeliness of tissue-type plasminogen activator therapy in acute ischemic stroke: patient characteristics, hospital factors, and outcomes associated with door-to-needle times within 60 minutes,” Circulation, vol. 123, no. 7, pp. 750–758, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Asahara, T. Murohara, A. Sullivan et al., “Isolation of putative progenitor endothelial cells for angiogenesis,” Science, vol. 275, no. 5302, pp. 964–967, 1997.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Fan, F. Shen, T. Frenzel et al., “Endothelial progenitor cell transplantation improves long-term stroke outcome in mice,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 488–497, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Du, J. Zhou, X. H. Ren Gong et al., “Endothelial progenitor cells in atherosclerosis,” Frontiers in Bioscience (Landmark Ed), vol. 17, pp. 2327–2349, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Lapidot and I. Petit, “Current understanding of stem cell mobilization: the roles of chemokines, proteolytic enzymes, adhesion molecules, cytokines, and stromal cells,” Experimental Hematology, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 973–981, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Lapidot, A. Dar, and O. Kollet, “How do stem cells find their way home?” Blood, vol. 106, no. 6, pp. 1901–1910, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Y. Choi, H. Lee, J. S. Woo et al., “Effect of onion peel extract on endothelial function and endothelial progenitor cells in overweight and obese individuals,” Nutrition, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1131–1135, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. S. Jeong, S. Kim, S. J. Hong et al., “Black raspberry extract increased circulating endothelial progenitor cells and improved arterial stiffness in patients with metabolic syndrome: a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Medicinal Food, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 346–352, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Y. Wu, J. Mayneris-Perxachs, J. A. Lovegrove, S. Todd, and P. Yaqoob, “Fish-oil supplementation alters numbers of circulating endothelial progenitor cells and microparticles independently of eNOS genotype,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 1232–1243, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. H. Huang, Y. H. Chen, H. Y. Tsai et al., “Intake of red wine increases the number and functional capacity of circulating endothelial progenitor cells by enhancing nitric oxide bioavailability,” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 869–877, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Gill, S. Dias, K. Hattori et al., “Vascular trauma induces rapid but transient mobilization of VEGFR2(+)AC133(+) endothelial precursor cells,” Circulation Research, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 167–174, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Bautz, S. Rafii, L. Kanz, and R. Möhle, “Expression and secretion of vascular endothelial growth factor-A by cytokine-stimulated hematopoietic progenitor cells. Possible role in the hematopoietic microenvironment,” Experimental Hematology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 700–706, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
T. M. Powell, J. D. Paul, J. M. Hill et al., “Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor mobilizes functional endothelial progenitor cells in patients with coronary artery disease,” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 296–301, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Roberts, Q. Xiao, G. Weir, Q. Xu, and M. Jahangiri, “Endothelial progenitor cells are mobilized after cardiac surgery,” The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 598–605, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
R. M. Lemoli and A. D’Addio, “Hematopoietic stem cell mobilization,” Haematologica, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 321–324, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Bensinger, J. F. DiPersio, and J. M. McCarty, “Improving stem cell mobilization strategies: future directions,” Bone Marrow Transplantation, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 181–195, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Ceradini, A. R. Kulkarni, M. J. Callaghan et al., “Progenitor cell trafficking is regulated by hypoxic gradients through HIF-1 induction of SDF-1,” Nature Medicine, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 858–864, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. H. Walter, J. Haendeler, J. Reinhold et al., “Impaired CXCR4 signaling contributes to the reduced neovascularization capacity of endothelial progenitor cells from patients with coronary artery disease,” Circulation Research, vol. 97, no. 11, pp. 1142–1151, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Asahara and J. M. Isner, “Endothelial progenitor cells for vascular regeneration,” Journal of Hematotherapy & Stem Cell Research, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 171–178, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Aicher, C. Heeschen, C. Mildner-Rihm et al., “Essential role of endothelial nitric oxide synthase for mobilization of stem and progenitor cells,” Nature Medicine, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 1370–1376, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
A. T. Askari, S. Unzek, Z. B. Popovic et al., “Effect of stromal-cell-derived factor 1 on stem-cell homing and tissue regeneration in ischaemic cardiomyopathy,” Lancet, vol. 362, no. 9385, pp. 697–703, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Urbich, A. Aicher, C. Heeschen et al., “Soluble factors released by endothelial progenitor cells promote migration of endothelial cells and cardiac resident progenitor cells,” Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 733–742, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Lapidot, “Mechanism of human stem cell migration and repopulation of NOD/SCID and B2mnull NOD/SCID mice. The role of SDF-1/CXCR4 interactions,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 938, pp. 83–95, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Fan, J. Ye, F. Shen et al., “Interleukin-6 stimulates circulating blood-derived endothelial progenitor cell angiogenesis in vitro,” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 90–98, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Shao, Y. Tan, D. Eton et al., “Statin and stromal cell-derived factor-1 additively promote angiogenesis by enhancement of progenitor cells incorporation into new vessels,” Stem Cells, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1376–1384, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Chen and J. A. Lopez, “Interactions of platelets with subendothelium and endothelium,” Microcirculation, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 235–246, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Massberg, I. Konrad, K. Schurzinger et al., “Platelets secrete stromal cell-derived factor 1alpha and recruit bone marrow-derived progenitor cells to arterial thrombi in vivo,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 203, no. 5, pp. 1221–1233, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Chavakis, A. Hain, M. Vinci et al., “High-mobility group box 1 activates integrin-dependent homing of endothelial progenitor cells,” Circulation Research, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 204–212, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Chavakis, A. Aicher, C. Heeschen et al., “Role of beta2-integrins for homing and neovascularization capacity of endothelial progenitor cells,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 201, no. 1, pp. 63–72, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Bombeli, B. R. Schwartz, and J. M. Harlan, “Adhesion of activated platelets to endothelial cells: evidence for a GPIIbIIIa-dependent bridging mechanism and novel roles for endothelial intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), alphavbeta3 integrin, and GPIbalpha,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 187, no. 3, pp. 329–339, 1998.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Jin, A. Aiyer, J. Su et al., “A homing mechanism for bone marrow-derived progenitor cell recruitment to the neovasculature,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 652–662, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Qin, M. Ii, M. Silver et al., “Functional disruption of alpha4 integrin mobilizes bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitors and augments ischemic neovascularization,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 203, no. 1, pp. 153–163, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Asahara, T. Takahashi, H. Masuda et al., “VEGF contributes to postnatal neovascularization by mobilizing bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 18, no. 14, pp. 3964–3972, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Dery, M. D. Michaud, and D. E. Richard, “Hypoxia-inducible factor 1: regulation by hypoxic and non-hypoxic activators,” The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 535–540, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Groger, A. Piatkowski, G. Grieb, T. P. Wolter, P. C. Fuchs, and N. Pallua, “The mobilisation of mononuclear cells and endothelial progenitor cells after burn injury in a porcine model,” Burns, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 545–551, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. H. Langenberg, M. W. Nijkamp, J. M. Roodhart et al., “Liver surgery induces an immediate mobilization of progenitor cells in liver cancer patients: a potential role for G-CSF,” Cancer Biology & Therapy, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 743–748, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Wang, Y. Zhong, X. Ma et al., “Analyses of endothelial cells and endothelial progenitor cells released microvesicles by using microbead and Q-dot based nanoparticle tracking analysis,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, article 24679, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. A. Agudelo, Y. Tachibana, A. F. Hurtado, T. Ose, H. Iida, and T. Yamaoka, “The use of magnetic resonance cell tracking to monitor endothelial progenitor cells in a rat hind limb ischemic model,” Biomaterials, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 2439–2448, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Moubarik, B. Guillet, B. Youssef et al., “Transplanted late outgrowth endothelial progenitor cells as cell therapy product for stroke,” Stem Cell Reviews, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 208–220, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Aicher, W. Brenner, M. Zuhayra et al., “Assessment of the tissue distribution of transplanted human endothelial progenitor cells by radioactive labeling,” Circulation, vol. 107, no. 16, pp. 2134–2139, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Zhou, A. Nicoletti, R. Elhage, and G. K. Hansson, “Transfer of CD4(+) T cells aggravates atherosclerosis in immunodeficient apolipoprotein E knockout mice,” Circulation, vol. 102, no. 24, pp. 2919–2922, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Jonasson, J. Holm, O. Skalli, G. Bondjers, and G. K. Hansson, “Regional accumulations of T cells, macrophages, and smooth muscle cells in the human atherosclerotic plaque,” Arteriosclerosis, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 131–138, 1986.
View at: Google Scholar
Q. Xu, “The impact of progenitor cells in atherosclerosis,” Nature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 94–101, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Jujo, M. Ii, and D. W. Losordo, “Endothelial progenitor cells in neovascularization of infarcted myocardium,” Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 530–544, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Masuda and T. Asahara, “Post-natal endothelial progenitor cells for neovascularization in tissue regeneration,” Cardiovascular Research, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 390–398, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
Q. Shi, S. Rafii, M. H. Wu et al., “Evidence for circulating bone marrow-derived endothelial cells,” Blood, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 362–367, 1998.
View at: Google Scholar
C. H. Hu, Z. M. Li, Z. M. Du et al., “Expanded human cord blood-derived endothelial progenitor cells salvage infarcted myocardium in rats with acute myocardial infarction,” Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology & Physiology, vol. 37, no. 5-6, pp. 551–556, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Morancho, F. Ma, V. Barcelo, D. Giralt, J. Montaner, and A. Rosell, “Impaired vascular remodeling after endothelial progenitor cell transplantation in MMP9-deficient mice suffering cortical cerebral ischemia,” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1547–1551, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. F. Li, L. N. Ren, G. Guo et al., “Endothelial progenitor cells in ischemic stroke: an exploration from hypothesis to therapy,” Journal of Hematology & Oncology, vol. 8, p. 33, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Dai, M. Ashraf, S. Zuo et al., “Mobilized bone marrow progenitor cells serve as donors of cytoprotective genes for cardiac repair,” Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 607–617, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. A. Ingram, L. E. Mead, D. B. Moore, W. Woodard, A. Fenoglio, and M. C. Yoder, “Vessel wall-derived endothelial cells rapidly proliferate because they contain a complete hierarchy of endothelial progenitor cells,” Blood, vol. 105, no. 7, pp. 2783–2786, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. D. Kelly, S. F. Hackett, K. Hirota et al., “Cell type-specific regulation of angiogenic growth factor gene expression and induction of angiogenesis in nonischemic tissue by a constitutively active form of hypoxia-inducible factor 1,” Circulation Research, vol. 93, no. 11, pp. 1074–1081, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Schmidt-Lucke, L. Rossig, S. Fichtlscherer et al., “Reduced number of circulating endothelial progenitor cells predicts future cardiovascular events: proof of concept for the clinical importance of endogenous vascular repair,” Circulation, vol. 111, no. 22, pp. 2981–2987, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Hill, G. Zalos, J. P. Halcox et al., “Circulating endothelial progenitor cells, vascular function, and cardiovascular risk,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 348, no. 7, pp. 593–600, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Rehman, J. Li, C. M. Orschell, and K. L. March, “Peripheral blood “endothelial progenitor cells” are derived from monocyte/macrophages and secrete angiogenic growth factors,” Circulation, vol. 107, no. 8, pp. 1164–1169, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
M. C. Deregibus, V. Cantaluppi, R. Calogero et al., “Endothelial progenitor cell derived microvesicles activate an angiogenic program in endothelial cells by a horizontal transfer of mRNA,” Blood, vol. 110, no. 7, pp. 2440–2448, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
X. Li, C. Jiang, and J. Zhao, “Human endothelial progenitor cells-derived exosomes accelerate cutaneous wound healing in diabetic rats by promoting endothelial function,” Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 986–992, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. H. Lo and G. A. Rosenberg, “The neurovascular unit in health and disease: introduction,” Stroke, vol. 40, Supplement 3, pp. S2–S3, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Rosell, A. Morancho, M. Navarro-Sobrino et al., “Factors secreted by endothelial progenitor cells enhance neurorepair responses after cerebral ischemia in mice,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 9, article e73244, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Di Santo, S. Seiler, A. L. Fuchs, J. Staudigl, and H. R. Widmer, “The secretome of endothelial progenitor cells promotes brain endothelial cell activity through PI3-kinase and MAP-kinase,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 4, article e95731, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Navarro-Sobrino, M. Hernandez-Guillamon, I. Fernandez-Cadenas et al., “The angiogenic gene profile of circulating endothelial progenitor cells from ischemic stroke patients,” Vascular Cell, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 3, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Imitola, K. Raddassi, K. I. Park et al., “Directed migration of neural stem cells to sites of CNS injury by the stromal cell-derived factor 1alpha/CXC chemokine receptor 4 pathway,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 101, no. 52, pp. 18117–18122, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Schanzer, F. P. Wachs, D. Wilhelm et al., “Direct stimulation of adult neural stem cells in vitro and neurogenesis in vivo by vascular endothelial growth factor,” Brain Pathology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 237–248, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. H. Zhao, B. Yuan, J. Chen et al., “Endothelial progenitor cells: therapeutic perspective for ischemic stroke,” CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 67–75, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. M. Hansen, A. J. Moss, and N. P. Brindle, “Vascular endothelial growth factor and angiopoietins in neurovascular regeneration and protection following stroke,” Current Neurovascular Research, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 236–245, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Wang, Y. Chen, Y. Yang et al., “Endothelial progenitor cells and neural progenitor cells synergistically protect cerebral endothelial cells from hypoxia/reoxygenation-induced injury via activating the PI3K/Akt pathway,” Molecular Brain, vol. 9, p. 12, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Y. He, Z. Z. Chen, Y. Q. Cai et al., “Expression of cytokines in rat brain with focal cerebral ischemia after grafting with bone marrow stromal cells and endothelial progenitor cells,” Cytotherapy, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 46–53, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Y. Bai, X. G. Peng, L. S. Wang et al., “Bone marrow endothelial progenitor cell transplantation after ischemic stroke: an investigation into its possible mechanism,” CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 877–886, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Vasa, S. Fichtlscherer, A. Aicher et al., “Number and migratory activity of circulating endothelial progenitor cells inversely correlate with risk factors for coronary artery disease,” Circulation Research, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. E1–E7, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Kalka, H. Masuda, T. Takahashi et al., “Transplantation of ex vivo expanded endothelial progenitor cells for therapeutic neovascularization,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 97, no. 7, pp. 3422–3427, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Shintani, T. Murohara, H. Ikeda et al., “Mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells in patients with acute myocardial infarction,” Circulation, vol. 103, no. 23, pp. 2776–2779, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
A. M. Leone, S. Rutella, G. Bonanno et al., “Mobilization of bone marrow-derived stem cells after myocardial infarction and left ventricular function,” European Heart Journal, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 1196–1204, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Wojakowski, M. Tendera, A. Michalowska et al., “Mobilization of CD34/CXCR4+, CD34/CD117+, c-met+ stem cells, and mononuclear cells expressing early cardiac, muscle, and endothelial markers into peripheral blood in patients with acute myocardial infarction,” Circulation, vol. 110, no. 20, pp. 3213–3220, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Massa, V. Rosti, M. Ferrario et al., “Increased circulating hematopoietic and endothelial progenitor cells in the early phase of acute myocardial infarction,” Blood, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 199–206, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. He, L. A. Smith, S. Harrington, K. A. Nath, N. M. Caplice, and Z. S. Katusic, “Transplantation of circulating endothelial progenitor cells restores endothelial function of denuded rabbit carotid arteries,” Stroke, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 2378–2384, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Vasa, S. Fichtlscherer, K. Adler et al., “Increase in circulating endothelial progenitor cells by statin therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease,” Circulation, vol. 103, no. 24, pp. 2885–2890, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Eizawa, U. Ikeda, Y. Murakami et al., “Decrease in circulating endothelial progenitor cells in patients with stable coronary artery disease,” Heart, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 685-686, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
G. B. Adams, R. P. Martin, I. R. Alley et al., “Therapeutic targeting of a stem cell niche,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 238–243, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. L. Wang, D. Chen, J. Lee et al., “Mobilization of endogenous bone marrow derived endothelial progenitor cells and therapeutic potential of parathyroid hormone after ischemic stroke in mice,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 2, article e87284, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Ohtsuka, H. Takano, Y. Zou et al., “Cytokine therapy prevents left ventricular remodeling and dysfunction after myocardial infarction through neovascularization,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 851–853, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
B. E. Strauer, M. Brehm, T. Zeus et al., “Repair of infarcted myocardium by autologous intracoronary mononuclear bone marrow cell transplantation in humans,” Circulation, vol. 106, no. 15, pp. 1913–1918, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Assmus, V. Schachinger, C. Teupe et al., “Transplantation of progenitor cells and regeneration enhancement in acute myocardial infarction (TOPCARE-AMI),” Circulation, vol. 106, no. 24, pp. 3009–3017, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Fernandez-Aviles, J. A. San Roman, J. Garcia-Frade et al., “Experimental and clinical regenerative capability of human bone marrow cells after myocardial infarction,” Circulation Research, vol. 95, no. 7, pp. 742–748, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
V. Schachinger, B. Assmus, M. B. Britten et al., “Transplantation of progenitor cells and regeneration enhancement in acute myocardial infarction: final one-year results of the TOPCARE-AMI trial,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1690–1699, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. Leistner, U. Fischer-Rasokat, J. Honold et al., “Transplantation of progenitor cells and regeneration enhancement in acute myocardial infarction (TOPCARE-AMI): final 5-year results suggest long-term safety and efficacy,” Clinical Research in Cardiology, vol. 100, no. 10, pp. 925–934, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. C. Wollert, G. P. Meyer, J. Lotz et al., “Intracoronary autologous bone-marrow cell transfer after myocardial infarction: the BOOST randomised controlled clinical trial,” Lancet, vol. 364, no. 9429, pp. 141–148, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Tongers and D. W. Losordo, “Frontiers in nephrology: the evolving therapeutic applications of endothelial progenitor cells,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 2843–2852, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Tateishi-Yuyama, H. Matsubara, T. Murohara et al., “Therapeutic angiogenesis for patients with limb ischaemia by autologous transplantation of bone-marrow cells: a pilot study and a randomised controlled trial,” Lancet, vol. 360, no. 9331, pp. 427–435, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. K. Yip, L. T. Chang, W. N. Chang et al., “Level and value of circulating endothelial progenitor cells in patients after acute ischemic stroke,” Stroke, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 69–74, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Bogoslovsky, A. Chaudhry, L. Latour et al., “Endothelial progenitor cells correlate with lesion volume and growth in acute stroke,” Neurology, vol. 75, no. 23, pp. 2059–2062, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Ghani, A. Shuaib, A. Salam et al., “Endothelial progenitor cells during cerebrovascular disease,” Stroke, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 151–153, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Marti-Fabregas, R. Delgado-Mederos, J. Crespo et al., “Circulating endothelial progenitor cells and the risk of vascular events after ischemic stroke,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 4, article e0124895, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. I. Savitz, V. Misra, M. Kasam et al., “Intravenous autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells for ischemic stroke,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 59–69, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Machado-Pereira, T. Santos, L. Ferreira, L. Bernardino, and R. Ferreira, “Challenging the great vascular wall: can we envision a simple yet comprehensive therapy for stroke?” Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Chu, K. I. Park, S. T. Lee et al., “Combined treatment of vascular endothelial growth factor and human neural stem cells in experimental focal cerebral ischemia,” Neuroscience Research, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 384–390, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Vendrame, J. Cassady, J. Newcomb et al., “Infusion of human umbilical cord blood cells in a rat model of stroke dose-dependently rescues behavioral deficits and reduces infarct volume,” Stroke, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 2390–2395, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Darsalia, S. J. Allison, C. Cusulin et al., “Cell number and timing of transplantation determine survival of human neural stem cell grafts in stroke-damaged rat brain,” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 235–242, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Schmidt and J. Minnerup, “Promoting recovery from ischemic stroke,” Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 173–186, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Misra, M. M. Ritchie, L. L. Stone, W. C. Low, and V. Janardhan, “Stem cell therapy in ischemic stroke: role of IV and intra-arterial therapy,” Neurology, vol. 79, Supplement 1, no. 13, pp. S207–S212, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. I. Savitz, J. H. Dinsmore, L. R. Wechsler, D. M. Rosenbaum, and L. R. Caplan, “Cell therapy for stroke,” NeuroRx, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 406–414, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Li, Q. Jiang, G. Ding et al., “Effects of administration route on migration and distribution of neural progenitor cells transplanted into rats with focal cerebral ischemia, an MRI study,” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 653–662, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Singh, B. M. Wu, and J. C. Dunn, “Accelerating vascularization in polycaprolactone scaffolds by endothelial progenitor cells,” Tissue Engineering Part A, vol. 17, no. 13-14, pp. 1819–1830, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Zhou, S. Shi, M. Song et al., “Development of transgenic endothelial progenitor cell-seeded stents,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, Part A, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 623–628, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Blindt, F. Vogt, I. Astafieva et al., “A novel drug-eluting stent coated with an integrin-binding cyclic Arg-Gly-Asp peptide inhibits neointimal hyperplasia by recruiting endothelial progenitor cells,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 1786–1795, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Beijk, M. Klomp, K. T. Koch et al., “One-year clinical outcome after provisional T-stenting for bifurcation lesions with the endothelial progenitor cell capturing stent compared with the bare-metal stent,” Atherosclerosis, vol. 213, no. 2, pp. 525–531, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Klomp, M. A. Beijk, N. J. Verouden, J. G. Tijssen, R. J. de Winter, and TRIAS Investigators, “Design and rationale of the TRI-stent adjudication study (TRIAS) program,” American Heart Journal, vol. 158, no. 4, pp. 527–532, 2009, e521.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Klomp, M. A. Beijk, P. Damman et al., “Three-year clinical follow-up of an unselected patient population treated with the genous endothelial progenitor cell capturing stent,” Journal of Interventional Cardiology, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 442–449, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Dedobbeleer, D. Blocklet, M. Toungouz et al., “Myocardial homing and coronary endothelial function after autologous blood CD34+ progenitor cells intracoronary injection in the chronic phase of myocardial infarction,” Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 480–485, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Teraa, R. W. Sprengers, R. E. Schutgens et al., “Effect of repetitive intra-arterial infusion of bone marrow mononuclear cells in patients with no-option limb ischemia: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Rejuvenating Endothelial Progenitor Cells via Transcutaneous Intra-arterial Supplementation (JUVENTAS) trial,” Circulation, vol. 131, no. 10, pp. 851–860, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Sufen, Y. Xianghong, C. Yongxia, and P. Qian, “bFGF and PDGF-BB have a synergistic effect on the proliferation, migration and VEGF release of endothelial progenitor cells,” Cell Biology International, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 545–551, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. V. Peplow, “Influence of growth factors and cytokines on angiogenic function of endothelial progenitor cells: a review of in vitro human studies,” Growth Factors, vol. 32, no. 3-4, pp. 83–116, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Jeon, K. C. Hwang, K. J. Yoo, and B. S. Kim, “Combined sustained delivery of basic fibroblast growth factor and administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: synergistic effect on angiogenesis in mouse ischemic limbs,” Journal of Endovascular Therapy, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 175–181, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Barbu, E. Molnar, J. Tsibouklis, and D. C. Górecki, “The potential for nanoparticle-based drug delivery to the brain: overcoming the blood-brain barrier,” Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 553–565, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Goldsmith, L. Abramovitz, and D. Peer, “Precision nanomedicine in neurodegenerative diseases,” ACS Nano, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1958–1965, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Kreuter, “Influence of the surface properties on nanoparticle-mediated transport of drugs to the brain,” Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 484–488, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
P. R. Lockman, R. J. Mumper, M. A. Khan, and D. D. Allen, “Nanoparticle technology for drug delivery across the blood-brain barrier,” Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Sun, C. Zhang, G. Liu et al., “A novel mouse CD133 binding-peptide screened by phage display inhibits cancer cell motility in vitro,” Clinical & Experimental Metastasis, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 185–196, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. T. Goh, E. Wong, Y. Farhatnia, A. Tan, and A. M. Seifalian, “Accelerating in situ endothelialisation of cardiovascular bypass grafts,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 597–627, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. H. Kim, Y. K. Seo, T. Thambi et al., “Enhancing neurogenesis and angiogenesis with target delivery of stromal cell derived factor-1alpha using a dual ionic pH-sensitive copolymer,” Biomaterials, vol. 61, pp. 115–125, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Hiesinger, J. M. Perez-Aguilar, P. Atluri et al., “Computational protein design to reengineer stromal cell-derived factor-1alpha generates an effective and translatable angiogenic polypeptide analog,” Circulation, vol. 124, Supplement 11, pp. S18–S26, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Chen, F. Wu, W. H. Xia et al., “CXCR4 gene transfer contributes to in vivo reendothelialization capacity of endothelial progenitor cells,” Cardiovascular Research, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 462–470, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. X. Yu, X. F. Huang, W. M. Lv et al., “Combination of stromal-derived factor-1alpha and vascular endothelial growth factor gene-modified endothelial progenitor cells is more effective for ischemic neovascularization,” Journal of Vascular Surgery, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 608–616, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Sen, J. Merchan, J. Dean et al., “Autologous transplantation of endothelial progenitor cells genetically modified by adeno-associated viral vector delivering insulin-like growth factor-1 gene after myocardial infarction,” Human Gene Therapy, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 1327–1334, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Kalka, H. Masuda, T. Takahashi et al., “Vascular endothelial growth factor(165) gene transfer augments circulating endothelial progenitor cells in human subjects,” Circulation Research, vol. 86, no. 12, pp. 1198–1202, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Iwaguro, J. Yamaguchi, C. Kalka et al., “Endothelial progenitor cell vascular endothelial growth factor gene transfer for vascular regeneration,” Circulation, vol. 105, no. 6, pp. 732–738, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
D. P. Griese, S. Achatz, C. A. Batzlsperger et al., “Vascular gene delivery of anticoagulants by transplantation of retrovirally-transduced endothelial progenitor cells,” Cardiovascular Research, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 469–477, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Kong, L. G. Melo, A. A. Mangi et al., “Enhanced inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia by genetically engineered endothelial progenitor cells,” Circulation, vol. 109, no. 14, pp. 1769–1775, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Zhao, X. Liu, Y. Zhang et al., “Enhanced cell survival and paracrine effects of mesenchymal stem cells overexpressing hepatocyte growth factor promote cardioprotection in myocardial infarction,” Experimental Cell Research, vol. 344, no. 1, pp. 30–39, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. S. Khubutiya, A. V. Vagabov, A. A. Temnov, and A. N. Sklifas, “Paracrine mechanisms of proliferative, anti-apoptotic and anti-inflammatory effects of mesenchymal stromal cells in models of acute organ injury,” Cytotherapy, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 579–585, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Man, G. Kujawski, T. S. Burns et al., “Neurogenic potential of engineered mesenchymal stem cells overexpressing VEGF,” Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 96–106, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Ben-Shoshan and J. George, “Endothelial progenitor cells as therapeutic vectors in cardiovascular disorders: from experimental models to human trials,” Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 25–36, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Akita, T. Murohara, H. Ikeda et al., “Hypoxic preconditioning augments efficacy of human endothelial progenitor cells for therapeutic neovascularization,” Laboratory Investigation, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 65–73, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
S. P. Yu, Z. Wei, and L. Wei, “Preconditioning strategy in stem cell transplantation therapy,” Translational Stroke Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 76–88, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Zemani, J. S. Silvestre, F. Fauvel-Lafeve et al., “Ex vivo priming of endothelial progenitor cells with SDF-1 before transplantation could increase their proangiogenic potential,” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 644–650, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. M. Rauscher, P. J. Goldschmidt-Clermont, B. H. Davis et al., “Aging, progenitor cell exhaustion, and atherosclerosis,” Circulation, vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 457–463, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
D. J. Nolan, A. Ciarrocchi, A. S. Mellick et al., “Bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells are a major determinant of nascent tumor neovascularization,” Genes & Development, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1546–1558, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Hur, C. H. Yoon, H. S. Kim et al., “Characterization of two types of endothelial progenitor cells and their different contributions to neovasculogenesis,” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 288–293, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. W. van der Strate, E. R. Popa, M. Schipper et al., “Circulating human CD34+ progenitor cells modulate neovascularization and inflammation in a nude mouse model,” Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1086–1097, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Slevin, P. Kumar, J. Gaffney, S. Kumar, and J. Krupinski, “Can angiogenesis be exploited to improve stroke outcome? Mechanisms and therapeutic potential,” Clinical Science (London, England), vol. 111, no. 3, pp. 171–183, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. C. Ding, C. H. Lin, W. C. Shyu, and S. Z. Lin, “Neural stem cells and stroke,” Cell Transplantation, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 619–630, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
J. K. Strecker, J. Olk, M. Hoppen et al., “Combining growth factor and bone marrow cell therapy induces bleeding and alters immune response after stroke in mice,” Stroke, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 852–862, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2017 Shaohua Liao 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.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1855

Downloads

1085

Citations